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

Exemplars, Scribes, and Errors of Fright

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Jun 9, 2007
      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 2 of 10 , Jun 9, 2007
        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 3 of 10 , Jun 11, 2007
          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 4 of 10 , Jun 12, 2007
            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 5 of 10 , Jun 12, 2007
              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 6 of 10 , Jun 15, 2007
                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 7 of 10 , Jun 15, 2007
                  "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 8 of 10 , Jun 16, 2007
                    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.