Asterisk and Obelus: Three different usages

[Nazaroo]

There seems to be so much confusion about the various markings in the margins of old manuscripts, that I thought I should start a special thread on this subject.

There are three basic ways the so-called 'critical' markings in the margins of ancient manuscripts are used.

(1) As they were originally used and invented, in the context of ancient Greek plays and other literary works.

(2) As they were used in manuscripts of the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek Old Testament.

(3) As they were used in the margins of New Testament books and letters, including the Old Uncials (4th and 5th century manuscripts of the Great Bibles).

These are in no way the same. Yet even among textual critics today there seems to be alot of confusion and error regarding both the meaning and value of these markings both for their original users, and for textual criticism today.

Let's look first at how some of these marks were used in the Septuagint, or Greek Old Testament manuscripts:

This manuscript is an excellent example of how these diacritical markings were typically used in UNCIAL manuscripts of the 4th and 5th centuries (A.D.), for the Old Testament (LXX) portion.

Hexapla
The markings in question are collectively called the markings of the 'Hexapla', a special six-column master-manuscript made by Origen through comparing the Hebrew and the various independant Greek translations available in the 2nd and 3rd centuries

This example was taken from the appendix of "The Text of the Old Testament" by Wurthwein (Eng.xlation).
Although his description of this page is erroneous, his basic explanation is sound:

"On the page shown an obelos[sic] marks the words: This indicates that Origen found these words in the LXX, but that they are NOT in the Hebrew text.
Several passage in the illustration are marked with an asterisk; this indicates that Origen did not find them in the LXX, and supplied them from other Greek versions (typically Theodotus). When such a passage extends over several lines, the Aristarchan sign is repeated before each line; cf. for example v.15 which is lacking in LXX and is given here with an asterisk (lower left to upper right column). " (p 190)








​

In the Septuagint column he used the system of diacritical marks which was in use with the Alexandrian critics of Homer, especially Aristarchus, marking with an obelus—under different forms, as ÷, called lemniscus, and —̣, called hypolemniscus—those passages of the Septuagint which had nothing to correspond in Hebrew, and inserting, chiefly from Theodotion under an asterisk (*), those which were missing in the Septuagint; in both cases a metobelus (&#947 marked the end of the notation.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc02.bible_versions.html

To put this in perspective, here is another description of Origen and his purposes:

Origen, however, deprecated alteration of a text which had received ecclesiastical sanction, without some indication of its extent, and the construction of the 5th column presented difficulties. There were (1) numerous cases of words or paragraphs contained in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew, which could not be wholly rejected, (2) cases of omission from the Septuagint of words in the Hebrew, (3) cases of paraphrase and minor divergences, (4) variations in the order of words or chapters. Origen here had recourse to a system of critical signs, invented and employed by the grammarian Aristarchus (3rd century BC) in his edition of Homer.

Passages of the first class were left in the text, but had prefixed to them an obelus, a sign of which the original form was a "spit" or "spear," but figuring in Septuagint manuscripts as a horizontal line usually with a dot above and a dot below; [This symbol is actually called a lemniscus ...a horizontal line with only one dot below is called a hypolemniscus. - Nazaroo] there are other varieties also. The sign in Aristarchus indicated censure, in the Hexapla the doubtful authority of the words which followed. The close of the obelized passage was marked by the metobelus, a colon ( : ), or, in the Syriac versions, shaped like a mallet. Passages missing in the Septuagint were supplied from one of the other versions (Aquila or Theodotion), the beginning of the extract being marked by an asterisk--a sign used by Aristarchus to express special approval--the close, by the metobelus.

Where Septuagint and Hebrew widely diverged, Origen occasionally gave two versions, that of a later translator under an asterisk, that of the Septuagint obelized. Divergence in order was met by transposition, the Hebrew order being followed; in Proverbs, however, the two texts kept their respective order, the discrepancy being indicated by a combination of signs. Minor supposed or real corruptions in the Greek were tacitly corrected.

Origen produced a minor edition, the Tetrapla, without the first two columns of the larger work. The Heptapla and Octapla, occasionally mentioned, appear to be alternative names given to the Hexapla at points where the number of columns was increased to receive other fragmentary versions. This gigantic work, which according to a reasonable estimate must have filled 5,000 leaves, was probably never copied in extenso. The original was preserved for some centuries in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea; there it was studied by Jerome, and thither came owners of Biblical manuscripts to collate their copies with it, as we learn from some interesting notes in our uncial manuscripts (e.g. a 7th-century note appended to Esther in codex S). The Library probably perished circa 638 AD, when Caesarea fell into the hands of the Saracens.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/isbelxx02.html

What's it all About, Nazaroo?

The important thing to realise here is that these markings have a very specialized purpose when used in BIBLICAL manuscripts, far more developed and purposed than their original invention and use in Alexandria (Greek speaking Egypt in circa 400 B.C.).

In particular, in the LXX (Greek Old Testament) manuscripts of the 4th and 5th centuries (A.D.), the system used was that of Origen, especially for the purpose of noting the differences (additions or omissions) between the Greek and Hebrew texts, and noting other Greek translations.


Lets look at our example manuscript again:

Here the 'Obelus' (actually an umlaut, a sideways colon) marks a part of the Greek which is not found in the 2nd century A.D. (Massoretic) Hebrew text.

The 'Asterisk' is used by Origen (and copied here) to indicate a favoured or 'restored' passage either translated freshly into Greek from Hebrew or borrowed from another independant translation, like Theodotus and supported by the Hebrew.

In each case, the END of the passage is marked by a 'metobelus', in this manuscript a simple 'colon'..

When the passage extends beyond a single line, each new line that continues the reading is marked also at the beginning (outside the margin) with the same sign (either Asterisk or Obelus).

The most important thing about this particular example here, is that we can observe that these marks are indeed by the original scribe, since in many cases, the beginning and ending marks are actually IN THE MAIN TEXT.

Yet the text has not been erased and re-written to make room. Instead, obviously the original scribe was aware of the Hexapla markings and incorporated them into his text as he wrote.

(Although occasionally the scribe misses inserting a mark, as in the very last example on the page. Note even here he does not erase even a small group of letters, but inserts the mark above the line and continues, probably doing this also in the process of writing the main text.)

This key observation is critically important, because when we come to examine NEW TESTAMENT portions of uncial manuscripts, like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, this is NOT the case!

 

[Nazaroo]

Now lets turn to the New Testament portions of typical Uncials from the 4th century: For instance, The Gospel of John in Codex Vaticanus:

The first thing to note is that these markings are NOT included in the text. The original scribe appears oblivious to these notes or 'corrections'. They were in no wise incorporated into the text during the 'first pass' or while the manuscript was being first written. Instead, they are obviously added later, often with what is called a lemniscus marking the point in the text, (usually squeezed into the space between the lines), and the missing text to be inserted in the right margin.

Again, the observation makes it equally clear that the corrections are later additions, just the opposite of the previous case where it was obvious that the scribe had included the notes on the fly and incorporated them right into the main text of the LXX.

(1) In this specific case, a 2nd hand has corrected line 9, where the original scribe has dropped "of men" (twn anqrwpwn) from the text, making a nonsensical reading. Obviously, the original scribe blundered, and the corrector is 'correct' in adding a note for later copyists to insert the phrase back in.

This can in no way be interpreted as a 'scribal gloss' or addition to an original text. These manuscripts are 4 centuries away from the original autographs, and are products of sophisticated professional scriptoriums.

(2) Again, further down the page, another omission by homoeoteleuton (caused by similar endings of a line or phrase), has been caught, this time probably by the original scribe in proofreading his own work later. It is too late to erase whole lines and columns, so he opts for the easiest fix: a marginal note. Here too it is clear that the 'correction' is the original reading, and this is just a blunder during the initial copying.

Neither case is meant to suggest the readings should be removed, but rather that they are original and should be re-inserted.

This point is especially important, since in the first instance, the 2nd corrector (line 9) uses a diacritical marking known as a 'lemniscus' (a line and two dots). This mark is usually (as we noted in the LXX situation) interpreted to mean a 'critical' note or one which casts doubt upon a reading.

Yet it strains credibility to think someone would later add a known 'false' reading to an obviously already correct text, only to cast doubt upon that added reading by using a critical symbol in its 'normal' meaning. What has happened here rather is simply this:

The scribe uses the diacritical mark - a lemniscus (line and 2 dots) simply as a general indicator of a correction. It is otherwise of no significance, and is lexically empty in and of itself. The mark cannot be interpreted as an indication of a 'doubtful' reading, because its very usage shows it to have a very different meaning.

An important observation here with Vaticanus is that the corrections were done systematically, but AFTER the books were already written out. The corrections were added later during a 'proofreading' phase:

a) once by the original scribe, probably using his own original master copy; he does not apparently make use of special signs for these corrections, and

b) once by another hand, probably a monk in charge of inspection and quality control of manuscripts like this before they left the scriptorium. This person used the 'lemniscus' as a formal indication make an amendment in the reading.

In both cases, the marks were added later, but probably before the manuscript left the scriptorium and was sent to its destination

c) In Vaticanus there is a third set of critical markings, call the 'Umlauts'. (the mark is a horizontal pair of dots, not shown here). In these cases no text was inserted in the margins, but only the place of a variation among the main versions was noted. These may have been intended to be used to add yet more footnotes later, or simply left as a quick guide for others to correct their new manuscript copies to their own taste.


Bottom Line:

For Vaticanus at least, we can distinguish two broad categories of markings:

(1) simple corrections of scribal blunders, usually omissions, often marked with a 'Lemniscus'. It should be noted that although the scribe of Vaticanus has been characterized as a 'hopeless blunderer', and the manuscript itself called 'vile, demonic' etc., at least a third of the blunders (omissions) are apparently simply copied from the master manuscript from which it was made. This means that a large number of the 'blunders' are not by the scribe himself, and most could not have been caught without painstaking comparison to another authority.

In the case of Vaticanus, it is clear that the copying and proofreading were separated into two different tasks or phases, to make the the process more efficient.

These mistakes are important, because they tell us clearly what either the original master-copy actually had in its text (the original mistake), or else they tell us what the scribes in the scriptorium knew or believed was the original reading (the correction) at that time (about 300-400 A.D.).

(2) The More Difficult and Legitimate Variants marked by the 'Umlauts'. These cases were such that the scribes did not feel authorized to choose between them, but nonetheless felt compelled to inform us of them by placing diacritical markings in the margins.

This was a way of not giving 'absolute authority' to any single manuscript or copy, but taking into account the state of the text as it was generally known at that time. It also allowed manuscripts which were known to be ancient and reputable at that time to be copied, even though 'errors' and variants were known to exist in them.

Again, these markings are an invaluable resource for getting a grip on the state of the text and the opinion of the scribes at this time in the history of the textual stream.

 

[Nazaroo]

In the same vein, there is a similar topic 'raging' on TClist at the moment: it is regarding the 'diples', a kind of zig-zag mark that appears in Sinaiticus. To quote the basic current state of opinion:

From: "James Snapp, Jr."
Date: Tue May 16, 2006 11:14 am
Subject: Dimples?

Dear George Y.,

The arrowhead-mark is usually called "diple," not "dimple."The ">" can serve a couple of purposes

a) to fill space. This is how the diorthotes of Aleph used it.
(b) to indicate the presence of quotations from the OT. (In thiscapacity it may be accompanied with a "<" mark, so as to enclose bothsides of a column.)
​

If you consider how the > is consistently used by the diorthotes ofAleph -- i.e., if you look for one explanation which explains itspresence wherever it shows up in Aleph -- I think it should be clearthat ">" is -- as Lake said -- merely a space-filler. And that'sthat.This does raise an interesting question, though: why would adiorthotes, or any scribe, feel the need to fill space? Here we maybe in the realm of speculation. My own guess is that this diorthoteshad seen, somewhere, sometime, a MS in which the scribe had leftblank spaces at the ends of lines, in which a "corrector" had addedembellishments. And so he added the >'s to prevent that sort ofthing.

Yours in Christ,
James Snapp,
Jr.Curtisville Christian ChurchElwood,
Indiana (USA)

 

[Nazaroo]

Now lets look at how the same markings are used some 8 to 10 centuries later, in the 9th and 10th centuries A.D.:

Here is the section of John 7:53-8:11 as found in Miniscule #2754:

We have discussed this manuscript elsewhere (see my Textual Evidence for Pericope de Adultera Thread).

The point we want make here is that:

(1) We know the markings were added later by a second hand.

(2) The purpose was probably not to indicate the inauthenticity or desire to remove the verses, but rather to mark them out as noteworthy, and important.

(I am endebted to another critic for pointing this out):

The asterisks (actually again in this case a lemniscus) run all the way down the side of the section. This is precisely the same style of usage as was done for the O.T. (Septuagint) for Origen's Hexapla, and this is strong evidence that the person marking the margins had the same usage in mind as well: that is, this passage is not meant to be excised or cast in doubt, but rather, that special attention is to be drawn to the fact of its presence in this manuscript!

The most common use of this technique appears to be a signal of approval and special interest, not censure.

 

[GeorgeYoung]

Dear Nararoo:

You referred to my name in a excerpted email from the Textual Criticism List (May 18, 2006) with regard to the use of the Obelus and Asterisk. I am surprised, that after all the argumentation that flowed between myself and Mr. Snapp, that you would quote HIM as some authority on the matter! I can't believe it! The research on the whole was due to my OWN RESEARCH. Mr Snapp is a Pastor of a church, and *was* a man (last I checked) who can't stop bragging about how great he is and knowledgable than any others about Sinaiticus and many other MSS. Yet it was plain to me - and no doubt others - that he hadn't even READ through these documents himself! He's messing around with his United Bible Society Greek New Testament and trying to speak with authority. Let him believe it first! Moreover, the use of the diple / dimple dialog was a "play" upon what I discerned as the absolute IGNORANCE within the Academy of any knowledge of the practices of the ancient scribe, and particularly those of Sinaiticus. Nor do they have any regard, or respect, or any desire to know anything other than their own fantasies! You also display this same ignorance! Woe to you!

 

[Nazaroo]

Dear Nararoo:

You referred to my name in a excerpted email from the Textual Criticism List (May 18, 2006) with regard to the use of the Obelus and Asterisk. I am surprised, that after all the argumentation that flowed between myself and Mr. Snapp, that you would quote HIM as some authority on the matter! I can't believe it! The research on the whole was due to my OWN RESEARCH. Mr Snapp is a Pastor of a church, and *was* a man (last I checked) who can't stop bragging about how great he is and knowledgable than any others about Sinaiticus and many other MSS. Yet it was plain to me - and no doubt others - that he hadn't even READ through these documents himself! He's messing around with his United Bible Society Greek New Testament and trying to speak with authority. Let him believe it first! Moreover, the use of the diple / dimple dialog was a "play" upon what I discerned as the absolute IGNORANCE within the Academy of any knowledge of the practices of the ancient scribe, and particularly those of Sinaiticus. Nor do they have any regard, or respect, or any desire to know anything other than their own fantasies! You also display this same ignorance! Woe to you!

Greetings Mr. Young! An interesting post to say the least. It seems clear you and Mr. Snapp are at odds over 'diples' or 'dimples'. I don't really know what to make of either of your positions, in all honesty.

I quoted the discussion on TC-List, because it was of interest in our investigation here, to show diversity of opinion and controversy. You have certainly confirmed that!

Regarding Mr. Snapp's qualifications versus your own, I have no opinion. I personally hold to the belief that all university degrees are worthless scraps of paper hardly suitable for toilet paper. I am no respecter of persons, or wealth, or reputation. I am sure if you examine a few of my threads, you'll at least agree that I disrespect all opinions of men equally.

If you claim Mr. Snapp displays absolute ignorance, you will hardly be likely to hear me dissent. But that would be true also of any evaluation of your own 'expertise' also.

But I must object, or at least ask the basis for the pronouncement,

"Woe to you!"
​

That seems a bit harsh, if not biblically arrogant. Are you claiming to be a prophet, as well as a textual critic? An interesting dual-career to say the least! How are we to tell when you are speaking as a Textual Critic and not as a Prophet of the Most High?

Let's hope you are inerrant as a prophet, because as a textual critic your omnipotence is still under investigation, and appears doubtful.

But Welcome to the Christian Forums!
I am looking forward to hearing more from you!

Peace, Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

Well, it took longer than I expected, but I have completed the article on the marginal marks in ancient MSS, and we have it posted online here:

True Meaning of 'Critical Markings'

This article discusses in great detail the marginal markings on manuscripts from Homer (200 B.C.) to the late Byzantine Empire (1200 A.D.).

And its relevance to the authenticity of John 8:1-11.

Enjoy!
Nazaroo