Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: tc-list More

Expand Messages
  • Mr. Gary S. Dykes
    ... From: Maurice A. Robinson ... Dykes replies: (briefly) Apples and oranges, lectionaries were predisposed to sectarian
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 24, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      -----
      From: Maurice A. Robinson <seventh.guardian@...>


      > Not necessarily. The Kr MSS are specifically those which were customized
      > for lectionary use, even though continuous text in format, yet they did
      > _not_ conform or adhere to the "standard" lectionary text pattern, but
      > generally retained their own "distinctive" (Cf. Voss) continuous-text
      > sub-type of the Byzantine.

      Dykes replies: (briefly)
      Apples and oranges, lectionaries were predisposed to sectarian manipulations
      much more so that the accepted Biblical text.


      Dykes wrote:
      > >If the copy was one which was paid for by someone, then they may have
      > imposed
      > >stipulations, and it may then conform to any type or be a complete
      > deviation from >any standard.


      Robinson replies:
      >Very doubtful as regards text. The format, handwriting, and decoration of
      > commissioned MSS certainly differs in magnificence and quality from other
      > more "normal" MSS, but the text is not itself significantly different
      > than that found in run-of-the-mill MSS of the same period. Very doubtful
      > if any one rich enough to commission a copy of the Scriptures (often
      > intended as a gift to a specific monastic institution) would have had any
      > say, let alone concern with the type of text or readings to be inserted
      > into such MSS.



      Dykes replies:
      Not all MSS written for private use or for sale were commissioned, and you
      cite no evidence to verify your theory. Several MSS produced in Latin
      Jerusalem were commissioned, and they had to confrom to a particular
      text-type, which was NOT the text-type which was predominate in Palestine, I
      present ms Vatican lat 5974, written circa A. D. 1180. You must discount
      this proof. I agree that numerous commissioned MSS adhere to the particular
      belief system under which they were produced.





      Robinson wrote:
      Dykes wrote
      > >I find, in my research, that a true standard Constantinopolitan
      > >text reigns supreme at the Sinai monastery.
      >
      > Pray tell then _which_ MS is the "standard" among the Sinai MSS? Answer:
      > there is none, despite a general Byzantine Textform seen among most of
      > the minuscules there. Otherwise, even these differ significantly enough
      > among themselves to rule out any "true standard" text to which they were
      > obligated to conform.


      Dykes replies:
      Your answer gives no proof. I presented 1879 and 1878 as examples of the
      Ecclesiastical Byzantine Standard at Mt. Sinai (St. Catherines). This text
      served also in many of their liturgical commentaries by monks known to have
      spent years at Sinai (John Klimax, was an early one, his works evoke
      numerous Byzantine concepts which later became traditions, such as the
      necessity for good works, water baptism, yet he also dealt very little upon
      the Virgin Mary). The standard is clearly preserved in numerous MSS still at
      St. Catherines. If your study (I am amazed that your study of it proved
      otherwise!) of 1878 did not convince you then also study:

      ms 1243 (most of its text)
      ms. 1245
      ms. 2492 (all except I and II Thessalonians which revert to a SL text-type)

      After you have carefully studied these, you should come to the conclusion
      that a singular text is present in all of these (plus 1878, 1879).
      Interestingly, these particular MSS also agree extremely close with many
      many other Byzantine era MSS produced in the Stoudious scriptorium, and at
      Mt. Athos, and in Jerusalem, and in Cappadocia, and in Macedonia, and on
      Crete, et cetera. Are all of these coincidences?




      Robinson asks:
      > But you think such was only a "training MS" and not a
      > legitimately-intended product?

      NO



      Robinson wrote:
      > A suggestion is not proof, and even if the MSS you list were all copied
      > in Constantinople and have a similar text, what about their differences
      > among themselves which would negate the concept of a "standard" as well
      > as what about other MSS copied at Constantinople which would have a
      > differing text from the ones you list? Since provenance is highly
      > questionable in the absence of clear proof (via a colophon or other
      > notation), so will be conclusions based upon supposition.
      > (Since I am not working with Pauline MSS, I cannot comment further on
      > your claims; full collations of course would allow interested parties to
      > examine such, but in their absence I suspect no one can say much in any
      > direction on this point).



      Dykes replies:
      The differences are very minor, much like those which exist between the
      various editions of the KJ Versions -- some accidental, some editorial, some
      in an effort to improve. Without colophon(s), special research is required,
      of which you are apparently naive of. The results are not always final, nor
      can a complete palaeographical, liturgical, codicological, lexical,
      linguistic, gesture/symbol analysis, tachyographical analysis, pigment
      analysis, illumination style, atelier ID's, menologians, synaxarion, notes,
      stichoi readings, corrections, and many many other factors prove conclusive,
      but when they ALL agree, one is rash to ignore the overall evidence. In
      fact I have seen a colophon date written in in the original hand which was
      wrong! This research takes time, and has not been done for many Byzantine
      era MSS. But via my preliminary investigations, your suppositions are
      suspect.



      Robinson wrote:
      Dykes wrote:
      >[re:] the lexical influence of Latin upon the outlying Byzantine
      > institutions >(monasteries)
      >
      > >They go on to suggest that these implications and others, show that
      > >any standard was more enforced the closer it was to Constantinople. I
      > tend to agree.
      >
      > This is apples and oranges as far as NT text and MS copying is involved,
      > especially when it concerns Latin usage in Greek speaking areas. Sorry,
      > but I am not exactly sympathetic with conclusions drawn from this line
      > of argument.


      Dykes replies:
      You apparently failed to make the connection. I used their research (which
      you must read before you can grasp it), to show that my research is similar,
      for the Byzantine standard text rules supreme, but seems to be subject to
      more and more dilution the farther it is away from Constantinople's control
      (geographically). Thus a MS like 1241 could be found at St. Catherine's (if
      indeed it is as you say it is), and a MS like 124 can be made in Calabria.
      recall that not all peoples and scribes in the Provincial areas were
      sympathetic with the Byzantine theology, major disputes often occurred, and
      the MS survivors mirror this, in subtle ways. Also must I inform you that
      the surviving monasteries became the places into which many outlying MSS
      were later deposited for safekeeping, MSS which may have had very little to
      do with that monasteries scribal activities?




      Dykes wrote:
      > >And finally, yes mediaeval scribes did a fine job, but my research
      > >(and Ehrman's) show that intentional changes were made to the text.

      Robibnson replies:
      > Few and far between as compared to accidental causes of variation
      > (contrary to Colwell's exaggerated claim that "the majority of changes
      > were made for doctrinal or dogmatic reasons"). Also Ehrman refers
      > specifically to doctrinal variations as opposed to other intentional
      > changes such as correcting grammar, resolving difficulties, smoothing
      > readings etc., which probably predominate over doctrinal changes by a
      > wide margin. More apples and oranges.


      Dykes replies:
      Doctrinal errors (or intentional changes) are probably more subtle than you
      suspect. Often it can be seen as a phonetic error (a simple change in
      tense), or a punctuation change, or even a minor accent change. Note I am
      NOT saying that all changes are doctrinal, but I am suggesting that more are
      than you are apparently aware of.

      Yes Ehrman focuses upon doctrinal changes, but they are ALL textual, usually
      he points the reader to obvious ones which exhibit omissions and additions.
      But Ehrman has just touched the tip of the iceberg. His brief introduction
      cannot fully show all of the textual (grammatical et cetera) changes. He
      states as much in his conclusion. Ehrman and I agree, scribes did
      intentionally alter their texts. John 1:18 is a good one for practice, by
      studying it, you may begin to see a pattern, and after studying thousands of
      such variations you may then be able to speak with authority.

      I look forward to your new work, how and where and when can I obtain it? I
      am not sure where you expertise is (teaching ?), so please inform me of your
      specialties. It is hard to share certain new materials with anyone who is
      not famaliar with the specialized techniques involved. Knowing more about
      your expertise can assist with my answering of your questions, and dealing
      better with your input.

      And again, my next reply to you will be off-line, as I do not wish to
      further bore the TC list with my preliminary researches or specializations.
      Though I am always available for questions, or discussion.

      at your service,
      Mr. Gary S. Dykes yhwh3in1@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.