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

A Brief Intro to NTTC Goals and Guidelines

Expand Messages
  • James Snapp, Jr.
    As some here know, I ve been working on a compilation of the text of Mark for a while. That project is just about over, and one of its final pieces -- the
    Message 1 of 11 , Dec 12, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      As some here know, I've been working on a compilation of the text of
      Mark for a while. That project is just about over, and one of its
      final pieces -- the star on the top of the Christmas tree, so to
      speak -- has been the composition of an introduction to the text, the
      text-critical approach used in the compilation, and the notation in
      the notes (in the annotated edition, which is something like 102 full-
      size pages long).

      Here's what I've composed so far. Comments, corrections, and
      criticisms are welcome.

      -------------

      THE GREEK UNCIAL ARCHETYPE OF MARK

      +++ INTRODUCTION +++

      TEXTUAL CRITICISM'S GOALS AND GUIDELINES

      Textual criticism is a science, not an art. Its main goal is the
      recovery of the original text of a document. A secondary goal is the
      discovery of the history of the transmission of the document's text.

      Unlike a proof-reader who only compares a text to his idea of what
      its author intended to write, the textual critic (the word "critic"
      in this context means "analyst") compares copies of the text to each
      other. A place in the text where the copies disagree is called a
      variant-unit. The textual critic provisionally detects the causes of
      the disagreeing readings in each variant-unit, and selects the
      variant which, in his judgment, best represents what the author
      wrote. In this way, the textual critic reconstructs the archetype,
      the ancestral text from which all available copies descend. The
      archetype is then proof-read, and closely contested variants are
      reconsidered. Where a non-extant reading appears to embody what the
      author wrote, and it accounts for the extant variants, the textual
      critic conjecturally emends the text. The result of this analytical
      process, when successfully performed, is the recovery of the original
      text, that is, the text which the document contained when it was
      first produced as a finished work by its author or authors.

      The comparison of variants is undertaken according to several
      standards, or "canons," of which the following are of chief
      importance.

      (1) A reading which explains its competitors with greater elegance
      and force than it is explained by any of them is more likely to be
      original.
      (2) A reading supported by witnesses representing two or more
      locales of early Christendom is more likely to be original than a
      reading supported by witnesses representing only one locale.
      (3) A reading which can be shown to have had, in the course of the
      transmission of the text, the appearance of difficulty (either real
      or imagined), and which is rivaled by variants without such
      difficulty, is more likely than its rivals to be original.
      (4) A reading supported by early attestation is more likely to be
      original than a reading supported exclusively by recent attestation.
      (5) A reading which conforms a statement in the text to the form of
      a similar statement in a similar document is less likely to be
      original than a competing reading that does not exhibit conformity.
      (6) A reading which involves a rare term or expression is more
      likely to be original than a reading which involves an ordinary term
      or expression.
      (7) A reading which is consistent with the author's discernible
      style, syntax, and vocabulary is more likely to be original than a
      reading which deviates from the author's usual style, syntax, or from
      the vocabulary which he may naturally be expected to have been
      capable of using.

      The seven major internal indicators of authenticity are thus
      (1) EXPLICATION - which reading best explains its rivals?
      (2) DIVERSITY - which reading has the widest range of support in
      early Christendom?
      (3) DIFFICULTY - to what extent would each rival variant appear to
      early copyists to invite change?
      (4) ANTIQUITY - which reading has the oldest attestation?
      (5) NON-CONFORMITY - which reading is least likely to have been the
      result of the influence of copyists' familiarity with similar texts?
      (6) RARITY - which reading, having an obscure word or expression,
      would tend to provoke a copyist to substitute something more ordinary?
      (7) STYLE - which reading is most consistent with the author's
      normal style and, to the extent that it can be discerned, his
      vocabulary?

      The weight given to each of these qualities will vary from one
      reading to another. No single canon is a completely reliable
      guideline. Different canons frequently counterbalance one another,
      supporting different rival variants. And even when several canons
      support a reading, some special factor may militate against its
      adoption.

      Consideration of internal evidence should be framed by consideration
      of the traits of the witnesses in which the variants are preserved.
      The date of the witness, the skill of the copyist, and discernible
      characteristics of particular transmission-lines (to abridge, expand,
      adjust, or to rigorously preserve), considered together, may confer
      special status to a copy, a group of copies, or to some other witness.

      UNIQUE FACTORS IN NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM

      Textual criticism of the New Testament involves some unique factors.
      These include the following:

      (1) LITURGICAL ADJUSTMENTS. Portions of the New Testament were
      divided into sections; each section was assigned an annual day or
      occasion on which it was to be read. These sections were often
      supplements by introductory phrases to provide some idea of their
      setting in the text, and by insertions which served to provoke the
      performance of a liturgical action when a particular passage was
      read. Liturgical adjustments also include the replacement of
      pronouns with nouns, and the addition or expansion of titles.

      (2) LINGUISTIC ADJUSTMENTS. These consist of instances in which
      ancient koine Greek was conformed to Attic modes of expression, or in
      which terms, word-order, spelling, and syntax were conformed to later
      local standards.

      (3) THEOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENTS. Copyists expected the text to promote
      orthodox theology; as a result they sometimes made explicit a
      theological statement which was otherwise merely implicit, or
      adjusted the text in order to prevent misunderstanding of potentially
      question-raising words or phrases. On rare occasions, copyists
      suspected that a copy in their possession had been corrupted by
      heretics, and this provoked them to create what they perceived to be
      a more orthodox statement. Also, heretics did in fact corrupt the
      text, and their copies were sometimes acquired by non-heretical
      copyists who were sometimes aware and sometimes unaware of the
      corruptions.

      (4) ANTI-JUDAIC ADJUSTMENTS. Some copyists, interpreting the
      destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the failure of the Second
      Jewish Revolt in A.D. 132-134 as signs of divine displeasure, removed
      or adjusted statements in the text which appeared favorable to the
      Jewish people as a whole.

      (5) SEPTUAGINT CONFORMATION. Loose quotations, combined quotations,
      and paraphrases of the Septuagint, the popular Greek translation of
      the Hebrew Bible, were adjusted so as to conform more precisely or
      more fully to the Septuagint, or to the form of the Septuagint known
      to copyists.

      (6) RETRO-TRANSLATION. The Greek text of the New Testament books
      was translated into other languages, such as Latin, Syriac, and
      Sahidic. On rare occasions, a bilingual copyist allowed his
      knowledge of, and familiarity with, the versional form of a passage
      to affect the fidelity of his transmission of the Greek text. This
      sometimes resulted in the creation of a Greek translation of material
      that originated in a non-Greek manuscript.

      (7) SACRED NAMES. Very early in the transmission-stream --
      apparently earlier than the sub-archetypes of all text-types --
      copyists contracted several words of special significance, such as
      "God," "Lord," "Jesus," "Christ," and "Spirit." The list of
      contractions varied among locales, and among copyists. Variant-units
      involving these words should be approached with special caution.

      (8) SCRIBAL FORMATS. Features such as the type of handwriting, the
      length of lines, paragraph-formation, the addition of commentaries or
      margin-notes and symbols, the Eusebian Canons, colophons,
      decorations, illustrations, and other embellishments introduced by
      copyists can sometimes help identify a manuscript's place in the text-
      stream.

      TEXT-TYPES OF THE GOSPELS

      The value of copies and groups of copies should be measured not only
      according to their traits but also according to their discernible
      history. The transmission-history of the Gospels involved, in the
      second century, the development of "local texts" -- forms of the text
      endowed with unique traits and unique readings in different locales.

      Textual critics have identified the local text-types of the Gospel of
      Mark as the Alexandrian Text, the Western Text, the Caesarean Text,
      and the Byzantine Text. These names derive from locales in which the
      text-types were utilized (not necessarily the locales in which they
      began). Although it can be argued that these names are misnomers,
      they are retained as the traditional terms for their contents.

      Many textual critics have adopted the view, made famous by Westcott &
      Hort in 1881, that the relationship of the Byzantine Text to the
      Alexandrian Text and the Western Text is like the relationship of a
      child to his parents. Westcott & Hort attributed this blending to an
      editor or editors near the end of the 200's. However, subsequent
      discoveries and analyses -- particularly the research of Harry Sturz
      -- have shown that many unique Byzantine readings are demonstrably
      earlier than Hort's assigned date for their creation, and that many
      more Byzantine readings in the Gospels are not plausibly accounted
      for as editorial creations. This implies that the Byzantine Text
      includes a substantial strata of ancient and independent readings.
      This strata may be called the Proto-Byzantine Text.

      Hort tentatively linked the origin of the Byzantine Text to Lucian of
      Antioch, who was martyred in A.D. 312. In a list of saints'
      commemoration-days from about 600, Lucian is credited with the
      production of a Bible which contained the Old Testament and New
      Testament, and which was taken to Nicomedia. Probably Lucian
      thoughtfully produced the text of the New Testament portion of his
      Bible by comparing copies which represented the Alexandrian Text, a
      form of the Western Text, and the local text of Antioch in Syria.
      However, other witnesses to the Syrian text, such as the Gothic
      Version (made c. 350 by Wulfilas) and the Peshitta, often disagree
      with the Byzantine Text. The simplest explanation of this is that
      the Byzantine Text, as represented by the majority of Greek copies,
      is a combination of two combinations: the first being Lucian's
      combination of Syrian, Alexandrian, and Western readings, and the
      second being a combination of the text of Lucian's venerated copy and
      the local text of Nicomedia and its environs.

      Two further implications of this scenario are
      (1) agreements between the Byzantine Text and the Syrian Text may
      represent two local texts, and
      (2) a reading in the Byzantine Text which disagrees with the Syrian
      Text may be due to interference from Lucian (involving his rejection
      of a Syrian reading which was previously shared by the Nicomedian and
      Syrian Texts), but it may attest to a reading which was entrenched in
      the local text of Nicomedia and survived the "invasion" of Lucian's
      venerated copy and its amalgamated text.

      Thus it should be clear that the canon which emphasizes the diversity
      of attestation for a reading does not mainly involve quantities of
      copies but quantities of local texts, where they appear to be
      independent of one another. The agreement of all text-types is
      tremendously strong evidence of authenticity. The agreement of three
      out of four local texts, or, in the Gospel of Mark, four out of five,
      is strong evidence of authenticity, which a dissenting reading can
      only outweigh with very strong internal indicators of authenticity in
      its favor. Lesser proportions, however, are less important.

      NOTATION

      Knowledge of a manuscript's contents is valuable, but knowledge of
      the contents of a manuscript's ancestor is more valuable, inasmuch as
      the ancestor's relationship to the archetype is closer. For this
      reason, a summarized comparison of external evidence is usually
      better served by a record of the readings of sub-archetypes than by a
      record of the readings of individual manuscripts. This notation-
      technique compares the text-types to each other without allowing
      incidental factors to have more weight than they deserve. The degree
      of veneration accorded to a copy's text, the physical climate where a
      copy was kept, the amount of handling a copy endured, and the degree
      to which its possessors were inclined to preserve it, rather than
      replace it, have largely determined which text-type has the most
      representatives, and which text-type has the oldest representatives.
      These are nevertheless incidental factors which should not be allowed
      to overshadow internal indicators of authenticity.

      The citation of sub-archetypes allows the reader to perceive the
      contents of non-extant ancestors of extant witnesses, and provides a
      farther view of the transmission-stream than can be seen directly
      from a simple list of witnesses. Also, the citation of sub-
      archetypes is preferable to inequitable or misleading notation-
      methods in which many representatives of one text-type are
      represented by a single siglum (notation-symbol) while a handful of
      representatives of another text-type are individually listed. In
      some instances, however, where the leading representatives of a text-
      type disagree among themselves, the reader is better served by a more
      detailed presentation of external evidence.

      COMMENDATION

      I commend this work to the people of God, with the expectation that
      the diligent and reverent reader will benefit from it, and that
      whoever receives the message of this archetype will receive the
      message of the original text of the Gospel of Mark. Any mistakes in
      the text are accidental, and are mine.

      -----------

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
      Curtisville Christian Church
      Indiana (USA)
      www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
    • brian.boland.dslw@oneteldsl8.net
      Science is the study of things that can be replicated and exactly the same results obtained using the same componets in exactly the same way. Text is about
      Message 2 of 11 , Dec 13, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Science is the study of things that can be replicated and exactly the same results obtained using the same componets in exactly the same way. Text is about words whose meanings have subtle differences in the mind of each individual depending on when and where the words are read. Words paint a picture in the mind of the reader and as such must, to my thinking be an art form. The analysis of the ink, paper is a science but the words no.
        Brian Boland

      • Edward Andrews
        Brian: When James says: Textual criticism is a science, not an art, he is not speaking in absolute terms. I believe you are looking at an absolute
        Message 3 of 11 , Dec 13, 2006
        • 0 Attachment

          Brian:

           

          When James says: “Textual criticism is a science, not an art,” he is not speaking in absolute terms.  I believe you are looking at an absolute definition and not allowing it to be relative.  Really, textual criticism is a science, a skill, and an art.  It is a science because its method of research can be studied and described as a system, although with checks and balances one would hope.  It is an art because at times it takes the mind of an artist to effectively convey things such as conjectural emendation that is really more than what the name makes it appear to be.  It is like the instincts of a 30-year veteran police officer at work.  He sees and feels things the rookie would not.  This is not meant to demean, but just as not all people can be exemplary artists, not a people can be exceptional textual critics.

           

          Edward Andrews

          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:33 AM
          Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] A Brief Intro to NTTC Goals and Guidelines

          Science is the study of things that can be replicated and exactly the same results obtained using the same componets in exactly the same way. Text is about words whose meanings have subtle differences in the mind of each individual depending on when and where the words are read. Words paint a picture in the mind of the reader and as such must, to my thinking be an art form. The analysis of the ink, paper is a science but the words no.
          Brian Boland

        • Martin Edwards
          ... Thanks. I ve printed a copy for perusal at leisure. Martin Edwards
          Message 4 of 11 , Dec 13, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "James Snapp, Jr."
            <voxverax@...> wrote:
            >
            > As some here know, I've been working on a compilation of the text of
            > Mark for a while. That project is just about over, and one of its
            > final pieces -- the star on the top of the Christmas tree, so to
            > speak -- has been the composition of an introduction to the text, the
            > text-critical approach used in the compilation, and the notation in
            > the notes (in the annotated edition, which is something like 102 full-
            > size pages long).
            >
            > Here's what I've composed so far. Comments, corrections, and
            > criticisms are welcome.
            >
            Thanks. I've printed a copy for perusal at leisure.

            Martin Edwards
          • James Miller
            ... To my thinking you ve started off in absolutely the wrong direction. Did you perhaps mean to say the opposite of this, i.e., Textual criticism is an art,
            Message 5 of 11 , Dec 13, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@...> wrote:
              >
              > Here's what I've composed so far. Comments,
              > corrections, and
              > criticisms are welcome.
              >
              > -------------
              >
              > THE GREEK UNCIAL ARCHETYPE OF MARK
              >
              > +++ INTRODUCTION +++
              >
              > TEXTUAL CRITICISM'S GOALS AND GUIDELINES
              >
              > Textual criticism is a science, not an art.

              To my thinking you've started off in absolutely the
              wrong direction. Did you perhaps mean to say the
              opposite of this, i.e., "Textual criticism is an art,
              not a science"? I can't get any further into your
              explanation than this, if you really did intend to
              write things in the order in which they appeared in
              your post. What you're saying seems in diametric
              opposition to text criticism (admittedly mostly under
              the rubric of critical study of the LXX) as I've
              confronted and come to understand it.

              James



              ____________________________________________________________________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
              http://new.mail.yahoo.com
            • James Snapp, Jr.
              Greetings Brian B, James M., and Edward A., Brian B - When I say, Textual criticism is a science, not an art, I mean that it is a restorative enterprise, not
              Message 6 of 11 , Dec 13, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Greetings Brian B, James M., and Edward A.,

                Brian B -

                When I say, "Textual criticism is a science, not an art," I mean that
                it is a restorative enterprise, not a creative one. The path to the
                restoration of the contents of the autograph may involve the textual
                critic's imagination and instincts, but they are employed in order
                to find something, not to create something. Any artistry in the end-
                product should be the author's artistry, not the textual critic's
                artistry.

                James M. -

                No; I really and sincerely meant to write "Textual criticism is a
                science, not an art."
                (I did mean to say "stratum" rather than "strata," though.)

                Edward A. -

                I really don't think that textual criticism is an art, because the
                normal goal of art is to produce a work of art, rather than to
                restore or repair one. An artistic instinct may be a useful thing
                for a textual critic to have (if the author was artistic, at least),
                just as an artistic instinct may be required to repair a damaged
                sculpture, but the sculpture-repairer's goal is to restore -- and,
                where pieces are missing, to faithfully re-create -- the original
                sculpture, not to engage in his own artistic expression or to express
                anything except what the sculptor displayed. Conjectural emendation
                might overlap science and art -- like the re-creation of the
                pulverized fingers of a statue might -- but conjectural emendation is
                such a teensy-tiny aspect of New Testament textual criticism, it
                doesn't seem justifiable to let it drive the classification of T.C.
                into Art.

                Yours in Christ,

                James Snapp, Jr.
                Curtisville Christian Church
                Indiana (USA)
                www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
              • Gie Vleugels
                Good mornig (Brussels time), There are lots of excellent textual critics without any qualities in the traditional artistic fields (poetry, music, painting
                Message 7 of 11 , Dec 14, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Good mornig (Brussels time),
                  There are lots of excellent textual critics without any qualities in the 'traditional' artistic fields (poetry, music, painting ...). If we call TC an art, than it is not like the other arts at all.
                  Gie Vleugels

                   
                  On 12/14/06, James Snapp, Jr. <voxverax@...> wrote:

                  Greetings Brian B, James M., and Edward A.,

                  Brian B -

                  When I say, "Textual criticism is a science, not an art," I mean that
                  it is a restorative enterprise, not a creative one. The path to the
                  restoration of the contents of the autograph may involve the textual
                  critic's imagination and instincts, but they are employed in order
                  to find something, not to create something. Any artistry in the end-
                  product should be the author's artistry, not the textual critic's
                  artistry.

                  James M. -

                  No; I really and sincerely meant to write "Textual criticism is a
                  science, not an art."
                  (I did mean to say "stratum" rather than "strata," though.)

                  Edward A. -

                  I really don't think that textual criticism is an art, because the
                  normal goal of art is to produce a work of art, rather than to
                  restore or repair one. An artistic instinct may be a useful thing
                  for a textual critic to have (if the author was artistic, at least),
                  just as an artistic instinct may be required to repair a damaged
                  sculpture, but the sculpture-repairer's goal is to restore -- and,
                  where pieces are missing, to faithfully re-create -- the original
                  sculpture, not to engage in his own artistic expression or to express
                  anything except what the sculptor displayed. Conjectural emendation
                  might overlap science and art -- like the re-creation of the
                  pulverized fingers of a statue might -- but conjectural emendation is
                  such a teensy-tiny aspect of New Testament textual criticism, it
                  doesn't seem justifiable to let it drive the classification of T.C.
                  into Art.

                  Yours in Christ,

                  James Snapp, Jr.
                  Curtisville Christian Church
                  Indiana (USA)
                  www.curtisvillechri stian.org/BasicTC.html




                  --
                  Gie Vleugels

                              ><(((°>  +  <°)))><
                • yennifmit
                  On the science/art thing, I think that New Testament textual criticism is a bit of both and then some more. A lot of the discipline is (or should be)
                  Message 8 of 11 , Dec 14, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On the science/art thing, I think that New Testament textual criticism
                    is a bit of both and then some more. A lot of the discipline is (or
                    should be) forensic--that is, concerned with collecting, weighing, and
                    interpreting evidence. It is like what a judge does in a court room:
                    The cop says, "The defendant drove his vehicle into mine." A witness
                    says, "The officer staggered out of the hotel, got in his car, then
                    drove into that man's car." The judge weighs the evidence (and the
                    witnesses) then tries to decide what really happened.

                    Sometimes it is easy to work out what happened, and you can be certain
                    beyond reasonable doubt. Other times you might not be so certain. That
                    is why it is a good idea to say how sure you are of a conclusion. The
                    UBS Greek New Testament editors did this when they assigned letter
                    grades (A, B, C, D) to their preferred readings.

                    There is a lot of room for improvement in this area. Statistical
                    analysis can be applied to the evidence. I have been at work on
                    something along these lines and am almost ready to release the first
                    installment.

                    The art/science discussion reminds me of the internal/external
                    evidence dichotomy that has been used to classify the various
                    principles of NTtc. It seems to me that the art associates with the
                    internal and the science with the external.

                    Best

                    Tim Finney

                    --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "James Snapp, Jr."
                    <voxverax@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Greetings Brian B, James M., and Edward A.,
                    >
                    > Brian B -
                    >
                    > When I say, "Textual criticism is a science, not an art," I mean that
                    > it is a restorative enterprise, not a creative one. The path to the
                    > restoration of the contents of the autograph may involve the textual
                    > critic's imagination and instincts, but they are employed in order
                    > to find something, not to create something. Any artistry in the end-
                    > product should be the author's artistry, not the textual critic's
                    > artistry.
                    >
                    > James M. -
                    >
                    > No; I really and sincerely meant to write "Textual criticism is a
                    > science, not an art."
                    > (I did mean to say "stratum" rather than "strata," though.)
                    >
                    > Edward A. -
                    >
                    > I really don't think that textual criticism is an art, because the
                    > normal goal of art is to produce a work of art, rather than to
                    > restore or repair one. An artistic instinct may be a useful thing
                    > for a textual critic to have (if the author was artistic, at least),
                    > just as an artistic instinct may be required to repair a damaged
                    > sculpture, but the sculpture-repairer's goal is to restore -- and,
                    > where pieces are missing, to faithfully re-create -- the original
                    > sculpture, not to engage in his own artistic expression or to express
                    > anything except what the sculptor displayed. Conjectural emendation
                    > might overlap science and art -- like the re-creation of the
                    > pulverized fingers of a statue might -- but conjectural emendation is
                    > such a teensy-tiny aspect of New Testament textual criticism, it
                    > doesn't seem justifiable to let it drive the classification of T.C.
                    > into Art.
                    >
                    > Yours in Christ,
                    >
                    > James Snapp, Jr.
                    > Curtisville Christian Church
                    > Indiana (USA)
                    > www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
                    >
                  • brian.boland.dslw@oneteldsl8.net
                    James Snapp, Jr. -said When I say, Textual criticism is a science, not an art, I mean that it is a restorative enterprise, not a creative one. The path to
                    Message 9 of 11 , Dec 14, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                       James Snapp, Jr. -said
                      "When I say, "Textual criticism is a science, not an art," I mean that it is a restorative enterprise, not a creative one. The path to the restoration of the contents of the autograph may involve the textual
                      critic's imagination and instincts, but they are employed in order to find something, not to create something. Any artistry in the end-product should be the author's artistry, not the textual critic's
                      artistry."
                      Brian Boland replies -
                      When a painting is being renovated, it is a very difficult decision to remove some earlier restoration work to seek for the original [which may not be there !] There are no absolutes in the decision, so in that respect it must be an art !!!
                      When a structure is designed whether a bridge, skyscraper or auto  the overall shape that is developed by the imagination is a form of art  The science then determines the details on how it stand up against the rigours of daily life.To restore a Model T Ford to its former condition should be accomplished without any imagination of the restorer just a highly skillful one of copying the original build techniques. ie just science
                      Rufinus rewrote Tertullian's work, at Jerome's great displeasure because, he said, Tertullian asked questions, but Romans need answers. There was then at that time a desire to remove uncertainity in scriptual discussion and provide a firm basis of belief. It seems then it MAY have led to pressure being put on textural copying houses to standardise texts in much the same way as the KJV was endorsed in the English speaking world.The macro understanding of the text generation system may then have a bigger impact on the texts we now have before us than the examination of the minutiae of the copying pecularities of single scribes. Whether this "humanity" is called an art or science depends on where your cultural roots lie
                      Brian j
                      __BBBbbbbbbb,_Brian j._,___
                    • Viktor Golinets
                      Yesterday a page of the Codex Sinaiticus was displayed in the Leipzig University Library. It is the page 23 of folios that are in the Leipzig University
                      Message 10 of 11 , Dec 15, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Yesterday a page of the Codex Sinaiticus was displayed in the Leipzig
                        University Library. It is the page 23 of folios that are in the Leipzig
                        University Library and it contains the text from the Book of Jeremiah
                        17.8b-18.6a. (A snap shot of the page is attached.)
                          In a short lecture the history of the codex was sketched and the
                        international Codex Sinaiticus project was introduced.
                          
                          See details under
                          http://db.uni-leipzig.de/aktuell/index.php?pmnummer=2006371


                        Viktor Golinets, M.A.

                        Altorientalisches Institut
                        Universität Leipzig

                        Institut für Semitistik
                        Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München


                        Yahoo! 360° – Bloggen und Leute treffen. Erstellen Sie jetzt Ihre eigene Seite – kostenlos!.
                      • Peter M. Head
                        Thanks for this news. It is a pity that all the partners to the Sinaiticus project seem to have adopted this idea for publicity purposes that Sinaiticus is
                        Message 11 of 11 , Dec 15, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Thanks for this news.

                          It is a pity that all the partners to the Sinaiticus project seem to have adopted this idea for publicity purposes that Sinaiticus is 'the oldest Bible in the world' - "die älteste Bibel der Welt" - which it plainly isn't. I'm quite happy with "eines der bedeutendsten Bibelmanuskripte der Welt" - no one could disagree with that.

                          For the British Library on the "World's oldest Bible" see http://www.bl.uk/news/2005/pressrelease20050311.html


                          Cheers

                          Peter

                          At 09:19 15/12/2006, you wrote:
                          Yesterday a page of the Codex Sinaiticus was displayed in the Leipzig
                          University Library. It is the page 23 of folios that are in the Leipzig
                          University Library and it contains the text from the Book of Jeremiah
                          17.8b-18.6a. (A snap shot of the page is attached.)
                            In a short lecture the history of the codex was sketched and the
                          international Codex Sinaiticus project was introduced.
                            
                            See details under
                            http://db.uni-leipzig.de/aktuell/index.php?pmnummer=2006371


                          Viktor Golinets, M.A.

                          Altorientalisches Institut
                          Universität Leipzig

                          Institut für Semitistik
                          Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München


                          Yahoo! 360° – Bloggen und Leute treffen. Erstellen Sie jetzt Ihre eigene Seite – kostenlos!.

                          Peter M. Head, PhD
                          Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                          Tyndale House
                          36 Selwyn Gardens
                          Cambridge CB3 9BA
                          01223 566601
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.