Dear James, Thank you for what I want to perceive as a warm dialogue. The overall discussion that we on the list are having, is imo; loaded with profoundMessage 1 of 46 , May 21View Source
Thank you for what I want to perceive as a warm dialogue.
The overall discussion that we on the list are having, is imo; loaded with profound ideas, that have the potential to change the very nature of how we perceive the transmission of the text of Christian and Jewish Scriptures. It has the potential to change immeasurably the discipline of textual criticism.
I am a "generalist" - that is; by nature, my focus is on assembling the puzzle pieces disassembled from the ancient mosaics of records now often unclear because of the long passage of time, and integrating the pieces into a modern "big picture" comprehensible to our age and time. I am aware that this approach can never be perfect; however, it is nearly always beneficial, because it also stirs others into thinking for themselves and not relying mainly on parrot-ing someone else's thoughts.
Though I have spent a big part of 12+ years of my life in Universities and Colleges studying in general the area under discussion, I rely on my outside skills of integrating information into a useful and correct whole; that has been greatly successful in the areas of business, intellectual social interactions, and above all; a wide range of religious practices. i.e., the real world...
I apologize to no one for the above..
I would like to present soon, a two part "post" to this list as a historical chronology, that would possibly remove much ambiguity and uncertainty from our discussions.
To respond immediately to one of your points in question, (1).
Yes, I am aware before-hand of what you have written about Athanasius and Eusebius of Nicomedia, and had taken that into consideration a long time ago. However; Eusebius of Kaisareia transmitted direct orders for copies of the Bible to the Bishop of Alexandria as an agent of no less than the power of State. The Arian question has been obfuscated by the Roman Church's account (spin if you will), on the First Council of Nicæa. And yes, Eusebius of Kaisareia was an Arian as also Constantine himself. That information does not change the situation. It is interesting as a puzzle, but that puzzle is part of a big picture that before now, has not been made clear. I hope to do so.
--- In email@example.com, "Vox Verax" wrote:
> Dear George Eller,
> No; I'm not asking you to do my research; wouldn't dream of it. But, as I wait for a response from Mike K., I am puzzled by some aspects of your post and would like an explanation, instead of relying on my suspicions about what they imply. Specifically:
> (1) You wrote, "The Bishop of Alexandria complained (?) that Eusebius ordered him to prepare Bibles per the commission (?) of Constantine for 50 Bibles." When I look at Athanasius' statement that is thought to refer to Bibles that he prepared, Eusebius of Caesarea is not in the picture. His troubler was Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the person for whom Athanasius prepared a volume concerning (or constituting) the Scriptures was the emperor himself. Ergo my question about the basis for your statement that Athanasius, the champion of Trinitarianism, prepared Bibles on orders from Eusebius of Caesarea, the Arian sympathizer.
> (2) You seemed to say that Vaticanus was part of a collection of MSS that Athanasius prepared for Eusebius of Caesarea "mainly because of later evidence of provenance specifically art-work that is a poor copy of Constantinople standard." But, aside from the first question about the foundational premise, where inasmuch as Vaticanus is not illustrated is this artwork, and what basis is there for saying that it was distinct from what was produced contemporaneously in the region of Constantinople? By "art-work," are you referring to lettering??
> (3) You said that "Eusebius was well aware of the principles of textual criticism." But text-critical discussions are few and far between in the writings of Eusebius that I have read. In his most famous (and frequently misquoted) such discussion, in Ad Marinum, when he discusses the ending of Mark, he is very ambivalent, and in the second-most-famous case, regarding the hour of Christ's crucifixion, he resorts to conjectural emendation /to solve a problem./ Eusebius was more of an apologist than a textual critic; or to put it another way, when he used textual criticism it tended to be as an apologetic problem-solving tool, not as a detached science; to Eusebius' way of thinking, non-problematic readings came from the Holy Spirit; difficult readings came from copyists.
> (4) You wrote, regarding Sinaiticus, "It is all but certain that the copying was done by female calligraphers," and that "The feminine hand is obvious when comparing strongly magnified images of Sinaiticus with the masculine hand of the German type-engravers for Tischendorf's (pseudo) facsimile." Now, I realize I may be living in a glass house here, inasmuch as I, too, have a very specific theory about who is responsible for the production of Codex Sinaiticus, but, by what scientific means are you making this judgment that the copyists were females? Granting that Origen was supplied with a female secretarial staff, Eusebius reports that Origen was a eunuch; there's not much reason to imagine that his situation was normal.
> (5) You wrote, "The strongest evidence for Vaticanus being a vigorously edited edition (primarily for brevity) is the fact of precise STICHOI (rows of letters) being adhered to, throughout." What do you mean? Most of Vaticanus is not written colometrically. It does indeed have rows of letters in its columns, but most books tend to have this feature.
> Yours in Christ,
> James Snapp, Jr.
Dear George, I have asked previously on three occasions now for actual evidence; each time there has been no evidence forthcoming. Even what you have pointedMessage 46 of 46 , Jun 1View SourceDear George,I have asked previously on three occasions now for actual evidence; each time there has been no evidence forthcoming. Even what you have pointed to, such as the Vindolanda Tablet 291, has turned out not to be evidence of your claim after all.Let's deal with your statements below:1) I'm not at all sure what "retro-interjection" of "scribes" as "male exclusiveness" (and I think you mean "male inclusiveness" or female exclusivity" since you mean male only scribes, not including women), but the problem here being that at no time in human history at least in the West do we lack notices of female scribes. These notices remain rare as they are in the classical and late antique period, but nonetheless exist.2) Most feminist critics would say that your comments regarding "female handwriting" and "female calligraphy" and "feminine style" are simply a perpetuation of the same old erroneous assumptions that female handwriting is sufficiently different from men because of some sort of inherent "femaleness" that is utterly and completely wrong. I think of Judith Weingarten as one such and can name a number of medievalists who would say the same about female scribes. They would further point out that where such differences exist, they are culturally engendered as such things have often been in our own society. So if you wish to claim that such existed in the ancient world, you need to provide actual evidence. "Normal adolescents can....identify correctly female writing" is not only not evidence, but is demonstrably false.3) This brings us to the two examples of nearly certain writing by women in the ancient world you mention. In neither case have you been able to show that the script, the actual writing on the surface, bears any "feminine" features that would identify it as being written by a woman. Nor has anyone else. You've admitted as such re: Vindolanda Tablet 291. And the same is true of Artemesia's curse. We know, or think we do, that the scribe is female because she identifies herself as such, and a as a "thugahr", a daughter. Hard to argue with that. But what features are there in the parchment that are specifically "female"? Please identify them for us. Even Kenyon writing in 1893, whose text I assume you are referring to, and those following him criticized the script for being too epigraphic, and therefore unlearned, in contrast to a finer literary script. But we've learned a great deal since Kenyon's day and have a much larger basis for comparison. But even Kenyon recognized the fact that early, non-literary scripts were going to imitate epigraphic features, a pattern we see repeated in the history of writing. So, no, the identification of the writer as female is *not* on the basis of the "negative" features, but on the writer's self-identification in the text, just like Vindolanda Tablet 291.4) Taking to task authors who have actually looked at and considered the evidence for female hands/writers/scribes in the ancient world needs evidence rather than dismissal. We've seen no evidence presented that Bagnall and Cribiore and others are naive, much less extremely naive, on the matter of discovering or discerning specific features to identify a female hand.5) Speaking of Vindolanda again, you state, "I would like to suggest that overall context within a specific milieu might be a weightier determinative than "content". I have no idea what you are talking about. The invitation of VT 291 is c. 100 CE. Vindolanda is a Roman military camp at a period Tacitus is representing, based off his father in law's descriptions, as still a bit restive under Roman rule, and is located on the outer Western reaches of the empire. I have no idea why a birthday invitation from a frontier military post in a restive part of the empire would suggest a female writer more than the explicit self-identification within the content of the actual text of the invitation. Please explain why this overall context in a specific mileau is more determinative that what is actually written on the tablet, or withdraw the comment.--Larry Swaintheswain@...On Fri, May 31, 2013, at 10:19 PM, clearbrush wrote:
Dear Philip, and all;Thank you for the citation, and there are at least a half-dozen additional well educated books on the subject of female literacy in antiquity, and many reports from the ancient literature of female instances in writing ancient texts. Much impetus for recent modern female writing on the topic, has been brought on by the now female outrage over the unjust and disingenuous stereotype resulting in effectively removing females from their historical context, and perpetuated by male dominated Humanities Academia, especially in the area of Biblical criticism. For one glaring example especially; past - persistent usage of the cover-all term "scribes" with the connotation of male exclusiveness, erroneously retro-interjected from a much later cultural and historical milieu.The extreme pessimism of Bagnall and Cribiore is extremely naive.Normal adolescents can in most cases identify correctly female handwriting, young adults can often see the feminine style in composition, and male calligraphers can in most cases easily see the female calligraphic hand. In addition, there is a computer program developed at Ben-Gurion U. in Israel that has the capability to identify with confidence individual DSS copyists it has been proposed that the program could be adapted for Greek, but I have heard no more on the suggestion. If it does come about, then; the problem of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus calligraphers might be resolved. For those of us who have put forth the effort to actually learn and practice ancient Greek calligraphy, there does not seem to be need for the extreme pessimism of Bagnall and Cribiore.In the case of the Vindolanda "tablets" - more correctly, wooden veneer note sheets - made from young alder and birch trees, and reported in the ancient literature as being made from Lime trees in other regions, and NOW numbered at more than 2000 examples !, and written in ancient Roman cursive (which would soon evolve into a later Roman cursive) I confess, I would have done no better than Larry Swain in distinguishing the female hand. I would like to suggest that overall context within a specific milieu might be a weightier determinative than "content".Finally, the most prominent example of feminine written text in antiquity, has to be that of Artemisia; an Ionic settler in Memphis, written in pre-Alexandrian Ionic script, one of only a half-dozen known examples from the earliest time of Greek hand-written paleography. The determination of this text being a female hand appears to be based largely on negative criteria, i.e., aberrations from the expected norm, and then; confirmation by high-magnification of high-quality computer images.See : http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.wdl/auanl.4310 , in the Vienna national library.Yours, George.--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "ph.maertens" wrote:>> Dear all,>>>> For those interested in female writers / scribes, I would like to suggest:>>>> K. Haines-Eitzen, Guardians of Letters. Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature, Oxford, University Press, 2000: Chapter 2, "Girls trained for beautiful writing": Female Scribes in Roman Antiquity and Early Christianity (41-52);>>>> R. S. Bagnall, R. Cribiore, Women's Letters from Ancient Egypt, 300 BC - AD 800, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 2006: Chapter 6, Handwriting (41-55). These authors seem rather pessimistic as to whether it is possible to identify female handwriting: âIn evaluating the instances of literate women, it is tempting to search for>> a Woman's Hand endowed with immutable characteristics different from a man's. This attempt is doomed to failure.â (48)>>>> Sunny greetings from the Algarve, Portugal>> Philip Maertens>>>>>> De: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Em nome de Larry Swain> Enviada: 25 de maio de 2013 08:28> Para: email@example.com> Assunto: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Manuscript Sinaiticus vs. Vaticanus>>>>>> No, I wasn't. If you've read the Vindolanda reports, you will note that the *ONLY* reason that the good Severa is all but certain to have written the ascribed to her is because of the *CONTENT* of the letter (such as the greeting in 291 "Claudia Severa Lepidinae suae, Claudia Severa to her Lepidina....). The online notes do rather overstate the case with adverbs like "certainly" when it isn't certain at all, highly probable in this case, but not certain. BUT WHAT is very clear is that the identification of a probable female writer of that portion of the letter is not based on examination of the features of the script or of the particular hand. Letter content, not palaegraphy.>> -->> Larry Swain>> theswain@...>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 24, 2013, at 05:55 AM, clearbrush wrote:>>>>>> Hi Tim and Larry.>>>> Dear Tim,>>>> Your kindness does not go unnoticed.>>>> The ancient Roman female Latin script that I mentioned is found in the Vindolanda tablets.>>>> Larry may have been a bit precipitate on this one..>>>> It is an academical major discovery.>>>> Besides containing some of â" if not the â" oldest known examples of the female hand in ancient Latin (~100 CE), the as I write; close to 1000 items (there is an ongoing recovery) housed in the British Museum, supply us with a considerable amount of new enlightenment on ancient Roman life.>>>> For the textual criticism community interested in ancient Latin paleography, I would think that it should be of great interest. I would also suggest, for those in the academical Humanities community; it may be of risk to ignore this discovery.>>>> Per Larry S. in post #7868>> "What criteria does one use to determine a female hand from a male hand? Even in the case of the "Roman garrison" letters, the content certainly does not determine a female hand rather than dictation to a scribe. So what are the criteria for such things?">>>> An excerpt from wiki :>> The documents record official military matters as well as personal messages to and from members of the garrison of Vindolanda, their families, and their slaves. Highlights of the tablets include an invitation to a birthday party held in about 100 AD, which is perhaps the oldest surviving document written in Latin by a woman.>> [continuing] The best-known document is perhaps Tablet 291, written around AD 100 from Claudia Severa, the wife of the commander of a nearby fort, to Sulpicia Lepidina, inviting her to a birthday party. The invitation is one of the earliest known examples of writing in Latin by a woman. There are two handwriting styles in the tablet, with the majority of the text written in a professional hand (thought to be the household scribe) and with closing greetings personally added by Claudia Severa herself (on the lower right hand side of the tablet).>>>> The official Internet site is http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk/index.shtml>>>> (Oxford with collaboration.)>>>> George>>>> --- In >> >>> > Hi George,>> >>> > The beauty of the hand of P.Oxy. 4496 struck me the first time I saw it. It was only through the similar hand of SchÃÂ¸yen MS 2634/2 (Origen's Commentary on Genesis) that it occurred to me that these might be actual examples of the art practiced by "girls skilled in elegant writing" that Eusebius says Origen employed. If they are (perhaps a big if) then there is an immediate implication: the assigned dates of SchÃÂ¸yen MS 2634/2 and P.Oxy. 4496 are way too late. (Although writing styles can persist for a long time. But, then, the same consideration makes palaeographical dating of MSS which use "biblical majuscule" even more rubbery.)>> >>> > Thanks for the tip re beautiful writing from Roman England. I'll keep it in mind.>> >>> > Concerning standards required for proof, it seems to me that New Testament research operates in a realm where there is a lot of missing information. In this context, any supplementary information is welcome. I have a feeling that applying scientific analysis to manuscripts (e.g. DNA analysis, carbon dating) would produce some useful results.>> >>> > Best,>> >>> > Tim Finney>> >>> > --- In >> > >>> > >>> > > Dear Tim,>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > Always thankful for interaction with you, as in this case you jogged my>> > > memory about something concerning your publication of P.Oxy. 4496 and>> > > our present discussion.>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > I just remembered that in the past, after examining each and every>> > > fragment published in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri series, (some thousands and>> > > a few years); I cannot recall seeing a female hand. It may be, that>> > > there are specimens; it is just that I cannot recall it. It would be a>> > > surprise if there were no representatives.>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > On the other hand, I do recall from a few years ago; seeing several>> > > published female Roman-Latin hands with beautiful script, from Roman>> > > garrisons in northern England; roughly contemporaneous with P.Oxy. 4496.>> > > For confirmation, their communications were about female social events,>> > > and they named each other.>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > Now Dr. Finney, noting your observation: "human [female] DNA on a>> > > manuscript"; is the application of academic criteria for judicial>> > > validation really that harsh ? And will the critics also insist on the>> > > inclusion of notarized copies of her birth-certificate, high-school>> > > diploma and mailing address ?>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > I already know what the *outbackers* would say... (: ))>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > All the best to you Tim, George.>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>>>>>>>>> --> http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and> love email again>
-- http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different...