Some Observations on Orthography and the Π Group

A Shelf in the Old Library at Magdalen College, Oxford

After having completed my dissertation for some months, and with it now recently being made available online, I have had time to reflect back on some of the conclusions of the years of study. After transcribing all of the witnesses to be included in the examinations, I had to regularize those readings that were not genealogically significant, which means tagging these readings to be ignored by the collation software. Chapter 3 of the dissertation covers in detail the entire process (Mitchell, Family Π in the Gospel of Mark, pp. 71-102). I noticed that many of the regularizations were spelling differences involving the substitution of similarly sounding vowels or the omission of the same letter in a word containing a double consonant (i.e. λλ). Tables 3.1 through 3.6 in Chapter 3 list out the number of orthographic variations (pp. 91-98). It seems to me that those who used these manuscripts were comfortable with variations in spelling as long as the words sounded the same when pronounced while being read out. Because so many of these manuscripts were prepared and used for lectionary readings, this may be a byproduct of this type of environment. I conclude that

"[this] may reflect a more utilitarian attitude of the scribe who may have cared more for function rather than perfection. That is, as long as orthography did not impede the transmission of meaning, then it did not impede its usefulness." (Mitchell, Family Π in the Gospel of Mark, p. 102)

Most of these manuscripts reflect late antique or medieval attitudes towards the copying of texts, so it may not be applicable to earlier centuries. With that said, I wonder how much of the modern textual critic's approach to errors in the text related to spelling are actually anachronistic to some degree. It makes me wonder how many more variations, especially those that hardly affect meaning, such as transpositions or word substitutions with a synonym that have a large semantic overlap, would have been considered an acceptable byproduct of hand copying. For those who created and used these manuscripts, the vast majority of these types of variations would likely not have been considered "errors" as we see them today, which can be the cause of many modern day apologetic, epistemological, and theological crises.