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

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Peshitta confluence with the GreekTR/Byzantine

Expand Messages
  • Jovial
    ((((((((((((((((((((((( language background ... and another that went into pre-canned one-dimensional flights of confusion about the Vulgate and the King James
    Message 1 of 11 , Jul 10, 2007
      (((((((((((((((((((((((
      language background ... and another that went into pre-canned
      one-dimensional flights
      of confusion about the Vulgate and the King James Bible ... quite a
      different topic.
      ))))))))))))))))))))))))

      No...because you tried to use the KJV as a basis for understanding what is
      in the Byzantine Text. And if you are comparing the Byzantine with
      Alexandrian based on a KJV reading that agrees with the Latin against the
      Greek altogether, then you can't determine what's in the Byzantine from the
      KJV. That was the point I was trying to make. You need to use the Greek
      Byzantine text to determine what is in the Greek Byzantine text, not an
      English translation that agrees with the Latin against the Greek in
      arbitrary spots simply because the people involved were more comfortable and
      familiar with the Latin wording in those spots. Even a literal translation
      of the Greek would be better than a reading like the KJV that agrees with
      whichever version familiarity sent the translator's "feel good vibes"
      towards. If you insist on using an English text to study the Byzantine, at
      least use one that attempts to be 100% faithful to the Byzantine text. The
      KJV does not do that.

      ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
      So far nobody has offered a substantive argument why my study of the 180
      variants
      would be any different if done in the native languages, or any problems in
      my methodology.
      )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

      The GENERAL TREND of what you said has been known to scholars for years.
      Why not quote a study done in the original languages rather than one done in
      English? As for problems in the methodology....yes...if it's based on an
      English translation of the text....that's a big problem.

      (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
      However the buzz did spur me to consider one point I had omitted :
      the "ultra-absurd" group of Alexandrian variants that do not make the NA
      text.
      And therefore that could increase the amount of Peshitta-TR confluence.
      However trying to quantify that has some problems.

      First such variants are hidden from public view and rarely discussed.
      Where are the missing straight-line translation of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
      ?
      Nowhere, afaik.
      Why is this not available after all these years and so many textcrit experts
      ?
      ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

      Because real scholars don't use English. They're not "hidden from public
      view". They're available to anyone that can follow the language in
      question. English translations are for people that can't follow the Greek.
      There's just no market among those people to read all the variants of all
      the manuscripts. Nearly everyone who CARES about the differences between
      specific manuscripts will study the languages involved. You can be certain
      that the Greek text of Vaticanus or P46 or almost any other specific
      manuscript will outsell an English translation of it by a wide margin
      because English only readers just aren't in a position to do this type of
      comparisons. There's just no market for it.

      Joe
    • Daniel Buck
      ... are for people that can t follow the Greek. There s just no market among those people to read all the variants of all the manuscripts. Nearly everyone who
      Message 2 of 11 , Jul 10, 2007
        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Jovial" <jovial@...> wrote:

        > Because real scholars don't use English. . . . English translations
        are for people that can't follow the Greek.
        There's just no market among those people to read all the variants of
        all the manuscripts. Nearly everyone who CARES about the differences
        between specific manuscripts will study the languages involved.<

        To better participate in discussion here, I procured Tov's Textual
        Criticism of the Hebrew Bible--widely regarded as the authority. I've
        slowly been working my way through it, and just learning to read it
        with comprehension is an education in itself. Of course it contains
        many Hebrew quotations, not always translated; but it also uses a
        fair amount of Latin, much of which passes for English to anyone with
        an unabridged dictionary. But note, this work is an ENGLISH
        translation of the Hebrew original. Where are the "real scholars" to
        provide a market for 2nd and 3rd editions of the Hebrew? And why are
        the ENGLISH editions considered the standard, if they are so
        elementary as to be of no use to 'real scholars'?

        I could--and I have--comment on certain textual questions in as much
        detail as Tov does, using nothing but the English language to do so.

        >Nearly everyone who CARES about the differences between specific
        manuscripts will study the languages involved.<

        Which I am certainly doing. And it is the availability of ENGLISH
        resource books that allows me to do so. Meanwhile, Tov's original
        Hebrew edition remains all but useless to me, and I'm certainly not
        going to waste my money buying it--nor to I eagerly await the day
        when my level of Hebrew comprehension rises to the point that I can
        imbibe the hidden wisdom contained there and nowhere else.

        >You can be certain that the Greek text of . . . almost any other
        specific manuscript will outsell an English translation of it by a
        wide margin because English only readers just aren't in a position to
        do this type of comparisons. There's just no market for it.<

        Not always. I have read many websites containing the full text of the
        Didache in English and only a couple bothered to include the Greek
        text. Or how many of us own a full set of the Apocrypha, or the Ante-
        Nicine Fathers--in Greek & Latin only? A full translation goes a long
        way toward determining the true character of a mss. Those who holler
        loudest against full disclosure often have the most to hide.

        More to the topic, the development of the Peshitta and Byzantine text
        has now been pushed back to the middle of the 4th century--say, a
        couple weeks after the completion of 01 and 03. What no one has
        adequately accounted for though, is the reason for the missing books
        at the end; no Byzantine exemplar would be so lacking.

        But Vaticanus is.

        Daniel
      • Robert Mossotti
        It seems an inapposite analogy to suggest that: Reading Tov / Didache / Ante-Nicene Fathers / Apocrypha, in English, is EQUIVALENT TO comparing variants among
        Message 3 of 11 , Jul 11, 2007
          It seems an inapposite analogy to suggest that:
           
          Reading Tov / Didache / Ante-Nicene Fathers / Apocrypha, in English, is EQUIVALENT TO comparing variants among manuscripts of differing ancient languages to get at the "original text" after the translation of those manuscripts into English.
           
          If Tov / Didache / Ante-Nicene Fathers / Apocrypha had each been written in autographs that are no longer available to us, and all we had were manuscripts in different ancient languages written centuries later, and your task was NOT MERELY TO READ THEM (as you point out many people do to their profit), but also to try and determine the content of the autographs on which our surviving manuscripts were based, then you might have an appropriate analogy.  Or if your interlocutors were arguing against the mere reading of a translation of Vaticanus or some such online, then your argument would also seem to be more to the point.

           

          Your mistake with this analogy--as I see it--is in confounding reading for textual criticism, irrespective of whether you are right in thinking the latter can be done well enough in translation, for that is a separate question.  Unlike the readers of such translations, who are reading to learn the substance of those works, you are engaged--for better or for worse--in comparing textual variants after translation, which seems to me to be an entirely different enterprise.  Weighty arguments may exist for the utility of that enterprise (assuming one hasn't the time to learn the languages), but this analogy probably isn't one of them...as far as I can see.

           

          Please forgive me if I have not fully comprehended your argument, or if I have mischaracterized it in any way. 

           

          Robert W. Mossotti, Esq.



          ----- Original Message ----
          From: Daniel Buck <bucksburg@...>
          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 4:12:33 PM
          Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Peshitta confluence with the GreekTR/Byzantine

          --- In textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com, "Jovial" <jovial@...> wrote:

          > Because real scholars don't use English. . . . English translations
          are for people that can't follow the Greek.
          There's just no market among those people to read all the variants of
          all the manuscripts. Nearly everyone who CARES about the differences
          between specific manuscripts will study the languages involved.<

          To better participate in discussion here, I procured Tov's Textual
          Criticism of the Hebrew Bible--widely regarded as the authority. I've
          slowly been working my way through it, and just learning to read it
          with comprehension is an education in itself. Of course it contains
          many Hebrew quotations, not always translated; but it also uses a
          fair amount of Latin, much of which passes for English to anyone with
          an unabridged dictionary. But note, this work is an ENGLISH
          translation of the Hebrew original. Where are the "real scholars" to
          provide a market for 2nd and 3rd editions of the Hebrew? And why are
          the ENGLISH editions considered the standard, if they are so
          elementary as to be of no use to 'real scholars'?

          I could--and I have--comment on certain textual questions in as much
          detail as Tov does, using nothing but the English language to do so.

          >Nearly everyone who CARES about the differences between specific
          manuscripts will study the languages involved.<

          Which I am certainly doing. And it is the availability of ENGLISH
          resource books that allows me to do so. Meanwhile, Tov's original
          Hebrew edition remains all but useless to me, and I'm certainly not
          going to waste my money buying it--nor to I eagerly await the day
          when my level of Hebrew comprehension rises to the point that I can
          imbibe the hidden wisdom contained there and nowhere else.

          >You can be certain that the Greek text of . . . almost any other
          specific manuscript will outsell an English translation of it by a
          wide margin because English only readers just aren't in a position to
          do this type of comparisons. There's just no market for it.<

          Not always. I have read many websites containing the full text of the
          Didache in English and only a couple bothered to include the Greek
          text. Or how many of us own a full set of the Apocrypha, or the Ante-
          Nicine Fathers--in Greek & Latin only? A full translation goes a long
          way toward determining the true character of a mss. Those who holler
          loudest against full disclosure often have the most to hide.

          More to the topic, the development of the Peshitta and Byzantine text
          has now been pushed back to the middle of the 4th century--say, a
          couple weeks after the completion of 01 and 03. What no one has
          adequately accounted for though, is the reason for the missing books
          at the end; no Byzantine exemplar would be so lacking.

          But Vaticanus is.

          Daniel




          Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
        • Schmuel
          Hi Folks, Daniel Buck ... middle of the 4th century ... has adequately accounted for ... exemplar would be so lacking. Daniel raises an excellent point to be
          Message 4 of 11 , Jul 11, 2007
            Hi Folks,

            Daniel Buck
            > the Peshitta and Byzantine text has now been pushed back to the
            middle of the 4th century
            > --say, a couple weeks after the completion of 01 and 03. What no one
            has adequately accounted for
            > though, is the reason for the missing books at the end; no Byzantine
            exemplar would be so lacking.

               Daniel raises an excellent point to be referenced about the missing books in the Eastern Peshitta.  These seem to be a very powerful argument that is usually overlooked by all sides for various reasons.  By the 4th and 5th century there was little question about the canon, so why would a translation omit five books ?  Yet in the 1st and 2nd centuries such an omission would be far more understandable. 

               Personally I think most all this stuff about trying to downgrade English as an analysis and study language is a red herring.  (I was going to mention the obvious counter-example, that Daniel mentions in depth, of the early church writings, where English translation has been critical in general understanding, analysis and discussion to all sorts of folks, scholars and laymen alike.)

                 You work with the skills and background available and for many purposes English is 100% satisfactory.  e.g. When I showed that a recent translation being peddled in the Messianic community was a plagiarism the learning and study and analysis was 100% doable in English.  And similarly nobody has shown at all any flaws in doing an analysis of major variants in English, as in my Peshitta study, as long as you account for various auxiliary issues properly.   And so far nobody has indicated any similar study done in the source languages.  Or even the famous 75-80% that everybody knows, sort of.  And it seems that "major variants" are often the most germane major issue anyway. Those are fully visible in a target language.

            ===================================
            B & ALEPH

            Daniel
            > "A full translation goes a long way toward determining the true character of a mss. "

                The more interesting question is the lack of English translations of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  As
            many textcrit pixels are spent on these two manuscripts than perhaps the rest of all manuscript
            evidences combined.  Yet, afaik, not even one book is easily available in direct translation. (Please correct me if wrong on that.)

                 Some folks think that this is because the actual texts would be an embarrassment, due to the
            ultra-absurdities in the manuscripts.  And that printing the full text would work against the oft-repeated theory that these are the "most reliable manuscripts". Others may give other reasons. 

                 And the full truth could be a combination, it doesn't have to be just one reason.  e.g. If someone simply translated one gospel of Sinaiticus, although it might be very helpful to many interested in scholarly issues and would not be a huge venture for one with the skills necessary, it is not the type of arcane venture which grants a PhD or scholarly plaudits.  Therefore it is left undone.

                 Personally, to move a phrase over to another usage, I believe the criterion of embarrassment must be considered as one primary reason for our lack of a translation of these texts.

            Shalom,
            Steven Avery
            Queens, NY
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic


            Robert Mossotti -
            It seems an inapposite analogy to suggest that:
            Reading Tov / Didache / Ante-Nicene Fathers / Apocrypha, in English, is EQUIVALENT TO comparing variants among manuscripts of differing ancient languages to get at the "original text" after the translation of those manuscripts into English. (snip)

            "Jovial" ...> wrote:
            > Because real scholars don't use English. . . . English translations are for people that can't follow the Greek.There's just no market among those people to read all the variants of all the manuscripts. Nearly everyone who CARES about the differences between specific manuscripts will study the languages involved.<

            Daniel Buck
            To better participate in discussion here, I procured Tov's Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible--widely regarded as the authority. I've slowly been working my way through it, and just learning to read it with comprehension is an education in itself. Of course it contains many Hebrew quotations, not always translated; but it also uses a fair amount of Latin, much of which passes for English to anyone with an unabridged dictionary. But note, this work is an ENGLISH translation of the Hebrew original. Where are the "real scholars" to provide a market for 2nd and 3rd editions of the Hebrew? And why are the ENGLISH editions considered the standard, if they are so elementary as to be of no use to 'real scholars'?

            I could--and I have--comment on certain textual questions in as much detail as Tov does, using nothing but the English language to do so.

            >Nearly everyone who CARES about the differences between specific
            manuscripts will study the languages involved.<

            Which I am certainly doing. And it is the availability of ENGLISH resource books that allows me to do so. Meanwhile, Tov's original Hebrew edition remains all but useless to me, and I'm certainly not
            going to waste my money buying it--nor to I eagerly await the day when my level of Hebrew comprehension rises to the point that I can imbibe the hidden wisdom contained there and nowhere else.


            >You can be certain that the Greek text of . . . almost any other specific manuscript will outsell an English translation of it by a wide margin because English only readers just aren't in a position to
            do this type of comparisons. There's just no market for it.<

            Not always. I have read many websites containing the full text of the Didache in English and only a couple bothered to include the Greek text. Or how many of us own a full set of the Apocrypha, or the Ante-Nicine Fathers--in Greek & Latin only? A full translation goes a long way toward determining the true character of a mss. Those who holler loudest against full disclosure often have the most to hide.


            More to the topic, the development of the Peshitta and Byzantine text has now been pushed back to the middle of the 4th century--say, a couple weeks after the completion of 01 and 03. What no one has adequately accounted for though, is the reason for the missing books at the end; no Byzantine exemplar would be so lacking.


            But Vaticanus is.
            Daniel
          • Jovial
            An English translation WAS done of Vaticanus in 1863. Not sure if it is even in print today. It didn t sell much because as an English text, it wasn t very
            Message 5 of 11 , Jul 11, 2007
              An English translation WAS done of Vaticanus in 1863.  Not sure if it is even in print today.  It didn't sell much because as an English text, it wasn't very well recieved.  And the people who want to study Vaticanus usually want it in the original Greek.  So the Greek text of it has sold well.  The English text has been well ignored.  Several were done of Codex Bezae but they met the same fate and the English translations of Bezae died their death as well.  I don't know if one was done of Sinaiticus, but I'm sure it would recieve the same set of yawns as the English translations of Vaticanus and Bezae have.  Scholars are the only ones interested in these manuscripts and they want it in Greek, not English, because there are too many differences they'd miss studying Vaticanus from an English translation.
               
              There's a lot of countries where the Bible has only been translated into the local language onece or twice.  Some where it hasn't at all yet.  English speakers have way more access to this stuff than almost anyone else.  But the English versions just haven't had a lot of market value.  If you're one of the few that wants it that way, you can probably find it somewhere.  But there's THOUSANDS of MSS that will never get translated individually and so much about how they fit together that you just won't be able to study until you get off the reliance on English.  But if you really want an English version of them, you ought to try searching for it and see what happens.  It won't hurt you any, that's for sure.
               
              Joe
               
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Schmuel
              Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:18 AM
              Subject: [textualcriticism] why no English translation of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus ?

              Hi Folks,

              Daniel Buck
              > the Peshitta and Byzantine text has now been pushed back to the middle of the 4th century
              > --say, a couple weeks after the completion of 01 and 03. What no one has adequately accounted for
              > though, is the reason for the missing books at the end; no Byzantine exemplar would be so lacking.

                 Daniel raises an excellent point to be referenced about the missing books in the Eastern Peshitta.  These seem to be a very powerful argument that is usually overlooked by all sides for various reasons.  By the 4th and 5th century there was little question about the canon, so why would a translation omit five books ?  Yet in the 1st and 2nd centuries such an omission would be far more understandable. 

                 Personally I think most all this stuff about trying to downgrade English as an analysis and study language is a red herring.  (I was going to mention the obvious counter-example, that Daniel mentions in depth, of the early church writings, where English translation has been critical in general understanding, analysis and discussion to all sorts of folks, scholars and laymen alike.)

                   You work with the skills and background available and for many purposes English is 100% satisfactory.  e.g. When I showed that a recent translation being peddled in the Messianic community was a plagiarism the learning and study and analysis was 100% doable in English.  And similarly nobody has shown at all any flaws in doing an analysis of major variants in English, as in my Peshitta study, as long as you account for various auxiliary issues properly.   And so far nobody has indicated any similar study done in the source languages.  Or even the famous 75-80% that everybody knows, sort of.  And it seems that "major variants" are often the most germane major issue anyway. Those are fully visible in a target language.

              ============ ========= ========= =====
              B & ALEPH

              Daniel
              > "A full translation goes a long way toward determining the true character of a mss. "

                  The more interesting question is the lack of English translations of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  As
              many textcrit pixels are spent on these two manuscripts than perhaps the rest of all manuscript
              evidences combined.  Yet, afaik, not even one book is easily available in direct translation. (Please correct me if wrong on that.)

                   Some folks think that this is because the actual texts would be an embarrassment, due to the
              ultra-absurdities in the manuscripts.  And that printing the full text would work against the oft-repeated theory that these are the "most reliable manuscripts". Others may give other reasons. 

                   And the full truth could be a combination, it doesn't have to be just one reason.  e.g. If someone simply translated one gospel of Sinaiticus, although it might be very helpful to many interested in scholarly issues and would not be a huge venture for one with the skills necessary, it is not the type of arcane venture which grants a PhD or scholarly plaudits.  Therefore it is left undone.

                   Personally, to move a phrase over to another usage, I believe the criterion of embarrassment must be considered as one primary reason for our lack of a translation of these texts.

              Shalom,
              Steven Avery
              Queens, NY
              http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/Messianic_ Apologetic


              Robert Mossotti -

              It seems an inapposite analogy to suggest that:
              Reading Tov / Didache / Ante-Nicene Fathers / Apocrypha, in English, is EQUIVALENT TO comparing variants among manuscripts of differing ancient languages to get at the "original text" after the translation of those manuscripts into English. (snip)

              "Jovial" ...> wrote:
              > Because real scholars don't use English. . . . English translations are for people that can't follow the Greek.There' s just no market among those people to read all the variants of all the manuscripts. Nearly everyone who CARES about the differences between specific manuscripts will study the languages involved.<

              Daniel Buck
              To better participate in discussion here, I procured Tov's Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible--widely regarded as the authority. I've slowly been working my way through it, and just learning to read it with comprehension is an education in itself. Of course it contains many Hebrew quotations, not always translated; but it also uses a fair amount of Latin, much of which passes for English to anyone with an unabridged dictionary. But note, this work is an ENGLISH translation of the Hebrew original. Where are the "real scholars" to provide a market for 2nd and 3rd editions of the Hebrew? And why are the ENGLISH editions considered the standard, if they are so elementary as to be of no use to 'real scholars'?

              I could--and I have--comment on certain textual questions in as much detail as Tov does, using nothing but the English language to do so.

              >Nearly everyone who CARES about the differences between specific
              manuscripts will study the languages involved.<

              Which I am certainly doing. And it is the availability of ENGLISH resource books that allows me to do so. Meanwhile, Tov's original Hebrew edition remains all but useless to me, and I'm certainly not
              going to waste my money buying it--nor to I eagerly await the day when my level of Hebrew comprehension rises to the point that I can imbibe the hidden wisdom contained there and nowhere else.


              >You can be certain that the Greek text of . . . almost any other specific manuscript will outsell an English translation of it by a wide margin because English only readers just aren't in a position to
              do this type of comparisons. There's just no market for it.<

              Not always. I have read many websites containing the full text of the Didache in English and only a couple bothered to include the Greek text. Or how many of us own a full set of the Apocrypha, or the Ante-Nicine Fathers--in Greek & Latin only? A full translation goes a long way toward determining the true character of a mss. Those who holler loudest against full disclosure often have the most to hide.


              More to the topic, the development of the Peshitta and Byzantine text has now been pushed back to the middle of the 4th century--say, a couple weeks after the completion of 01 and 03. What no one has adequately accounted for though, is the reason for the missing books at the end; no Byzantine exemplar would be so lacking.


              But Vaticanus is.
              Daniel

            • David Robert Palmer
              Schmuel wrote:
              Message 6 of 11 , Jul 12, 2007
                Schmuel wrote:
                 
                << Daniel raises an excellent point to be referenced about the missing books in the Eastern Peshitta.  These seem to be a very powerful argument that is usually overlooked by all sides for various reasons.  By the 4th and 5th century there was little question about the canon, so why would a translation omit five books ?  Yet in the 1st and 2nd centuries such an omission would be far more understandable.
                >>
                 
                 
                "But if the latest possible date [of the Peshitta] is the late fourth century, what is the earliest? A very early date was once assumed; in the nineteenth century, many scholars would have dated it to the second century. In the twentieth century, this view has largely been abandoned -- not because of any specific evidence, but simply because the earliest Syriac authors (Ephraem in particular) do not quote the Peshitta. We note in addition that the translation includes James, which was not strongly canonical in the second century. In addition, it is generally thought that the Peshitta is dependent on the Old Syriac, which obviously makes it later than the earliest Syriac versions -- though, since the dates of those are disputed, it again fails to prove much. All in all, it's a combination of guesswork and an argument from silence (i.e. it's flatly not proof), but in the absence of anything better, the fourth century date seems to have swept the field."
                 
                This seems to me a fairly strong argument: Ephraem lived in the 4th century, and when he quoted Syriac scripture, in his commentaries in years 337-345, he was not quoting the Peshitta.  If the Peshitta was the unbroken, official Syriac Bible, why wouldn't Ephraem be quoting it during the 4th century?
                 
                I quoted the Scrivener book before, and I said Scrivener dates the Peshitta at 4th century.  Actually, I am not clear what date he gives to it. In the opening list of early versions, on p. 3, he lists the Peshitto as 2nd century.  But then later when he lists the actual Syriac manuscripts that the Peshitto editions are based on, on pp. 12,13, the earliest of them he says is 5th century.  But, in another place, he says something like the Syriac Received Text is 4th century.
                 
                Regarding the omitted books issue and the canon, is it not possible that the Peshitta or Syrian community resisted for a longer time the addition of those 5 books?  Just because most of the rest of the Christian world included those books in their publications, does not mean the Syrian curch did as soon.  In fact, there has always been what is called the "Eastern Canon."
                 
                How long did the "Doctrine of Addai" hold sway?  Tatian is credited with stating the doctrine, that states that members of the Syrian church are only allowed to read the Diatessaron of Tatian (the gospels), the epistles of Paul, and the book of Acts.
                 
                Origen doubted 2 and 3 John, and 2 Peter in the year 245.  So, 3rd century, our present canon far from solid.
                 
                When Eusebius published his "Church History" in the 4th century, the canon was still in doubt.
                 
                Cyril's canon around the year 350 included all our present canon except Revelation. 
                 
                Though Athanasius delcared the present "Western Catholic" canon final in 367, some still rejected Revelation, some still rejected Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John, and some included Old Testament apocrypha.  This all in the late 4th century.
                 
                Revelation was not accepted in the Armenian Bible until 1200.
                 
                David Robert Palmer
                 
                David ,_._,___
              • Schmuel
                Hi Folks, Jovial - An English translation WAS done of Vaticanus in 1863. Not sure if it is even in print today. It didn t sell much because as an English text,
                Message 7 of 11 , Jul 12, 2007
                  Hi Folks,

                  Jovial -
                  An English translation WAS done of Vaticanus in 1863.  Not sure if it is even in print today.  It didn't sell much because as an English text, it wasn't very well recieved.

                  This rewrites the history and reality of the Parker edition of the Cardinal Mai edition of Vaticanus. 

                  Michael Marlowe at the true information at
                  http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-p.html#parker1863

                  This was an Authorized Version with Vaticanus "corrections" so of course blunders
                  and ultra-absurdities in Vaticanus (the Greek itself from the deficient Mai edition)
                  would be omitted.

                  We have no English Vaticanus edition.

                  ...  Several were done of Codex Bezae but they met the same fate and the English translations of Bezae died their death as well. .

                  The English edition of Bezae Acts is very nice and on the web and has already been helpful on this
                  very forum in correcting what appears to be a major error from F. H. A. Scrivener that Bezae Acts is translated from Alexandrinus. (Again: any scholarly help on why this claim was made by Scrivener is appreciated, is there a context question, or his own confusion, or what).

                  > ...  Several were done of Codex Bezae but they met the same fate and the English
                  >  translations of Bezae died their death as well.  I don't know if one was done of Sinaiticus ...

                  As for Sinaiticus, that is a more complex story.  The real question is whether the one English edition "smoothed" the blunders.  Apparently so, however that is awaiting a bit more research.

                  ======================================

                  While the Tischendorf apparatus edition of these manuscripts states very clearly.

                    http://tinyurl.com/3742y9
                  "Many obvious blunders which are found in the manuscripts are passed over in silence."

                  Shalom,
                  Steven Avery
                  Queens, NY
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic


                • Daniel Buck
                  It is true that an English edition of a GNT mss would be of limited value to textual criticism, and while I would certainly be interested in reading it, I d
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jul 12, 2007
                    It is true that an English edition of a GNT mss would be of limited
                    value to textual criticism, and while I would certainly be interested
                    in reading it, I'd probably not buy it, especially if I wasn't familiar
                    with the translation style used.

                    On the other hand, a diglot--specifically one in the usual 3-text
                    format of an interlinear--would be of tremendous use, and I would
                    probably want to own one even if I could access it online. And its
                    value to an English-Greek scholar would be enhanced by the ease with
                    which he or she could find passages--trying to page through online
                    Vaticanus and Sinaiticus facsimilies is tremendously tedious.

                    I purchased--and nearly wore out--an interlinear GNT before I had even
                    mastered the Greek alphabet. Anyone desiring to look into the 'oldest
                    and best manuscripts' status that 01 and 03 have enjoyed for so long
                    would be a ready market for interlinear diglot editions thereof.

                    Daniel
                  • Jovial
                    I think you re right there. What I d like to see would be an electronic version of Vaticanus or Sinaiticus so I could do e-searches on them. Joe ... From:
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jul 12, 2007
                      I think you're right there.
                       
                      What I'd like to see would be an electronic version of Vaticanus or Sinaiticus so I could do e-searches on them.
                       
                      Joe
                       
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 1:46 PM
                      Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: why no English translation of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus ?

                      It is true that an English edition of a GNT mss would be of limited
                      value to textual criticism, and while I would certainly be interested
                      in reading it, I'd probably not buy it, especially if I wasn't familiar
                      with the translation style used.

                      On the other hand, a diglot--specificall y one in the usual 3-text
                      format of an interlinear- -would be of tremendous use, and I would
                      probably want to own one even if I could access it online. And its
                      value to an English-Greek scholar would be enhanced by the ease with
                      which he or she could find passages--trying to page through online
                      Vaticanus and Sinaiticus facsimilies is tremendously tedious.

                      I purchased--and nearly wore out--an interlinear GNT before I had even
                      mastered the Greek alphabet. Anyone desiring to look into the 'oldest
                      and best manuscripts' status that 01 and 03 have enjoyed for so long
                      would be a ready market for interlinear diglot editions thereof.

                      Daniel

                    • idou747
                      ... The Oriental Orthodox Church *still* does not accept these 5 books as canonical, and the peshitta is their bible. In the tens of thousands of biblical
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jul 14, 2007
                        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "David Robert Palmer" <watutman@...> wrote:

                        > Regarding the omitted books issue and the canon, is it not possible that the Peshitta or
                        >Syrian community resisted for a longer time the addition of those 5 books? Just because
                        >most of the rest of the Christian world included those books in their publications, does not
                        >mean the Syrian curch did as soon. In fact, there has always been what is called the
                        >"Eastern Canon."

                        The Oriental Orthodox Church *still* does not accept these 5 books as canonical, and the
                        peshitta is their bible.

                        In the tens of thousands of biblical quotes of Chrysostom, he never quotes some (or all?) of
                        these books either.
                      • David Robert Palmer
                        Idou747 wrote:
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jul 14, 2007
                          Idou747 wrote:
                           
                          << The Oriental Orthodox Church *still* does not accept these 5 books as canonical, and the
                          peshitta is their bible.

                          In the tens of thousands of biblical quotes of Chrysostom, he never quotes some (or all?) of
                          these books either.>>
                           
                          Might it be safe to conclude then that lacking those 5 books is not an indicator of an early date for the Peshitta.
                           
                          David Robert Palmer
                           _,_._,___
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.