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

Re: [textualcriticism] Isaiah Scroll from Qumran at Israel Museum

Expand Messages
  • Lampros F. Kallenos
    If the address of the page is http://www.imj.org.il/shrine_center/Isaiah_Scrolling/index.html and the flash file is Isaiah_Scrolling.swf then....., the link to
    Message 1 of 21 , May 23, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      If the address of the page is

      http://www.imj.org.il/shrine_center/Isaiah_Scrolling/index.html

      and the flash file is Isaiah_Scrolling.swf

      then....., the link to the flash file should probably be

      http://www.imj.org.il/shrine_center/Isaiah_Scrolling/Isaiah_Scrolling.swf

      or,
      http://preview.tinyurl.com/22zbkd

      Perhaps you can right click on the above link and choose "Save as..."

      Or,
      open a page in Frontpage (which will be an html page),
      copy there http://preview.tinyurl.com/22zbkd
      and make it a link (by entering an end of paragraph
      at the end of it).
      Then, right click on this link, and choose "Save as..."


      Xairetw,


      .
      _______________________
      Lampros F. Kallenos
      Idalion, Lefkosia
      Kypros
      --
    • Philip
      Dear Listees, I would like to discuss the subject of Old Testament TEXTUAL CRITICAL METHODOLOGY. As a starting point, I would like a critique on my OT TC
      Message 2 of 21 , May 24, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Listees,
         
        I would like to discuss the subject of Old Testament TEXTUAL CRITICAL METHODOLOGY.
         
        As a starting point, I would like a critique on my OT TC Methodology with specific reference to SELECTED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LXX & MT.
         
        Below is the general framework and the attached is more detailed.
         
        1.7   Methodology
        I used Old Testament textual critical methodology. This methodology consisted of six steps as follows:
        1.      Firstly, I compared the MT and LXX OT quotations.
        2.      Secondly, I noted the differences between the LXX and MT OT quotations.
        3.      Thirdly, I examined additional witnesses to the OT text such as the relevant DSS texts and the GNT quotations to find out whether these other witnesses to the OT supported the LXX quotations or the MT quotations.[1]
        4.      Fourthly, I reviewed literature specific to the LXX/MT verse differences in question to find out what other writers had said concerning specific verse differences between the LXX and MT readings of the same text.
        5.      Fifthly, I recorded my conclusions, i.e., specific conclusions for each verse where the LXX text differed from the MT text.[2]
        6.      Finally, I recorded my recommendations; i.e., specific recommendations for each verse where the LXX text differed from the MT text.
         
        Best regards,
        Philip


        [1] One criticism of the thesis reads as follows,
         
           “There is a lot of material in the thesis, but it has not been arranged properly so as to respond adequately to the topic. I get the impression that the topic is too wide and so there is imbalance in the presentations, particularly between the LXX and MT on the one hand, and the Hebrews Texts and the NT on the other hand. Looking at the parts on the Hebrews and NT, it seems inadequate and has not been well-integrated into the latter (i.e. the LXX and MT) part of the thesis.”
         
        My response to this criticism is that this thesis is actually a thesis based on Old Testament (OT) textual criticism (TC); and so it is focussed very clearly in the Old Testament, specifically on the differences between the LXX and MT. However, the third step in my OT TC methodology demanded that I examine other witnesses to the variant Old Testament texts. These other witness to the OT were not limited only to OT witnesses such as the dead sea scrolls, but also included New Testament (NT) witnesses, and specifically for this thesis, the Old Testament quotations found in the Greek New Testament (GNT) book of Hebrews; and so the role of the New Testament witnesses, particularly the OT quotations in the NT book of Hebrews is simply as a witness to find out whether the quotations in the GNT book of Hebrews matched the LXX or the MT quotations.
         
        I recorded my findings in Chapter 4.
         
        [2] Conclusions included an explanation of the differences between the LXX and MT texts for the same OT verse and a hypothesis of what the original autograph text might have read.


        Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
      • Viktor Golinets
        At the University library of Leipzig the digitalizing of Sinaiticus has begun. Take a look unter http://www.ub.uni-leipzig.de/ and press then Digitalisierung
        Message 3 of 21 , May 24, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          At the University library of Leipzig the digitalizing of Sinaiticus has begun. Take a look unter http://www.ub.uni-leipzig.de/
           
          Victor Golinets


          Yahoo! Clever - Sie haben Fragen? Yahoo! Nutzer antworten Ihnen.
        • David Robert Palmer
          You would see brackets if you chose the option in the drop-down menu called verse by verse and then looked at the bottom of the page. This option is the one
          Message 4 of 21 , May 26, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            
            You would see brackets if you chose the option in the drop-down menu called "verse by verse" and then looked at the bottom of the page.  This option is the one I have found most useful.
             
            Regards,
            David Robert Palmer
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:45 AM
            Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Using the Muenster NT manuscripts transcripts tool

            I cannot see any brackets!

            Peter

            At 18:48 21/05/2007, you wrote:

            
            Thank-you for your reply.
             
            I see that the link I put for the exact Muenster location does not take anyone back there, but to Matthew 1:1.
             
            Here is what it shows for Rev 9:21 and Sinaiticus:
             
            και ου μετενοησαν εκ των φονων αυτων ουτε [*: εκ των φαρμακων αυτων ουτε εκ της πονηριας αυτων ουτε εκ των κλεμματων αυτων / ]
             
            kai ou metenohsan ek twn fonwn autwn oute [*: ek twn farmakwn autwn oute ek ths ponjriaV autwn oute ek twn klemmatwn autwn/]
             
            Does this not indicate that something lacked that entire phrase?  At any rate, the entire phrase is bracketed.
             
            David Robert Palmer
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Peter M. Head
            To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
            Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 9:16 AM
            Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Using the Muenster NT manuscripts transcripts tool

            As far as I can tell you are misreading the transcript. Which lists a long reading next to 01* which includes FARMAKWN. The reason for indicating 01* relates to a different word in that string: PORNIAS which is clearly a correction from the original PONHRIAS (as signalled in NA27).

            So I don't see any discrepancy here. You are right that the scanned photo of the facsimile shows FARMAKWN.

            Peter
            .

            Peter M. Head, PhD
            Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
            Tyndale House
            36 Selwyn Gardens
            Cambridge CB3 9BA
            01223 566601

          • Webb
            Regarding the hypothesis of Aleph being the exemplar for B: To me as a non-expert, this sounds like a relatively straightforward hypothesis to prove or
            Message 5 of 21 , May 28, 2007
            • 0 Attachment

              Regarding the hypothesis of Aleph being the exemplar for B:

               

              To me as a non-expert, this sounds like a relatively straightforward hypothesis to prove or disprove. As a meaningful hypothesis, it should result in specific predictions that can be checked, and concrete (if rough) thresholds for failure and success of the hypothesis should be established before testing begins.

               

              I don’t know what the group thinks, but I would expect there to be a very clear relationship between the corrector of B and Aleph—in fact, one could even expect Aleph to have identical corrections at the same place as B periodically, since if the corrector had a second exemplar or a tradition that he was very confident of, and he found that B was “wrong”, yet Aleph agreed, he might in principle feel he had the authority to conform Aleph to what he knew to be “right” while he was at it. On the other hand, if Aleph and B were, as some scholars hold, both written at the same time in the same scriptorium for the emperor Constantine (see Metzger, Text of the NT, pp. 47-48), then Aleph(c) and B(c) could be expected to have very many identical corrected readings. That is, if B is copied from Aleph, there will be numerous Aleph(c) readings which B* gets right without correction. But if Aleph and B were both copied by ear at the same time, then errors in reading the text aloud will result in identical places where, upon checking, both will be found to have the same error, and will be corrected. So the hypothesis could be boiled down thus:

               

              If B is a copy of Aleph, the great majority of corrections in B will not correspond to corrections in Alelph. (Exceptions could be expected in cases where the identical mistake could be predicted to occur independently.) If both were copies of a third ms, there will be significant and regular correlation between the corrections in B and the corrections in Aleph.

               

              All this is subject to checking against the possibility that B and Aleph, after the former was copied from the latter and corrected, were systematically re-corrected and conformed by a later hand.

               

              Webb Mealy

               


              From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of William Warren
              Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:47 PM
              To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Quest for an Exemplar for Vaticanus

               

              Mark, as a question, how would you deal with the tremendously close relationships between B and P75 and P4 with your view? Seems to me that these demand that the B type of text is being copied faithfully from about the end of the 2nd century until the early 4th (until B). I've struggled with the B-Aleph relationship in this light since B seems to have a more independent thread of professional copying in its background than what we see in Aleph. Perhaps Aleph had contact with the text tradition represented by P4-P75-B rather than B coming from Aleph. Of course, you could postulate that Aleph came from an even earlier tradition, but that seems to defy our actually mss data at least at this point. Also, of course, with Aleph including all of the NT plus Barnabas and the Shepherd and B including nearly all of the NT, that would require a later date as far as the canon for the text to be somewhat standardized (somewhat is the key word here) over virtually the entire NT canon. Whenever a text-type cuts across large amounts of the NT canon (the LXX is a different issue on this, so I'll just stick to the NT), it is either very close to the original or smacks of some type of standardization process being in its history. At least with B in Luke and John, that process must have been in the late 2nd century if it is indeed such a process. Just some food for thought.

               

              paz,

               

              Bill Warren

              Director of the Center for New Testament Textual Studies

              Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament and Greek

              New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary



               

              On May 22, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Mark Thunderson wrote:



              Dear List:

              I have been reading both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for
              some time, and, like many others, must conclude that
              there is a link between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The
              link was first recognized and discussed by
              Tischendorf, and then by many others including Wieland
              Willker who states:

              "The writing style [of Vaticanus] is very similar to
              that of Sinaiticus. [Indeed,] it is reasonable to
              assume that both codices have been written in the same
              scriptorium or at least the same place at around the
              same time."

              It is very unlikely that one would write such a
              statement if indeed they had not read both manuscripts
              and seen the obvious semblance between the two.
              However, for me the resemblance is no longer a subject
              of speculation, but rather one that needs to be
              interpreted. Hence, I would like to suggest to the
              list the following hypothesis:

              1. Codex Sinaiticus is the exemplar for Vaticanus.

              I raise the hypothesis because of the obvious and
              laborious attempts within Vaticanus to emulate - if
              not Codex Sinaiticus - then the same exemplar of Codex
              Sinaiticus. In which case, Sinaiticus is more
              faithful to that exemplar. Perhaps one of the most
              convincing features that Vaticanus is using SInaiticus
              is the way the lines begin and end. There is a clear
              attempt in Vaticanus to emulate the beginning and end
              of lines - even down to the exact letter, and even (in
              the New Testament) the way that books end.

              One may object to this hypothesis saying, "The lines
              in Vaticanus only match those of Sinaiticus every 3rd
              or 4th line repetitiously. " Yes, Indeed! This is
              precisely my point. If the exemplar for Vaticanus had
              4 columns - and Vaticanus only has 3 column - then
              this is precisely why we get this reoccurring sequence
              of identicle lines between the two manuscripts. This
              seems like a perfectly reasonable assumption.

              Again, one may object saying, "We know that Vaticanus
              has come first." This is mere speculation, which has
              not dealt reasonably with the evidence. It is
              possible, however, that Vaticanus might have been
              written prior to Sinaiticus, but, if this is the case,
              then one may then argue that Sinaiticus represents
              more faithfully the exemplar used by Vaticanus. This
              would also imply that the exemplar for Vaticanus was
              either the manuscript of Pamphilius, or perhaps even
              that of Origin (this is reasonable to assume, since
              the manuscript would be at least only 100 years old at
              the time it was used - maybe less, may more). However,
              to extrapolate on this would means we would have to
              agree upon prior assumptions.

              And, no doubt there might be other objections and
              commendations which I cannot raise at this time.
              However, my own reasoning suggests that this would
              answer many questions surrounding the appearance of
              several variants between the two manuscripts, not to
              mention many other things surrounding their production
              and publication.

              I welcome any comments from the list. What do you
              think and how do you think?

              Sincerely,

              Mark Thunderson.

              ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
              http://get.games. yahoo.com/ proddesc? gamekey=monopoly herenow


              =

            • James Snapp, Jr.
              Mark Thunderson, I think it s Extremely Unlikely that Codex Sinaiticus is the exemplar for Vaticanus. Here are some reasons why it s beyond the bounds of
              Message 6 of 21 , May 28, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Mark Thunderson,

                I think it's Extremely Unlikely that Codex Sinaiticus is the exemplar
                for Vaticanus. Here are some reasons why it's beyond the bounds of
                plausibility:

                (1) Different book-lists.
                (2) Sometimes B's scribe committed parablepsis where there is no
                such feature in Aleph, and vice versa.
                (3) There is *not* a clear conscious consistent attempt in B to
                emulate the beginning and end of lines in Aleph. Where
                correspondence between line-endings exists, it is coincidental and/or
                is due to a common desire to begin certain sections neatly at the
                beginning of a line. But repeatedly, B's scribe does not follow
                Aleph's format in exactly the places where it would be easy and
                convenient to do so (for instance, in the list of apostles' names in
                Mark 3).
                (4) Textual disagreements between the two.
                (5) B's scribe in the NT tends to contract fewer nomina sacra that
                Aleph's. They also often treat numerical amounts different; Aleph
                uses gematria in places where B has the word written longhand. (If
                it were just a question of use as an exemplar, this one might be
                surmountable if one figures that B was produced by dictation -- but
                then the scribe wouldn't be capable of line-for-line comparison in
                the first place.)

                MT: >>> "If the exemplar for Vaticanus had 4 columns - and Vaticanus
                only has 3 column - then this is precisely why we get this
                reoccurring sequence of identicle lines between the two manuscripts."
                <<<

                On the other hand, one could figure that if two scribes start writing
                the same text, one using columns about 13 letters wide and the other
                using columns about 17 letters wide, they will tend to occasionally
                correspond, simply because the multiples of 13 and the multiples of
                17 occasionally approximately correspond. This will tend to be most
                obvious at the beginning of pericopes, and the pattern will tend to
                dissolve as variants, nomina sacra, and numeral-contractions take
                effect, and then restart where the next major section starts.

                MT: >>> "Again, one may object saying, "We know that Vaticanus has
                come first." This is mere speculation, which has not dealt
                reasonably with the evidence." <<<

                Vaticanus doesn't have the Eusebian Canons, and its treatment of the
                nomina sacra seems less developed than that in Aleph (unless
                Vaticanus' scribes had a (theological?) motivation to use a short
                list of nomina sacra). Scenarios can be imagined, though, in which
                Sinaiticus was made before Vaticanus. (Skeat's theory is one such
                example, in which manuscript-makers realized, after making
                Sinaiticus, that a more compact format would be more economical, and
                used the more compact format for B.)

                MT: >>> "This would also imply that the exemplar for Vaticanus was
                either the manuscript of Pamphilius, or perhaps even that of Origin
                (this is reasonable to assume, since the manuscript would be at least
                only 100 years old at the time it was used - maybe less, may more)."

                In theory, if B was made in Caesarea, it would be possible for its
                scribes to have accessed MSS which had once belonged to Origen. But
                where do Origen's writings show that he used a NT text that
                consistently resembled the text of Aleph or B?

                MT: >>> ... What do you think? ... <<<

                I don't think there's any chance that Aleph was the exemplar of B. I
                do think that the historical relationship between Aleph and B is
                closer than just a vague association with the same scriptorium, but I
                don't think Skeat was correct about the details; his idea still
                leaves a lot left unexplained. I think that maybe, perhaps,
                conceivably, the historical link between B and Aleph could possibly
                go like this two-stage story:

                (1) Vaticanus was produced for Eusebius, following particular orders
                from Eusebius, but without his direct supervision, by a young Euzoius
                and friends. When Eusebius received the codex, he decided not to use
                it because it was textually so unlike the copies that were being
                produced under his own direct supervision. But he liked it and kept
                it at Caesarea.
                (2) About three decades later, Euzoius and Acacius -- still at
                Caesarea and now running the place -- notice that some of the old
                papyri in the library are decaying, so, in order to speedily preserve
                and simultaneously organize the contents of the papyri of books of
                the Bible, they collect the best (however dilapidated) old copies,
                prepare codex-materials, and make a new codex based on the old
                copies. Euzoius' involvement in both codices accounts for something
                Kirsopp Lake noticed regarding the lettering in the superscriptions
                of Acts:

                "The similarity is extremely great, and is scarcely explicable unless
                we assume that both hands come from the same scriptorium, while the
                differences might conceivably be taken merely to mean that there is a
                difference of time between the two hands, -- that is to say that
                the /praxeis/ of Codex Vaticanus was written by a scribe in his
                youth, and the /praxeis/ of Codex Sinaiticus by the same scribe in
                his old age."

                If Euzoius was an underling scribe when he helped produce B, and
                later served as a diorthotes of Aleph, it could explain a lot. And
                it could potentially imply that the common ancestor of Aleph and B in
                any given book is not something way back in the early second century;
                their common ancestor could be the mother or grandmother of two MSS
                stored at Caesarea -- one used by Eusebius, the other used by Euzoius
                (which could still be an excellent MS; it just wouldn't be as ancient
                as Hort supposed).

                Yours in Christ,

                James Snapp, Jr.
                Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                Tipton, IN (USA)
                www.curtisvillechristian.org/KataMarkon.html
              • James Miller
                ... I note that you do not mention WH who raised, then dismissed, this possibility over a century ago in their Introduction. I believe scholarship of
                Message 7 of 21 , May 29, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- Mark Thunderson <mark.thunderson@...> wrote:

                  > I have been reading both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
                  > for
                  > some time, and, like many others, must conclude that
                  > there is a link between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
                  > The
                  > link was first recognized and discussed by
                  > Tischendorf, and then by many others including
                  > Wieland
                  > Willker who states:
                  <snip>

                  I note that you do not mention WH who raised, then
                  dismissed, this possibility over a century ago in
                  their Introduction. I believe scholarship of that era
                  was convinced by their arguments. Likely their
                  conclusion remains the de facto consensus among
                  scholars regarding this question (I'm an LXX scholar,
                  not a NT scholar, so I could be wrong about this). Any
                  serious re-examination of the question should start
                  with their arguments, pointing out why their premises
                  and/or conclusions were flawed and/or what new data
                  have come to light such that the matter is now under
                  question again.

                  > "The writing style [of Vaticanus] is very similar to
                  > that of Sinaiticus. [Indeed,] it is reasonable to
                  > assume that both codices have been written in the
                  > same
                  > scriptorium or at least the same place at around the
                  > same time."

                  WH noted this as well. They were essentially repeating
                  or building upon assertions made by Tischendorff.
                  Don't overlook the fact that Tischendorff was very
                  keen to establish that the ms he discovered was, in
                  fact, the oldest full NT manuscript found to date. I
                  suspect his assertion that the same corrector worked
                  on both mss may be related to that motivation. But I
                  leave the final conclusion to better orthographers who
                  actually have access to the materials under
                  discussion.

                  > 1. Codex Sinaiticus is the exemplar for Vaticanus.
                  <snip>
                  > I welcome any comments from the list. What do you
                  > think and how do you think?

                  I think you should have a good long look at what WH,
                  and maybe at what Tischendorff, have said on this
                  score. Then you should look good and hard to see if
                  anyone has addressed this question since that time
                  (apart from some oblique comments in Milne and Skeat,
                  as mentioned by another list member, I don't know that
                  anyone has subsequently addressed the question). Then,
                  you should frame any argument you want to make about
                  the matter as a dialog with scholars who have already
                  addressed this question and come to different
                  conclusions about it. Show why you question, or agree
                  with, their conclusions. That looks to me like the
                  most appropriate starting-point for your argument.

                  James



                  ____________________________________________________________________________________
                  TV dinner still cooling?
                  Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
                  http://tv.yahoo.com/
                • Mark Thunderson
                  Dear Paz: Thank you for your reply. To respond to your question regarding the close relationship between Vaticanus and P4 and P75, this sort of relationship
                  Message 8 of 21 , May 29, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Paz:

                    Thank you for your reply. To respond to your question
                    regarding the close relationship between Vaticanus and
                    P4 and P75, this sort of relationship should not come
                    as a surprise to anyone. Of course Vaticanus has
                    strong early support. But let me qualify my response
                    by saying, I have not yet read the actual scanned
                    images/facsimiles of P4 nor P75. Can your refer me to
                    an online source of scanned images so I can read and
                    analyze the papyri? This would be very helpful! Yet,
                    taking you at your word, this would only suggest a
                    close fragmentary relationship between P4, P75, and
                    the Gospel of Luke and John in Vaticanus. But my
                    interest is with Aleph and Vaticanus. Aleph also has
                    strong early testimony. Let me also make the point
                    that - putting all errors of sight and so forth aside
                    - my hypothesis does not rest merely on similarity but
                    also upon subtle differences between the manuscripts.
                    Differences, I hasten to add, that require thought and
                    that evince theological debate and speculation. For
                    instance, you mention the difference in the number and
                    order of books in the NT between Aleph and Vaticanus.
                    What I find interesting is that the difference in
                    order (for the most part) is really theological in
                    nature. Vaticanus places the Epistle of James and
                    those of Peter and John after the Gospels (and Acts),
                    whereas in Sinaiticus it is Paul's epistles that
                    follow the Gospels, then James and Peter and John.
                    This particular reorganization, firstly, requires
                    thought as well as a decision. Secondly, it is a
                    statement about events to which Paul was engrossed as
                    an Apostle within *second generation* Christianity
                    (probably around 61 AD). So, in the case of the
                    Epistolary Literature in Aleph and Vaticanus, the
                    order is actually the SAME (i.e., the sequence of
                    Pauline epistles and the sequence within the Petrine
                    and Johannnie epistoloary literature), but a judgement
                    about Paul (and James, Cephas and John)) is NOT the
                    same. But these are issues that arise not so much on
                    account of Sinaiticus, but how the scribes might have
                    "used" Sinaiticus as an exemplar. I have more to say,
                    but I will be in my reply to the others.

                    Sincerely,

                    Mark Thunderson.


                    --- William Warren <WFWarren@...> wrote:

                    > Mark, as a question, how would you deal with the
                    > tremendously close
                    > relationships between B and P75 and P4 with your
                    > view? Seems to me
                    > that these demand that the B type of text is being
                    > copied faithfully
                    > from about the end of the 2nd century until the
                    > early 4th (until B).
                    > I've struggled with the B-Aleph relationship in this
                    > light since B
                    > seems to have a more independent thread of
                    > professional copying in
                    > its background than what we see in Aleph. Perhaps
                    > Aleph had contact
                    > with the text tradition represented by P4-P75-B
                    > rather than B coming
                    > from Aleph. Of course, you could postulate that
                    > Aleph came from an
                    > even earlier tradition, but that seems to defy our
                    > actually mss data
                    > at least at this point. Also, of course, with Aleph
                    > including all of
                    > the NT plus Barnabas and the Shepherd and B
                    > including nearly all of
                    > the NT, that would require a later date as far as
                    > the canon for the
                    > text to be somewhat standardized (somewhat is the
                    > key word here) over
                    > virtually the entire NT canon. Whenever a text-type
                    > cuts across
                    > large amounts of the NT canon (the LXX is a
                    > different issue on this,
                    > so I'll just stick to the NT), it is either very
                    > close to the
                    > original or smacks of some type of standardization
                    > process being in
                    > its history. At least with B in Luke and John, that
                    > process must
                    > have been in the late 2nd century if it is indeed
                    > such a process.
                    > Just some food for thought.
                    >
                    > paz,
                    >
                    > Bill Warren
                    > Director of the Center for New Testament Textual
                    > Studies
                    > Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament
                    > and Greek
                    > New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
                    >
                    >
                    > On May 22, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Mark Thunderson wrote:
                    >
                    > > Dear List:
                    > >
                    > > I have been reading both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
                    > for
                    > > some time, and, like many others, must conclude
                    > that
                    > > there is a link between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
                    > The
                    > > link was first recognized and discussed by
                    > > Tischendorf, and then by many others including
                    > Wieland
                    > > Willker who states:
                    > >
                    > > "The writing style [of Vaticanus] is very similar
                    > to
                    > > that of Sinaiticus. [Indeed,] it is reasonable to
                    > > assume that both codices have been written in the
                    > same
                    > > scriptorium or at least the same place at around
                    > the
                    > > same time."
                    > >
                    > > It is very unlikely that one would write such a
                    > > statement if indeed they had not read both
                    > manuscripts
                    > > and seen the obvious semblance between the two.
                    > > However, for me the resemblance is no longer a
                    > subject
                    > > of speculation, but rather one that needs to be
                    > > interpreted. Hence, I would like to suggest to the
                    > > list the following hypothesis:
                    > >
                    > > 1. Codex Sinaiticus is the exemplar for Vaticanus.
                    > >
                    > > I raise the hypothesis because of the obvious and
                    > > laborious attempts within Vaticanus to emulate -
                    > if
                    > > not Codex Sinaiticus - then the same exemplar of
                    > Codex
                    > > Sinaiticus. In which case, Sinaiticus is more
                    > > faithful to that exemplar. Perhaps one of the most
                    > > convincing features that Vaticanus is using
                    > SInaiticus
                    > > is the way the lines begin and end. There is a
                    > clear
                    > > attempt in Vaticanus to emulate the beginning and
                    > end
                    > > of lines - even down to the exact letter, and even
                    > (in
                    > > the New Testament) the way that books end.
                    > >
                    > > One may object to this hypothesis saying, "The
                    > lines
                    > > in Vaticanus only match those of Sinaiticus every
                    > 3rd
                    > > or 4th line repetitiously." Yes, Indeed! This is
                    > > precisely my point. If the exemplar for Vaticanus
                    > had
                    > > 4 columns - and Vaticanus only has 3 column - then
                    > > this is precisely why we get this reoccurring
                    > sequence
                    > > of identicle lines between the two manuscripts.
                    > This
                    > > seems like a perfectly reasonable assumption.
                    > >
                    > > Again, one may object saying, "We know that
                    > Vaticanus
                    > > has come first." This is mere speculation, which
                    > has
                    > > not dealt reasonably with the evidence. It is
                    > > possible, however, that Vaticanus might have been
                    > > written prior to Sinaiticus, but, if this is the
                    > case,
                    > > then one may then argue that Sinaiticus represents
                    > > more faithfully the exemplar used by Vaticanus.
                    > This
                    > > would also imply that the exemplar for Vaticanus
                    > was
                    > > either the manuscript of Pamphilius, or perhaps
                    > even
                    > > that of Origin (this is reasonable to assume,
                    > since
                    > > the manuscript would be at least only 100 years
                    > old at
                    > > the time it was used - maybe less, may more).
                    > However,
                    > > to extrapolate on this would means we would have
                    > to
                    > > agree upon prior assumptions.
                    > >
                    > > And, no doubt there might be other objections and
                    > > commendations which I cannot raise at this time.
                    > > However, my own reasoning suggests that this would
                    > > answer many questions surrounding the appearance
                    > of
                    > > several variants between the two manuscripts, not
                    > to
                    > > mention many other things surrounding their
                    > production
                    > > and publication.
                    > >
                    > > I welcome any comments from the list. What do you
                    > > think and how do you think?
                    > >
                    > > Sincerely,
                    > >
                    > > Mark Thunderson.
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    __________________________________________________________Boardwalk
                    >
                    > > for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now
                    > (it's updated for
                    > > today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
                    > >
                    >
                    http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >



                    ____________________________________________________________________________________Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
                  • Mark Thunderson
                    Dear Webb: Thank you for your reply. As for your theorizing with respect to my hypothesis, while it certainly sounds thorough, my own experience in matters
                    Message 9 of 21 , May 29, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Webb:

                      Thank you for your reply. As for your theorizing with
                      respect to my hypothesis, while it certainly sounds
                      thorough, my own experience in matters like this is
                      that the hypothesis that Aleph is the exemplar for
                      Vaticanus is delicate. In other words, methodological
                      assumptions regarding the hypothesis need to specially
                      crafted and applied with precision. The good part, is
                      that testing has already begun.

                      I, too, don't know what the group thinks. But my hope
                      is that this generation might move beyond trivial
                      variants and worn out ideas to form an opinion about
                      these two great documents. Your assumption concerning
                      that actions of scribal emmendations and a common
                      scriptorium seems sound, but theology trumps reason in
                      matters like this (i.e., I don't subscribe to a common
                      scriptorium for both manuscripts - It seems absurd to
                      me). If one assumes an empirical approach, then
                      theological duels must be taken into consideration
                      (hence my use of the word "delicate" above).

                      Therefore, as for your own refinement to the
                      hypothesis, I agree in principle that "If B is a copy
                      of Aleph, the great majority of corrections in B will
                      not correspond to corrections in Aleph." But only if
                      the premise is that either (a) there were no prior
                      "corrections" or (b) the corrections within Aleph were
                      taken over as true blue "corrections," and not prior
                      "corruptions." But in praxis this is only a half
                      truth.

                      As for the second part of your refinement to the
                      hypothesis that "If
                      both were copies of a third ms, there will be
                      significant and regular correlation between the
                      corrections in B and the corrections in Aleph" - well
                      this is very much the case! But, why "corrections?"
                      Scribal tinkering within the pages of both Sinaiticus
                      and Vaticanus continued for a very long time after the
                      production of the manuscripts themselves. The main
                      text inside the columns, and scribal emmendations made
                      during production are of chief concern, right?

                      Sincerely,

                      Mark Thunderson.



                      --- Webb <webb@...> wrote:

                      > Regarding the hypothesis of Aleph being the exemplar
                      > for B:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > To me as a non-expert, this sounds like a relatively
                      > straightforward
                      > hypothesis to prove or disprove. As a meaningful
                      > hypothesis, it should
                      > result in specific predictions that can be checked,
                      > and concrete (if rough)
                      > thresholds for failure and success of the hypothesis
                      > should be established
                      > before testing begins.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > I don't know what the group thinks, but I would
                      > expect there to be a very
                      > clear relationship between the corrector of B and
                      > Aleph-in fact, one could
                      > even expect Aleph to have identical corrections at
                      > the same place as B
                      > periodically, since if the corrector had a second
                      > exemplar or a tradition
                      > that he was very confident of, and he found that B
                      > was "wrong", yet Aleph
                      > agreed, he might in principle feel he had the
                      > authority to conform Aleph to
                      > what he knew to be "right" while he was at it. On
                      > the other hand, if Aleph
                      > and B were, as some scholars hold, both written at
                      > the same time in the same
                      > scriptorium for the emperor Constantine (see
                      > Metzger, Text of the NT, pp.
                      > 47-48), then Aleph(c) and B(c) could be expected to
                      > have very many identical
                      > corrected readings. That is, if B is copied from
                      > Aleph, there will be
                      > numerous Aleph(c) readings which B* gets right
                      > without correction. But if
                      > Aleph and B were both copied by ear at the same
                      > time, then errors in reading
                      > the text aloud will result in identical places
                      > where, upon checking, both
                      > will be found to have the same error, and will be
                      > corrected. So the
                      > hypothesis could be boiled down thus:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > If B is a copy of Aleph, the great majority of
                      > corrections in B will not
                      > correspond to corrections in Alelph. (Exceptions
                      > could be expected in cases
                      > where the identical mistake could be predicted to
                      > occur independently.) If
                      > both were copies of a third ms, there will be
                      > significant and regular
                      > correlation between the corrections in B and the
                      > corrections in Aleph.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > All this is subject to checking against the
                      > possibility that B and Aleph,
                      > after the former was copied from the latter and
                      > corrected, were
                      > systematically re-corrected and conformed by a later
                      > hand.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Webb Mealy
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > _____
                      >
                      > From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                      > [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                      > Of William Warren
                      > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:47 PM
                      > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Quest for an
                      > Exemplar for Vaticanus
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Mark, as a question, how would you deal with the
                      > tremendously close
                      > relationships between B and P75 and P4 with your
                      > view? Seems to me that
                      > these demand that the B type of text is being copied
                      > faithfully from about
                      > the end of the 2nd century until the early 4th
                      > (until B). I've struggled
                      > with the B-Aleph relationship in this light since B
                      > seems to have a more
                      > independent thread of professional copying in its
                      > background than what we
                      > see in Aleph. Perhaps Aleph had contact with the
                      > text tradition represented
                      > by P4-P75-B rather than B coming from Aleph. Of
                      > course, you could postulate
                      > that Aleph came from an even earlier tradition, but
                      > that seems to defy our
                      > actually mss data at least at this point. Also, of
                      > course, with Aleph
                      > including all of the NT plus Barnabas and the
                      > Shepherd and B including
                      > nearly all of the NT, that would require a later
                      > date as far as the canon
                      > for the text to be somewhat standardized (somewhat
                      > is the key word here)
                      > over virtually the entire NT canon. Whenever a
                      > text-type cuts across large
                      > amounts of the NT canon (the LXX is a different
                      > issue on this, so I'll just
                      > stick to the NT), it is either very close to the
                      > original or smacks of some
                      > type of standardization process being in its
                      > history. At least with B in
                      > Luke and John, that process must have been in the
                      > late 2nd century if it is
                      > indeed such a process. Just some food for thought.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > paz,
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Bill Warren
                      >
                      > Director of the Center for New Testament Textual
                      > Studies
                      >
                      > Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament
                      > and Greek
                      >
                      > New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > On May 22, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Mark Thunderson wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Dear List:
                      >
                      > I have been reading both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
                      > for
                      > some time, and, like many others, must conclude that
                      > there is a link between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
                      > The
                      > link was first recognized and discussed by
                      > Tischendorf, and then by many others including
                      > Wieland
                      > Willker who states:
                      >
                      > "The writing style [of Vaticanus] is very similar to
                      > that of Sinaiticus. [Indeed,] it is reasonable to
                      > assume that both codices have been written in the
                      > same
                      > scriptorium or at least the same place at around the
                      > same time."
                      >
                      > It is very unlikely that one would write such a
                      > statement if indeed they had not read both
                      > manuscripts
                      > and seen the obvious semblance between the two.
                      > However, for me the resemblance is no longer a
                      > subject
                      > of speculation, but rather one that needs to be
                      > interpreted. Hence, I would like to suggest to the
                      > list the following hypothesis:
                      >
                      > 1. Codex Sinaiticus is the exemplar for Vaticanus.
                      >
                      > I raise the hypothesis because of the obvious and
                      > laborious attempts within Vaticanus to emulate - if
                      > not Codex Sinaiticus - then the same exemplar of
                      > Codex
                      > Sinaiticus. In which case, Sinaiticus is more
                      > faithful to that exemplar. Perhaps one of the most
                      > convincing features that Vaticanus is using
                      > SInaiticus
                      > is the way the lines begin and end. There is a clear
                      > attempt in Vaticanus to emulate the beginning and
                      > end
                      > of lines - even down to the exact letter, and even
                      > (in
                      > the New Testament) the way that books end.
                      >
                      >
                      === message truncated ===




                      ____________________________________________________________________________________Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
                      http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
                    • Mark Thunderson
                      Dear James Snapp, Thank you for your reply. Your -shall we say - cynical? evaluation of the hypothesis that Aleph is the exemplar for B is surprising, to say
                      Message 10 of 21 , May 29, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear James Snapp,

                        Thank you for your reply. Your -shall we say -
                        cynical? evaluation of the hypothesis that Aleph is
                        the exemplar for B is surprising, to say the least.
                        Nevertheless, let me reply to your objections in
                        order:

                        1. With respect to different book lists, I see this as
                        supporting rather than undermining the hypothesis.
                        See my response to Paz in this same email thread
                        where I discuss briefly the different book lists. This
                        will provide more insight to to this hypothesis.

                        2. With respect to varying instances of parablepsis,
                        Can you give an example? Let's see.

                        3. You say that there is not a clear, conscious nor
                        consistent attempt in B to emulate the beginning
                        and end of lines in Aleph. For an example you point
                        to the list of the naming of the Apostles in the
                        Gospel of Mark chapter three. While it is true that
                        Vaticanus does not follow the exact *presentation* of
                        the text in Sinaiticus (in this instance), my
                        assertion of a correspondence every three or four
                        lines still remains very true.

                        To be sure, lets look more closely at your example:

                        The naming of the Apostles in Vaticanus is found in
                        the 11th column of the Gospel of Mark and encompasses
                        18 lines.

                        The names of the 12 Apostles in Sinaiticus are found
                        in the 12th column and encompass exactly 24 lines.
                        Now, in Vaticanus, of the 18 lines that encompass this
                        segment of text, there are 4 lines that begin the same
                        as Sinaiticus, there are 4 lines that end the same as
                        Sinaiticus, and there is one line that is identical to
                        Sinaiticus. Therefore, even in this very difficult
                        example which you provided the principle of emulation
                        (which I stated in a prior email) still holds true.

                        4. With respect to textual disagreements between the
                        two manuscripts, this is a very interesting point,
                        especially on a textual criticism list. However, it is
                        precisely because of the *nature* of textual variation
                        between these two documents (besides obvious instances
                        of errors in sight) that I would argue, once again,
                        support rather than undermine the hypothesis that
                        Aleph is the exemplar for Vaticanus.

                        5. Your fifth objection is linked to your fourth
                        objection. Nevertheless, wherever or whenever the
                        Sacred Name is written, in full or in contracted form,
                        you have correctly discerned meaning on a very subtle
                        level, even extending to this hypothesis. I agree
                        with you on this point.

                        Sincerely,

                        Mark Thunderson


                        --- "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@...> wrote:

                        > Mark Thunderson,
                        >
                        > I think it's Extremely Unlikely that Codex
                        > Sinaiticus is the exemplar
                        > for Vaticanus. Here are some reasons why it's
                        > beyond the bounds of
                        > plausibility:
                        >
                        > (1) Different book-lists.
                        > (2) Sometimes B's scribe committed parablepsis
                        > where there is no
                        > such feature in Aleph, and vice versa.
                        > (3) There is *not* a clear conscious consistent
                        > attempt in B to
                        > emulate the beginning and end of lines in Aleph.
                        > Where
                        > correspondence between line-endings exists, it is
                        > coincidental and/or
                        > is due to a common desire to begin certain sections
                        > neatly at the
                        > beginning of a line. But repeatedly, B's scribe
                        > does not follow
                        > Aleph's format in exactly the places where it would
                        > be easy and
                        > convenient to do so (for instance, in the list of
                        > apostles' names in
                        > Mark 3).
                        > (4) Textual disagreements between the two.
                        > (5) B's scribe in the NT tends to contract fewer
                        > nomina sacra that
                        > Aleph's. They also often treat numerical amounts
                        > different; Aleph
                        > uses gematria in places where B has the word written
                        > longhand. (If
                        > it were just a question of use as an exemplar, this
                        > one might be
                        > surmountable if one figures that B was produced by
                        > dictation -- but
                        > then the scribe wouldn't be capable of line-for-line
                        > comparison in
                        > the first place.)
                        >
                        > MT: >>> "If the exemplar for Vaticanus had 4
                        > columns - and Vaticanus
                        > only has 3 column - then this is precisely why we
                        > get this
                        > reoccurring sequence of identicle lines between the
                        > two manuscripts."
                        > <<<
                        >
                        > On the other hand, one could figure that if two
                        > scribes start writing
                        > the same text, one using columns about 13 letters
                        > wide and the other
                        > using columns about 17 letters wide, they will tend
                        > to occasionally
                        > correspond, simply because the multiples of 13 and
                        > the multiples of
                        > 17 occasionally approximately correspond. This will
                        > tend to be most
                        > obvious at the beginning of pericopes, and the
                        > pattern will tend to
                        > dissolve as variants, nomina sacra, and
                        > numeral-contractions take
                        > effect, and then restart where the next major
                        > section starts.
                        >
                        > MT: >>> "Again, one may object saying, "We know
                        > that Vaticanus has
                        > come first." This is mere speculation, which has
                        > not dealt
                        > reasonably with the evidence." <<<
                        >
                        > Vaticanus doesn't have the Eusebian Canons, and its
                        > treatment of the
                        > nomina sacra seems less developed than that in Aleph
                        > (unless
                        > Vaticanus' scribes had a (theological?) motivation
                        > to use a short
                        > list of nomina sacra). Scenarios can be imagined,
                        > though, in which
                        > Sinaiticus was made before Vaticanus. (Skeat's
                        > theory is one such
                        > example, in which manuscript-makers realized, after
                        > making
                        > Sinaiticus, that a more compact format would be more
                        > economical, and
                        > used the more compact format for B.)
                        >
                        > MT: >>> "This would also imply that the exemplar
                        > for Vaticanus was
                        > either the manuscript of Pamphilius, or perhaps even
                        > that of Origin
                        > (this is reasonable to assume, since the manuscript
                        > would be at least
                        > only 100 years old at the time it was used - maybe
                        > less, may more)."
                        >
                        > In theory, if B was made in Caesarea, it would be
                        > possible for its
                        > scribes to have accessed MSS which had once belonged
                        > to Origen. But
                        > where do Origen's writings show that he used a NT
                        > text that
                        > consistently resembled the text of Aleph or B?
                        >
                        > MT: >>> ... What do you think? ... <<<
                        >
                        > I don't think there's any chance that Aleph was the
                        > exemplar of B. I
                        > do think that the historical relationship between
                        > Aleph and B is
                        > closer than just a vague association with the same
                        > scriptorium, but I
                        > don't think Skeat was correct about the details; his
                        > idea still
                        > leaves a lot left unexplained. I think that maybe,
                        > perhaps,
                        > conceivably, the historical link between B and Aleph
                        > could possibly
                        > go like this two-stage story:
                        >
                        > (1) Vaticanus was produced for Eusebius, following
                        > particular orders
                        > from Eusebius, but without his direct supervision,
                        > by a young Euzoius
                        > and friends. When Eusebius received the codex, he
                        > decided not to use
                        > it because it was textually so unlike the copies
                        > that were being
                        > produced under his own direct supervision. But he
                        > liked it and kept
                        > it at Caesarea.
                        > (2) About three decades later, Euzoius and Acacius
                        > -- still at
                        > Caesarea and now running the place -- notice that
                        > some of the old
                        > papyri in the library are decaying, so, in order to
                        > speedily preserve
                        > and simultaneously organize the contents of the
                        > papyri of books of
                        > the Bible, they collect the best (however
                        > dilapidated) old copies,
                        > prepare codex-materials, and make a new codex based
                        > on the old
                        > copies. Euzoius' involvement in both codices
                        > accounts for something
                        > Kirsopp Lake noticed regarding the lettering in the
                        > superscriptions
                        > of Acts:
                        >
                        > "The similarity is extremely great, and is scarcely
                        > explicable unless
                        > we assume that both hands come from the same
                        > scriptorium, while the
                        > differences might conceivably be taken merely to
                        > mean that there is a
                        > difference of time between the two hands, -- that is
                        > to say that
                        > the /praxeis/ of Codex Vaticanus was written by a
                        > scribe in his
                        > youth, and the /praxeis/ of Codex Sinaiticus by the
                        > same scribe in
                        > his old age."
                        >
                        > If Euzoius was an underling scribe when he helped
                        > produce B, and
                        > later served as a diorthotes of Aleph, it could
                        > explain a lot. And
                        > it could potentially imply that the common ancestor
                        > of Aleph and B in
                        > any given book is not something way back in the
                        > early second century;
                        > their common ancestor could be the mother or
                        > grandmother of two MSS
                        > stored at Caesarea -- one used by Eusebius, the
                        > other used by Euzoius
                        > (which could still be an excellent MS; it just
                        > wouldn't be as ancient
                        > as Hort supposed).
                        >
                        > Yours in Christ,
                        >
                        > James Snapp, Jr.
                        > Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                        > Tipton, IN (USA)
                        > www.curtisvillechristian.org/KataMarkon.html
                        >
                        >
                        >




                        ____________________________________________________________________________________Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
                        http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
                      • Mark Thunderson
                        Dear Tim: Thank you for your reply. The application of mathmatics to manuscripts is interesting. I have briefy looked at numbers and Vaticanus and
                        Message 11 of 21 , May 29, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Tim:

                          Thank you for your reply. The application of
                          mathmatics to manuscripts is interesting. I have
                          briefy looked at numbers and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus,
                          resulting in great surprise. The numerology in these
                          two manuscripts is very interesting, especially since
                          there are Egyptian roots and/or ties to both
                          manuscripts. I am surprised that little research has
                          been done in this respect by textual critics.

                          However, I am skeptical to the extent that this method
                          alone would be definitive in supporting the hypothesis
                          that Sinaiticus is the exemplar for Vaticanus. At
                          this time, I lack the resources to explore your
                          suggestion in depth.

                          Sincerely,

                          Mark Thunderson.



                          --- yennifmit <tfinney@...> wrote:

                          > Dear Mark,
                          >
                          > I seem to recall that Milne and Skeat looked at the
                          > question of common
                          > scribes in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and concluded
                          > that one of the
                          > correctors of one manuscript may be a scribe of the
                          > other. (Can't
                          > remember the specifics.)
                          >
                          > Milne, H. J. M. and T. C. Skeat. 1938. Scribes and
                          > correctors of the
                          > Codex Sinaiticus. Oxford: Oxford University
                          > Press.
                          >
                          > Your thesis that Vaticanus emulates the lineation of
                          > Sinaiticus can be
                          > tested statistically. Why not do such a test to
                          > decide whether what
                          > you see could merely be a chance occurrence?
                          >
                          > An outline off the top of my head:
                          >
                          > (1) Take a reasonably large book, say Matt.
                          > (2) Count how many times a line in Sinaiticus starts
                          > with the same
                          > word as a line in Vaticanus. This is the observed
                          > frequency.
                          > (3) Estimate how often you would expect coincidence
                          > of the first word
                          > of a line if the MSS had textually similar but
                          > nevertheless different
                          > exemplars. This is the expected frequency. It might
                          > be a bit tricky to
                          > work out, and the validity of the test result
                          > depends on getting it
                          > right. You could get an estimate by taking two
                          > fairly similar texts
                          > (say W&H and N-A), dividing one up according to the
                          > average number of
                          > letters per line in Sinaiticus and the other
                          > according to the letters
                          > per line of Vaticanus then counting coincident first
                          > words or word
                          > fragments. For good measure, you could then reverse
                          > the 'exemplars' to
                          > obtain a second estimate, then average the two for a
                          > final estimate of
                          > the expected frequency. You would need to be careful
                          > when dividing
                          > words at the ends of lines. For one thing, you would
                          > need to get into
                          > the mind of the corresponding scribe to emulate when
                          > (and where--N.B.
                          > syllables) he or she would have divided a word and
                          > when he or she
                          > would have miniaturised the ending.
                          > (4) Do a chi-squared test to determine whether the
                          > observed and
                          > expected frequencies are significantly different.
                          >
                          > Step 3 has a number of difficulties. For a start,
                          > the orthography of
                          > modern editions differs from 01 and 03--the old
                          > texts are more
                          > economical. You might need to add a letter or two
                          > per line to compensate.
                          >
                          > Best
                          >
                          > Tim Finney
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Mark
                          > Thunderson
                          > <mark.thunderson@...> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Dear List:
                          > >
                          > > I have been reading both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
                          > for
                          > > some time, and, like many others, must conclude
                          > that
                          > > there is a link between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
                          > The
                          > > link was first recognized and discussed by
                          > > Tischendorf, and then by many others including
                          > Wieland
                          > > Willker who states:
                          > >
                          > > "The writing style [of Vaticanus] is very similar
                          > to
                          > > that of Sinaiticus. [Indeed,] it is reasonable to
                          > > assume that both codices have been written in the
                          > same
                          > > scriptorium or at least the same place at around
                          > the
                          > > same time."
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          >




                          ____________________________________________________________________________________
                          Never miss an email again!
                          Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
                          http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
                        • James Snapp, Jr.
                          Mark Thunderson, (1) Regarding the different book lists and the different orders: the page-numbering (described in Skeat, I think, in the 1999 article)
                          Message 12 of 21 , Jun 4, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Mark Thunderson,

                            (1) Regarding the different book lists and the different orders:
                            the page-numbering (described in Skeat, I think, in the 1999 article)
                            militates against your theory. And the appearance-versus-non-
                            appearance of I & II Maccabees, and Barnabas, implies that there was
                            no particular drive to make the contents of the one codex resemble
                            the contents of the other. (Btw, "paz" was just Dr. Warren's way of
                            signing off. Took me a minute to figure out what you meant!)

                            2) MT: "With respect to varying instances of parablepsis, can you
                            give an example? Let's see."

                            I'm away from my files at the moment, but off the top of my head, the
                            parablepsis in Aleph at Mk. 16:1 and 16:6 are among the many examples
                            where Aleph skips text that B includes.

                            (3) MT: "You say that there is not a clear, conscious nor
                            consistent attempt in B to emulate the beginning and end of lines in
                            Aleph."

                            Correct.

                            MT: "For an example you point to the list of the naming of the
                            Apostles in the Gospel of Mark chapter three. While it is true that
                            Vaticanus does not follow the exact *presentation* of the text in
                            Sinaiticus (in this instance), my assertion of a correspondence every
                            three or four lines still remains very true."

                            But that degree of occasional correspondence of line-endings is what
                            we ought to expect to naturally occur, as the multiples of 13 and of
                            17 approximately correspond.

                            MT: "The naming of the Apostles in Vaticanus is found in the 11th
                            column of the Gospel of Mark and encompasses 18 lines. The names of
                            the 12 Apostles in Sinaiticus are found in the 12th column and
                            encompass exactly 24 lines. Now, in Vaticanus, of the 18 lines that
                            encompass this segment of text, there are 4 lines that begin the same
                            as Sinaiticus, there are 4 lines that end the same as Sinaiticus, and
                            there is one line that is identical to Sinaiticus. Therefore, even
                            in this very difficult example which you provided the principle of
                            emulation (which I stated in a prior email) still holds true."

                            The thing to notice is that in Aleph, the names are formatted in a
                            one-name-per-line arrangement. Such an arrangement is neat; it is
                            readable; it is helpful. This is precisely the sort of place where,
                            if a copyist desired to emulate the arrangement of Aleph, that desire
                            would manifest itslef. But instead, B's copyist treated the names-
                            list like any other part of the text. If Aleph had been his
                            exemplar, that would be the /exact opposite/ of format-emulation.

                            (4) MT: "With respect to textual disagreements between the two
                            manuscripts, this is a very interesting point, especially on a
                            textual criticism list. However, it is precisely because of the
                            *nature* of textual variation between these two documents (besides
                            obvious instances of errors in sight) that I would argue, once again,
                            support rather than undermine the hypothesis that Aleph is the
                            exemplar for Vaticanus."

                            I'm not sure what you mean. Where Aleph skips text that B includes,
                            that weighs in against the use of Aleph as the exemplar of B. And
                            where Aleph has words in a different order than what appears in B,
                            that weighs in against the use of Aleph as the exemplar of B. And
                            where Aleph has a word which is rivalled by a different word that
                            appears in B, that, also, weighs in against the use of Aleph as the
                            exemplar of B.

                            In addition, B's orthography is different from Aleph's, and this is
                            another factor which points away from the idea that B's scribe was
                            attempting to emulate Aleph's format.

                            There might be a glimmer of hope for something loosely related to the
                            theory that Aleph was B's exemplar: it would be interesting to see
                            how closely B's format and content corresponds to the format and
                            content of the cancel-sheets in Aleph. Close correspondence between
                            B's text and Aleph's cancel-sheets (closer than what is usual between
                            B and Aleph) might suggest a relationship between the two.

                            Yours in Christ,

                            James Snapp, Jr.
                            Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                            Tipton, Indiana (USA)
                            www.textexcavation.com/marcanarchetypescans.html
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.