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

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Exemplars, Scribes, and Errors of Fright

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.