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

2 variants in Judges 18:30

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Buck
    There are a couple of variants in Judges 18:30 that go quite a ways back into antiquity (pre-Vaticanus anyway). I d like to see what we can dig up on them. 1.
    Message 1 of 10 , Jun 8, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      There are a couple of variants in Judges 18:30 that go quite a ways
      back into antiquity (pre-Vaticanus anyway). I'd like to see what we
      can dig up on them.

      1. Moses vs. Manasseh
      There would seem to be 3 possible readings here:
      a) HSNM which is the hypothetical base for the KJV; any mss with it?
      b) HSM which lies behind the Vulgate reading; any others (e.g. OG)?
      c) HSNM with the N in superscript, which is the MT reading. Currently
      pointed for "Manasseh"; any evidence of earlier unpointed mss?

      2. Land vs. Ark
      "until the captivity of the land" (TsAH) seems anachronous. "until
      the captivity of the ark" (NWAH) seems to fit the context better, and
      is explained as an easily understandable scribal error. Questions:

      a) what is the mss evidence for NWAH?
      b) what other examples are there of a Tsade being read from waw-nun?
      c) Is this error more likely to have been made in Paleohebrew--or
      perhaps in trascribing therefrom to Square letters?

      DB
    • A. Dirkzwager
      Dear Daniel, Concerning the difference Moses/Manasseh an interesting note can be found in E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis-Assen
      Message 2 of 10 , Jun 9, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Daniel,

        Concerning the difference Moses/Manasseh an interesting note can be
        found in E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible,
        Minneapolis-Assen 1992², p. 57.

        Arie

        A. Dirkzwager
        Hoeselt, Belgium
      • Mark Thunderson
        Dear List: Here is an example of variants that occur at the time of producing the manuscript. The examples that I give are (first) from Vaticanus. And then I
        Message 3 of 10 , Jun 9, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear List:

          Here is an example of variants that occur at the time
          of producing the manuscript. The examples that I give
          are (first) from Vaticanus. And then I show how the
          variants are derived from Sinaiticus (or an exemplar
          very similar to Sinaiticus). You can see the images
          of the Codices here:

          http://www.geocities.com/good.seed/AlephandVaticanus.html

          This is more evidence that (1) Sinaiticus preceeds
          Vaticanus, and (2) that Sinaiticus is the exemplar for
          Vaticanus.

          Sincerely,

          Mark Thunderson



          ____________________________________________________________________________________
          Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.
          http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php
        • George F Somsel
          Unfortunately, none of the papyri listed in Comfort and Barrett have this verse. Is there another which does appear in the early papyri? george gfsomsel
          Message 4 of 10 , Jun 9, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Unfortunately, none of the papyri listed in Comfort and Barrett have this verse.  Is there another which does appear in the early papyri?
             
            george
            gfsomsel
             
            Therefore, O faithful Christian, search for truth, hear truth,
            learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
            defend the truth till death.
             
            - Jan Hus
            _________


            ----- Original Message ----
            From: Mark Thunderson <mark.thunderson@...>
            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Saturday, June 9, 2007 9:23:06 AM
            Subject: [textualcriticism] Exemplars, Scribes, and Errors of Fright

            Dear List:

            Here is an example of variants that occur at the time
            of producing the manuscript. The examples that I give
            are (first) from Vaticanus. And then I show how the
            variants are derived from Sinaiticus (or an exemplar
            very similar to Sinaiticus). You can see the images
            of the Codices here:

            http://www.geocitie s.com/good. seed/AlephandVat icanus.html

            This is more evidence that (1) Sinaiticus preceeds
            Vaticanus, and (2) that Sinaiticus is the exemplar for
            Vaticanus.

            Sincerely,

            Mark Thunderson

            ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
            Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.
            http://new.toolbar. yahoo.com/ toolbar/features /mail/index. php




            Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
          • yennifmit
            Dear Mark, While it is noteworthy that both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus stumble at the same place, I don t see this as evidence that Vaticanus was copied from
            Message 5 of 10 , Jun 11, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Mark,

              While it is noteworthy that both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus stumble at
              the same place, I don't see this as evidence that Vaticanus was copied
              from Sinaiticus. Instead, I see evidence of confusion in the
              manuscript tradition and/or in the minds of the respective scribes
              over the correct inflection of UIOS, whether nominative (UIOS),
              vocative (UIE), or genitive (UIOU).

              The fact that two manuscripts have scribal alterations at the same
              place does not imply that one is the exemplar of the other.

              There are a lot of textual variations between Sinaiticus and
              Vaticanus. To demonstrate that one is the exemplar of the other, you
              would have to collate their texts then explain why the copy (Vaticanus
              according to your hypothesis) differs so much from the exemplar
              (Sinaiticus, in your hypothesis). You would have to demonstrate that
              the sum total of observed differences is consistent with an
              exemplar/copy pair.

              It seems to me that the texts are too disparate to support your
              hypothesis. (Vaticanus, like Sinaiticus, would have been a major
              undertaking from an economic perspective. If I had been in charge of
              the production, I would have reassigned any scribe who kept making
              changes to the text of the exemplar.)

              Best

              Tim Finney

              --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Mark Thunderson
              <mark.thunderson@...> wrote:
              >
              > Dear List:
              >
              > Here is an example of variants that occur at the time
              > of producing the manuscript. The examples that I give
              > are (first) from Vaticanus. And then I show how the
              > variants are derived from Sinaiticus (or an exemplar
              > very similar to Sinaiticus). You can see the images
              > of the Codices here:
              >
              > http://www.geocities.com/good.seed/AlephandVaticanus.html
              >
              > This is more evidence that (1) Sinaiticus preceeds
              > Vaticanus, and (2) that Sinaiticus is the exemplar for
              > Vaticanus.
              >
              > Sincerely,
              >
              > Mark Thunderson
              >
              >
              >
              >
              ____________________________________________________________________________________
              > Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're
              surfing.
              > http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php
              >
            • Jovial
              I would agree that to conclude that Vaticanus was copied directly from Sinaiticus is over-reaching. I think they probably had a common origin, but they vary
              Message 6 of 10 , Jun 12, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                I would agree that to conclude that Vaticanus was copied directly from
                Sinaiticus is over-reaching. I think they probably had a common origin, but
                they vary too much for one to have come directly from the other. The world
                probably no longer has the text that is their common ancestor, but it sure
                would help fit a lot of the puzzle pieces together if we did!

                Joe


                ----- Original Message -----
                From: yennifmit
                To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 8:45 AM
                Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Exemplars, Scribes, and Errors of Fright


                Dear Mark,

                While it is noteworthy that both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus stumble at
                the same place, I don't see this as evidence that Vaticanus was copied
                from Sinaiticus. Instead, I see evidence of confusion in the
                manuscript tradition and/or in the minds of the respective scribes
                over the correct inflection of UIOS, whether nominative (UIOS),
                vocative (UIE), or genitive (UIOU).

                The fact that two manuscripts have scribal alterations at the same
                place does not imply that one is the exemplar of the other.

                There are a lot of textual variations between Sinaiticus and
                Vaticanus. To demonstrate that one is the exemplar of the other, you
                would have to collate their texts then explain why the copy (Vaticanus
                according to your hypothesis) differs so much from the exemplar
                (Sinaiticus, in your hypothesis). You would have to demonstrate that
                the sum total of observed differences is consistent with an
                exemplar/copy pair.

                It seems to me that the texts are too disparate to support your
                hypothesis. (Vaticanus, like Sinaiticus, would have been a major
                undertaking from an economic perspective. If I had been in charge of
                the production, I would have reassigned any scribe who kept making
                changes to the text of the exemplar.)

                Best

                Tim Finney

                --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Mark Thunderson
                <mark.thunderson@...> wrote:
                >
                > Dear List:
                >
                > Here is an example of variants that occur at the time
                > of producing the manuscript. The examples that I give
                > are (first) from Vaticanus. And then I show how the
                > variants are derived from Sinaiticus (or an exemplar
                > very similar to Sinaiticus). You can see the images
                > of the Codices here:
                >
                > http://www.geocities.com/good.seed/AlephandVaticanus.html
                >
                > This is more evidence that (1) Sinaiticus preceeds
                > Vaticanus, and (2) that Sinaiticus is the exemplar for
                > Vaticanus.
                >
                > Sincerely,
                >
                > Mark Thunderson
                >
                >
                >
                >
                __________________________________________________________
                > Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're
                surfing.
                > http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php
                >
              • Mark Thunderson
                Dear Tim: Thank you for your thoughtful reply. With respect to the variant at Matthew 20:31, which I posted at
                Message 7 of 10 , Jun 12, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Tim:

                  Thank you for your thoughtful reply. With respect to
                  the variant at Matthew 20:31, which I posted at

                  http://www.geocities.com/good.seed/AlephandVaticanus.html

                  I agree that there is confusion at this point in BOTH
                  manuscripts, I disagree, however, over the nature of
                  the confusion. For instance, in Vaticanus the
                  confusion arises at the moment of writing the
                  manuscript, while in Sinaiticus the confusion arises
                  at a later time. We can see this plainly by the type
                  of emendations made by the scribe. In Vaticanus the
                  emendation is made by the original scribe. At the
                  moment of writing we see a hesitation by the scribe,
                  followed by the erasure of the last letter which he
                  wrote. In Sinaiticus this is no so. In Sinaiticus
                  the scribe finishes the line without any hesitation.
                  Its only later in the manuscript's history that the
                  text is subsequently emended. Still more, the
                  "confusion" which we see arising in both manuscripts
                  (Vaticanus at the time of publication and Sinaiticus
                  at a later point in history) is due to the *nature* of
                  what the original scribe of Sinaiticus wrote. In
                  other words, it was the unreadability of the text, the
                  inability of the see anything, i.e., any meaning, in
                  the "YeY" construction that forced a rewrite in
                  Vaticanus. But that this is NOT THE CASE with
                  Sinaiticus is easily discerned. In others, logic and
                  sound reasoning suggests that with this type of
                  variant the latter (Vaticanus) follows the former
                  (Sinaiticus). Once again, if we look carefully at the
                  text we are able to this truth.

                  While it is true that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have
                  textual variation is many places, it certainly is not
                  unreasonable to assume that the scribes of Vaticanus
                  had more than one exemplar before them. And it is
                  also reasonable to assume that the scribes of
                  Vaticanus held one manuscript as their primary
                  exemplar, i.e., Sinaiticus. This becomes more
                  apparent when we read at length these two manuscripts.
                  For instance, Sinaiticus again and again puts itself
                  forward as indeed an exemplar. In other words, it has
                  the character of a manuscript that was used for
                  exactly this purpose. There are many features to the
                  manuscript that suggest that its it reaches for and
                  achieves the scribal benchmark of divine hieroglyph -
                  in the truest sense of this word. However, Vaticanus
                  has more the character of a working document, true
                  enough, albeit one that took its place at the church
                  lectionary, pulpit, or the like. In other words, it
                  has more of an ecclesiastical character about it.
                  No surprisingly, it is housed in the Vatican Library
                  to this very day.

                  Finally, I too agree with your statement that if a
                  scribe altered the exemplar, this would warrant
                  dismissal. However, this assumes many things. For
                  example,

                  1. That the scribes were actually in agreement
                  concerning the authority of the exemplar(s) being
                  used.

                  2. That those responsible for the integrity of the
                  manuscript also took into consideration the "human
                  element" in the copying process. Surely, the scribes
                  of ages past were no less wise than those of today.
                  (Surely, their brains were the same size. Yes?)

                  3. The last qualification to your statement is that
                  theological disputes and convictions *did not* play a
                  role in the transmission of a manuscript. We, of
                  course, know that this is not the case. In other
                  words, theological concerns weighed heavily upon the
                  conscience of many in ages past. To be sure, recall
                  the order of books in Vaticanus and the order of books
                  in Sinaiticus. This is a profound theological
                  statement that far surpasses any mark of the
                  exemplar(s) used in the production process. But only
                  if one clearly understands what is being said. Its
                  too bad that few today really know what is being said.

                  Sincerely,

                  Mark Thunderson

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

                  > Dear Mark,
                  >
                  > While it is noteworthy that both Vaticanus and
                  > Sinaiticus stumble at
                  > the same place, I don't see this as evidence that
                  > Vaticanus was copied
                  > from Sinaiticus. Instead, I see evidence of
                  > confusion in the
                  > manuscript tradition and/or in the minds of the
                  > respective scribes
                  > over the correct inflection of UIOS, whether
                  > nominative (UIOS),
                  > vocative (UIE), or genitive (UIOU).
                  >
                  > The fact that two manuscripts have scribal
                  > alterations at the same
                  > place does not imply that one is the exemplar of the
                  > other.
                  >
                  > There are a lot of textual variations between
                  > Sinaiticus and
                  > Vaticanus. To demonstrate that one is the exemplar
                  > of the other, you
                  > would have to collate their texts then explain why
                  > the copy (Vaticanus
                  > according to your hypothesis) differs so much from
                  > the exemplar
                  > (Sinaiticus, in your hypothesis). You would have to
                  > demonstrate that
                  > the sum total of observed differences is consistent
                  > with an
                  > exemplar/copy pair.
                  >
                  > It seems to me that the texts are too disparate to
                  > support your
                  > hypothesis. (Vaticanus, like Sinaiticus, would have
                  > been a major
                  > undertaking from an economic perspective. If I had
                  > been in charge of
                  > the production, I would have reassigned any scribe
                  > who kept making
                  > changes to the text of the exemplar.)
                  >
                  > Best
                  >
                  > Tim Finney



                  ____________________________________________________________________________________
                  Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
                  Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
                  http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
                • Mark Thunderson
                  Dear Jovial: I can understand how one might come to a conclusion such as your own, given the number of publications that support your conclusion. But the best
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jun 15, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Jovial:

                    I can understand how one might come to a conclusion
                    such as your own, given the number of publications
                    that support your conclusion. But the best approach
                    is to assess the data on your own. Here is another
                    example which I supports that Vaticanus was copied
                    directly from SInaiticus:

                    http://www.geocities.com/good.seed/index.html

                    Please examine the page thoroughly. If this example
                    doesn't work, then I can provide another.

                    It seems to me, that when the text-critical guild says
                    "Vaticanus was not copied directly from Sinaiticus"
                    its for reasons outside of textual criticism.

                    Sincerely,

                    Mark Thunderson.


                    --- Jovial <jovial@...> wrote:

                    > I would agree that to conclude that Vaticanus was
                    > copied directly from
                    > Sinaiticus is over-reaching. I think they probably
                    > had a common origin, but
                    > they vary too much for one to have come directly
                    > from the other. The world
                    > probably no longer has the text that is their common
                    > ancestor, but it sure
                    > would help fit a lot of the puzzle pieces together
                    > if we did!
                    >
                    > Joe




                    ____________________________________________________________________________________
                    Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.
                    http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php
                  • Daniel Buck
                    ... Concerning the difference Moses/Manasseh an interesting note can be found in E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis-Assen 1992², p.
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jun 15, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      "A. Dirkzwager" wrote:
                      >> Dear Daniel,
                      Concerning the difference Moses/Manasseh an interesting note can be
                      found in E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible,
                      Minneapolis-Assen 1992², p. 57.<<

                      In my eagerness and not having ready access to a university Library, I
                      ordered a copy of Tov. To my great disappointment, page 57 said nothing
                      I hadn't already read 2 or 3 different places online, and did not
                      specifically address any of the questions I raised here.

                      I hope I can return it.

                      Daniel
                    • Arie Dirkzwager
                      My apologies. Arie
                      Message 10 of 10 , Jun 16, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        My apologies.

                        Arie


                        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel Buck" <bucksburg@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > "A. Dirkzwager" wrote:
                        > >> Dear Daniel,
                        > Concerning the difference Moses/Manasseh an interesting note can be
                        > found in E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible,
                        > Minneapolis-Assen 1992², p. 57.<<
                        >
                        > In my eagerness and not having ready access to a university Library, I
                        > ordered a copy of Tov. To my great disappointment, page 57 said nothing
                        > I hadn't already read 2 or 3 different places online, and did not
                        > specifically address any of the questions I raised here.
                        >
                        > I hope I can return it.
                        >
                        > Daniel
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.