How the Corrector of Sinaiticus Made the Cancel-Sheet at the End of Mark
37818,
Here is a hypothesis i developed to account for the extraordinary shifts in the rate of letters-per-column in the cancel-sheet. I don't have video-tape of the proof-reader-copyist at work, but I think this theory has compelling elegance.
When the proof-reader sat down to make this cancel-sheet, he realized that the main challenge would involve making the text of Luke 1:56a dovetail with the text of Luke 1:56b on the following page. If this was not accomplished properly, he would have to start over. To reduce the risk of wasting time and effort, he did not begin to make the cancel-sheet at the beginning, in Mark 14:54; instead, he began writing at the top of column 11, with Luke 1:1. To repeat: the proof-reader began writing on the cancel-sheet at the top of column 11, as a practical precautionary step; if his attempt was unsuccessful, he would have thus saved himself the trouble of writing out the text of Mark 14:54-16:8 only to have to start the whole thing over.
Having successfully fit Luke 1:1-56 into the last six columns of the cancel-sheet, the corrector then turned his attention to the text of Mark 14:54-16:8. In column 4, he reverted to the use of the lettering-compression he had used when writing the text of Luke 1:1-56; this is why there are 707 letters in column 4. This appears accidental. (The possibility cannot be absolutely ruled out that the proof-reader compressed his lettering at this point because he changed his mind, decided to follow an exemplar that contained Mark 16:9-20, and then changed his mind again. It seems worth noticing that if he had continued to compress his lettering throughout the rest of the text of Mark, and if he had also adopted the text of an exemplar that contained verses 9-20, he would have been able to reach the end of Mark 16:20 in the available space, with room to spare. But it is simpler to figure that the proof-reader simply lost track of what he was doing.)
Then the proof-reader stopped compressing his lettering, and began to compensate for the letter-compression by slightly stretching out his lettering in columns 5, 6, 7, and 8. But after accidentally skipping most of Mark 16:1, he still did not have enough text to reach column 10, even writing at a rate of 600 letters per column (30 letters less than usual).
He could have simply written the rest of chapter 16, up to verse 8, in his normal lettering, and thus finished Mark in column 9, with a blank column between the end of Mark and the beginning of Luke, but he made a conscious decision not to do that. Instead, he stretched out his lettering even more, so as to write only 552 letters in column 9. Thus he had 37 letters remaining to place in column 10.
Thus it is clear that although the proof-reader had no aversion to large blank spaces elsewhere in the manuscript, he deliberately avoided leaving a blank column between Mark 16:8 and Luke 1:1 on the cancel-sheet. This feature, by itself, sufficiently demonstrates that the proof-reader was aware of at least one other way the text of Mark could end.
In addition, when he reached the end of Mark 16:8, he added a uniquely emphatic decorationembellishedIntroduction to the NTPlain IntroductionThe Traditional Text of the Holy GospelsAd Marinum, displayed no knowledge whatsoever of the Short Ending. Taken together, these factors tilt the probabilities distinctly in favor of the conclusion that the corrector of Sinaiticus had verses 9-20 in mind when he avoided leaving a blank column between Mark 16:8 and Luke 1:1, and added the arabesque after Mark 16:8 in the cancel-sheet, in the hope that it would prevent any would-be corrector from adding verses 9-20 in small letters in the underlying space and/or lower margin.
These details about these pages of Codex Sinaiticus, which are hardly ever mentioned in commentaries (because Metzger didn't mention them), show that although Sinaiticus is a witness to the existence of the ending of Mark at 16:8, it is also a witness to its creators' awareness of a continuation after 16:8 which almost certainly consists of verses 9-20.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
37818,
Here is a hypothesis i developed to account for the extraordinary shifts in the rate of letters-per-column in the cancel-sheet. I don't have video-tape of the proof-reader-copyist at work, but I think this theory has compelling elegance.
When the proof-reader sat down to make this cancel-sheet, he realized that the main challenge would involve making the text of Luke 1:56a dovetail with the text of Luke 1:56b on the following page. If this was not accomplished properly, he would have to start over. To reduce the risk of wasting time and effort, he did not begin to make the cancel-sheet at the beginning, in Mark 14:54; instead, he began writing at the top of column 11, with Luke 1:1. To repeat: the proof-reader began writing on the cancel-sheet at the top of column 11, as a practical precautionary step; if his attempt was unsuccessful, he would have thus saved himself the trouble of writing out the text of Mark 14:54-16:8 only to have to start the whole thing over.
Having successfully fit Luke 1:1-56 into the last six columns of the cancel-sheet, the corrector then turned his attention to the text of Mark 14:54-16:8. In column 4, he reverted to the use of the lettering-compression he had used when writing the text of Luke 1:1-56; this is why there are 707 letters in column 4. This appears accidental. (The possibility cannot be absolutely ruled out that the proof-reader compressed his lettering at this point because he changed his mind, decided to follow an exemplar that contained Mark 16:9-20, and then changed his mind again. It seems worth noticing that if he had continued to compress his lettering throughout the rest of the text of Mark, and if he had also adopted the text of an exemplar that contained verses 9-20, he would have been able to reach the end of Mark 16:20 in the available space, with room to spare. But it is simpler to figure that the proof-reader simply lost track of what he was doing.)
Then the proof-reader stopped compressing his lettering, and began to compensate for the letter-compression by slightly stretching out his lettering in columns 5, 6, 7, and 8. But after accidentally skipping most of Mark 16:1, he still did not have enough text to reach column 10, even writing at a rate of 600 letters per column (30 letters less than usual).
He could have simply written the rest of chapter 16, up to verse 8, in his normal lettering, and thus finished Mark in column 9, with a blank column between the end of Mark and the beginning of Luke, but he made a conscious decision not to do that. Instead, he stretched out his lettering even more, so as to write only 552 letters in column 9. Thus he had 37 letters remaining to place in column 10.
Thus it is clear that although the proof-reader had no aversion to large blank spaces elsewhere in the manuscript, he deliberately avoided leaving a blank column between Mark 16:8 and Luke 1:1 on the cancel-sheet. This feature, by itself, sufficiently demonstrates that the proof-reader was aware of at least one other way the text of Mark could end.
In addition, when he reached the end of Mark 16:8, he added a uniquely emphatic decorationembellishedIntroduction to the NTPlain IntroductionThe Traditional Text of the Holy GospelsAd Marinum, displayed no knowledge whatsoever of the Short Ending. Taken together, these factors tilt the probabilities distinctly in favor of the conclusion that the corrector of Sinaiticus had verses 9-20 in mind when he avoided leaving a blank column between Mark 16:8 and Luke 1:1, and added the arabesque after Mark 16:8 in the cancel-sheet, in the hope that it would prevent any would-be corrector from adding verses 9-20 in small letters in the underlying space and/or lower margin.
These details about these pages of Codex Sinaiticus, which are hardly ever mentioned in commentaries (because Metzger didn't mention them), show that although Sinaiticus is a witness to the existence of the ending of Mark at 16:8, it is also a witness to its creators' awareness of a continuation after 16:8 which almost certainly consists of verses 9-20.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Comment