https://akma.disseminary.org/wp-content ... etMark.pdf
10 Ἰησοῦς τὸ µυστήριον τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ Θεοῦ. Ἐκεῖθεν δὲ ἀναστὰς
11 ἐπέστρεψεν εἰς τὸ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου. Ἐπὶ µὲν τούτοις ἕπεται τὸ καὶ
12 προσεπορεύοντο αὐτῷ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωάννης καὶ πᾶσα ἡ
13 περικοπή. Τὸ δὲ [γυµνοὶ / γυµνὸς] γυµνῷ καὶ τἆvα περὶ ὧν ἔγραψας οὐκ
14 εὑρίσκεται. Μετὰ δὲ τὸ καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς Ἱεριχὼ ἐπάγει µόνον, καὶ
15 ἦσαν ἐκεῖ ἡ ἀδελφὴ τοῦ νεανίσκου, ὃν ἠγάπα αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ
16 ἡ µήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ Σαλώµη, καὶ οὐκ ἀπεδέξατο αὐτὰς ὁ Ἰησοῦς.
17 Τὰ δὲ ἄvα τὰ ποvὰ ἁ ἐγραψας ψεύσµατα καὶ φαίνεται καὶ ἐστιν. Ἡ
18 µὲν οὖν ἀληθὴς καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν ἐξήγησις…
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 4:23 pmLooking at the free standing final sigmas in the pic and setting aside the final sigmas connected to the previous letters by ligatures,
These appear to me to be connected above:
10 Ἰησοῦς
10 ἀναστὰς (possibly, reqiures a better photograph)
12 Ἰάκωβος
12 ἔγραψας (possibly, requires a better photograph)
15 Ἰησοῦς
16 αὐτὰς (possibly, requires a better photograph)
16 Ἰησοῦς
17 ἐγραψας
These are the free standing final sigmas above (and my view on whether they are visually dissimilar):
10 τῆς (apparently dissimilar, requires a better photograph)
10 βασιλείας (dissimilar)
11 εἰς (dissimilar)
11 τούτοις (dissimilar)
12 Ἰωάννης (dissimilar)
14 εἰς (apparently similar, requires a better photograph)
18 ἀληθὴς (apparently dissimilar, requires a better photograph)
18 ἐξήγησις (dissimilar)
Within just the free standing final sigmas above, I consider there to be 5 that are definitely dissimilar, 2 that are apparently dissimilar, and one - i.e. 14 εἰς - that is apparently similar. As such, I have found nothing that disagrees with my statement, "The shape of the letter, which is dissimilar to the shape of the terminal sigmas (or at least a very large majority of them)."
There is one example here (out of many), i.e. 14 εἰς, that does not show the shape of a final sigma letter that is in accordance with the other examples in the letter. I don't believe it would be good methodology to refer to this one example as the most appropriate point of comparison here. The free standing forms here in general, aside from this example, still recognizably present the shape of the final sigma. I can't explain the appearance of the aberrant form in 14 εἰς with reference only to the point that the letter is free standing. A better possible explanation IMO would be that the hand rendered the common word quickly and in this case failed to draw a recognizable shape of final sigma. And even these comments about 14 εἰς may be premature without reference to a better photograph.