τι εμοι/ημιν και συ

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Jean Putmans
Posts: 153
Joined: August 3rd, 2018, 1:01 am
Location: Heerlen; Netherlands
Contact:

τι εμοι/ημιν και συ

Post by Jean Putmans »

τι εμοι/ημιν και συ is a reading occuring in Mt 8:29; Mk 1:24; 5:7; Lk 4:34; 8:28; John 2:4; I found it comparing the Mss 826 and 828.

Checking this reading in the INTF-Collations turned out, that about 20% of all transcribed Mss. have συ instead of σοι. (I collected a total of 640 Mss, 145 of them have συ, the rest reads σοι). 28 mss have in 2 or more verses συ (555 and 2680 even in 4 Verses).
The numbers of witnesses don‘t look like pointing to simple „scribal error”.

There are also mss. that have σου (John 2:4: K, W, Θ, Λ, 69, 1424; P75; Lk 4:34 Ms 33)or ημων, but they are a rather small minority.

In Luke only Ms 038 has συ in both verses. Luke has no other witnesses for συ in the above mentioned verses.

The reading with συ is also witnessed in Vitae Sancti Auxentii (TLG); Eusebius Caesariensis : „Demonstratio Evangelica”; Theodoretus of Cyrrhus : „Questiones et responsiones ad Orthodoxes”.

The ECM Mark (print and on-line) doesn‘t mention this reading at all (Mk 1:24, 5:7). Neither does NA28. Swanson has some of them in both Verses (and for the other instances), Wettstein has the reading in John2:4, von Soden in mk 1:24.


Might there be some reason, why this reading doesn‘t show up in the ECM-Apparatus?

How could this reading be explained?
Jean Putmans
Netherlands
gotischebibel.blogspot.com
Ken M. Penner
Posts: 881
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada
Contact:

Re: τι εμοι/ημιν και συ

Post by Ken M. Penner »

Jean Putmans wrote: August 17th, 2023, 1:54 am about 20% of all transcribed Mss. have συ instead of σοι....
Might there be some reason, why this reading doesn‘t show up in the ECM-Apparatus?
It could be a spelling mistake. συ and σοι sounded the same for some scribes.
For example, in Codex Sinaiticus, scribe B has υ for οι in the following places in Isaiah:
1.18
5.14
10.17 δρυμοί
17.8
41.18 ΑΝΥΞΩ
48.8 ΗΝΥΞΑ
54.2 ΣΧΥΝΙΣΜΑΤΑ
57.4 ηνυξατε
60.11 ΑΝΥΧΘΗΣΟΝΤΑΙ
Ken M. Penner
Professor and Chair of Religious Studies, St. Francis Xavier University
Co-Editor, Digital Biblical Studies
General Editor, Lexham English Septuagint
Co-Editor, Online Critical Pseudepigrapha pseudepigrapha.org
Jean Putmans
Posts: 153
Joined: August 3rd, 2018, 1:01 am
Location: Heerlen; Netherlands
Contact:

Re: τι εμοι/ημιν και συ

Post by Jean Putmans »

Indeed, that could be possible, though the statistics seem to be not in favour of an error:

I checked συν σοι / συν συ ; εν σοι / εν συ and λεγω σοι / λεγω συ in a maior part of the INTF-Collations:

συν σοι : 393 x, συν συ : 5x

εν σοι : 1364 x , εν συ : 5 x

λεγω σοι : 1164 x, λεγω συ : 3 x
Jean Putmans
Netherlands
gotischebibel.blogspot.com
Ken M. Penner
Posts: 881
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada
Contact:

Re: τι εμοι/ημιν και συ

Post by Ken M. Penner »

Back to your question why this reading doesn‘t show up in the ECM-Apparatus...
Do the συν/εν/λεγω συ readings show up in the ECM-Apparatus?
Have you compared Alan Bunning's apparatus? https://greekcntr.org/apparatus/index.htm?43002004
Ken M. Penner
Professor and Chair of Religious Studies, St. Francis Xavier University
Co-Editor, Digital Biblical Studies
General Editor, Lexham English Septuagint
Co-Editor, Online Critical Pseudepigrapha pseudepigrapha.org
Jean Putmans
Posts: 153
Joined: August 3rd, 2018, 1:01 am
Location: Heerlen; Netherlands
Contact:

Re: τι εμοι/ημιν και συ

Post by Jean Putmans »

εν σοι ECM Mark Mk 1:11 (Ms 837), 11:23 (Ms 579*, 579corr), συν σοι ECM MARK Mk 14:31 (Ms 382, 1253), ECM Acts 8:20 (ms 1735, 2344; maybe 1828 < Swanson; according to The Liste: lost): no mentioning of συ instead of σοι.

The other witnesses for συ instead of σοι (Mt 11:23: ms 579*, 579corr; 2Tim 1:5: ms 0150, L1440: εν συ; John 21:3: ms 030; 033: συν συ; Mt 16:18: Ms 1, 1582; Mt 18:22: Ms 2766) are not yet part of the ECM-Editions.

Swanson only gives the reading συν συ for Acts 8:20 (ms 1828; 2344: 1828 is - being lost - not in the INTF-Collations).
Jean Putmans
Netherlands
gotischebibel.blogspot.com
S Walch
Posts: 281
Joined: June 13th, 2011, 4:27 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

Re: τι εμοι/ημιν και συ

Post by S Walch »

The manuscripts with their number followed by an r in the ECM editions will likely be those reading συ - the r indicates a spelling difference noted by the editors of the ECM, but will provide no indication of what the spelling error is as it will have been judged to be inconsequential to the reading.

Hence for Mark 1:11, you have the ECM reporting 837r, and checking this has minuscule 837 reading εν συ. Plus the only reason it's even noted is due to the variant being between σοι and ω, as the ECM will not report spelling errors every time there is one (that would be a much, much larger volume).

Before you could suggest it isn't a spelling error on part of the copyists of the manuscripts which have συ instead of σοι (or any other spelling variation), you'd have to look over the entire manuscript to see how well the copyist spells words. That 20% of manuscripts you've checked have συ is not really a good indication that it isn't a spelling error, but rather the possibility that 20% of copyists weren't very good at spelling.

Let's take a manuscript you've noted - 033 / X / Codex Monacensis for John 21:3. I happened to tag the entire manuscript for the CSNTM, hence am quite familiar with it and the text it contains (https://manuscripts.csntm.org/Manuscript/Group/GA_033). I also did my own transcription of the Gospel of Mark text (unfortunately missing up to Mark 6:47), and noted down its variants from the Majority Text. There aren't many (229 between Mark 6:48 and 16:20), and most of these are in fact spelling errors. Several of which are germane to this discussion are the spelling errors of σοι/συ in Mark 14:30, 14:36, and 14:68. The two at 14:36 and 14:68 are the copyist having σοι for συ, but the one at 14:30 is having συ for σοι, which the copyist then corrected to σοι (this could also be error of homoeoarchon, with the copyist jumping from one σ to the other). There is also one other spelling error of οι for υ in Mark 7:7, with 033 reading ποιγμη and not πυγμῇ. (A look through the rest of the manuscript shows the copyist is more likely to confuse ο > ω or ω > ο, or η > ι or η > ει and ει > ι).

This shows that whilst the copyist of 033/X is generally a good speller, there are cases where quite blatant spelling mistakes are made, of which οι/υ confusion is one - not a frequent one, but one nonetheless.

If one is therefore to make an argument that a reading isn't a spelling mistake, they'd have to demonstrate the copyist of whatever manuscript is being discussed either doesn't make the same confusion of letters again anywhere else, or at least does it seldom to cast doubt on it being a spelling mistake in whatever verse is being debated.

(As an aside; if you find a reading in 019 / L / Codex Regius for instance of it having συ for σοι or vice versa, always presume it's a spelling mistake. The copyist could barely spell, as a brief look over Matthew chapters 1-3 will demonstrate to any reader of the manuscript (out of a total of 84 variants between L and the Majority text I noted, 60 were spelling errors; or 71% of the total if that's easier to visualise).)
Jean Putmans
Posts: 153
Joined: August 3rd, 2018, 1:01 am
Location: Heerlen; Netherlands
Contact:

Re: τι εμοι/ημιν και συ

Post by Jean Putmans »

In Mk 1:24 (4-10), 5:7 (12-14) there is no witness listed at all, neither for σοι, σοι(r), nor for συ.
Acts 8:20 doesn’t mention 1735(r), 2344(r)

Mk 1: 11 indeed has 837(r), Mk 14:31: 382(r) and 1253(r).

I do understand the spelling-issue, specially respecting the printed edition, but the on-line-edition would benefit, giving real “transcription-text”.

My statistical problem is, whilst in most cases οι > υ barely reach 1% of the instances, suddenly in the expression τι εμοι/ημιν και σοι the percentage reaches over 20%. There must be an explanation for that.
Jean Putmans
Netherlands
gotischebibel.blogspot.com
S Walch
Posts: 281
Joined: June 13th, 2011, 4:27 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

Re: τι εμοι/ημιν και συ

Post by S Walch »

Jean Putmans wrote: August 18th, 2023, 1:00 pm In Mk 1:24 (4-10), 5:7 (12-14) there is no witness listed at all, neither for σοι, σοι(r), nor for συ.
Again, that's because there's no variant to σοι in either Mark 1:24 or 5:7, hence noting a spelling error isn't something the ECM does, either in print or online.
Acts 8:20 doesn’t mention 1735(r), 2344(r)
I couldn't find 1735 listed in any variant in Acts 8:20, plus I don't know if it's even a manuscript cited by the ECM of Acts at any point, hence it's likely omission here for the variant συν σοι ειη. 2344 however should indeed have the r following it; I'll raise this in the INTF forums to see if it can be corrected for the online edition.
I do understand the spelling-issue, specially respecting the printed edition, but the on-line-edition would benefit, giving real “transcription-text”.
Whilst it would be fantastic to have a list of every single variant ever seen in a manuscript, including spelling, that really isn't the aim of the ECM. Also would be quite cumbersome online, never mind in print.

Let's take Matt 15:27: is it really going to be easy to note down every single variant spelling of ἐσθίει? I've noted 5 (ἐσθείη ] 0233 𝑙2211 | ἐσθίη ] 1418 | ἐσθείει ] B* 826. | αἰσθίει ] Φ) - they all evidently support the reading ἐσθίει as opposed to ἐσθίουσιν (D) or ἐσθίειν (544.), therefore is inconsequential that they've misspelled the word, plus would make the citations unnecessarily length if each one was noted (there's several other ways of misspelling ἐσθίει). To me these sort of things would be better suited to a published study of a specific manuscript, noting each variant spelling in an appendix.
My statistical problem is, whilst in most cases οι > υ barely reach 1% of the instances, suddenly in the expression τι εμοι/ημιν και σοι the percentage reaches over 20%. There must be an explanation for that.
Easier to misspell a simple pronoun, perhaps? As noted with 033 / X, though the copyist hadn't misspelt any word in the GoMark between οι/υ other than one solitary place in Mark 7:7, suddenly in Mark 14:30-68 they've misspelt it wrong in three of the four times the same pronoun occurs (Mark 14:31 is spelt correctly), correcting only one of them. This same pronoun has occurred several times already in the GoMark, yet the copyist hasn't misspelt it at all in the other instances. For me, a simple misspelling is both the easiest and most logical conclusion for what you've found regarding the respective verses in question.

Quick question: is there a single manuscript you've found which has συ in all the verses Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28; and John 2:4? Plus, do 555 and 2680 agree in the four verses they have συ instead of σοι?
Jean Putmans
Posts: 153
Joined: August 3rd, 2018, 1:01 am
Location: Heerlen; Netherlands
Contact:

Re: τι εμοι/ημιν και συ

Post by Jean Putmans »

Starting with a correction: In my opening post I mentioned ms 555, that should be 544.

The Mss 544 and 2680 are the only ones I found, that have συ instead of σοι.

Remarcable is, that 544 nowhere else in the ms changes σοι > συ or v.v. 2680 has this in Mk 9:5, Mt 16:19, 17:4.
Jean Putmans
Netherlands
gotischebibel.blogspot.com
Jean Putmans
Posts: 153
Joined: August 3rd, 2018, 1:01 am
Location: Heerlen; Netherlands
Contact:

Re: τι εμοι/ημιν και συ

Post by Jean Putmans »

Addition

Lk 4:34 has συ in the mss. 02 and 038; Lk 8:38 in ms 038.

Luke however has not so many transcriptions in the INTF-Database.
Jean Putmans
Netherlands
gotischebibel.blogspot.com
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”