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
      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 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.