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

George's reply to Larry Swain

Expand Messages
  • clearbrush
    Larry, I couldn t get this to format in a standard reply. Larry, Thank you for your well considered, very lucid and accurate correction. I especially
    Message 1 of 8 , May 23 12:25 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Larry, I couldn't get this to format in a standard reply.

      Larry,

      Thank you for your well considered, very lucid and accurate correction.

      I especially appreciate the civility demonstrated by you and James both.

      Looking back over the group records, I see that I have submitted 10 posts on this topic – or thread.

      My intent at the start was simple and brief; I intended to submit one post only; and that - for the encouragement and potential benefit of Mike Karoules, who on May 13, 2013, #7833; wrote the following :

      "Hello senoir colleagues,

      I have read from a couple of sources that it is likely that the same scribe who copied manuscript Vaticanus also copied manuscript Sinaiticus. I have had a question lingering in my mind for some time now. SO MUCH STOCK , I feel, in the field of Textual Criticism has been placed on these 2 manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) that in almost all of our English translations - other textual family(s) seems to have been marginalised. I ask you folks if you can tell me how much do these two manuscripts HARMONIZE (or not HARMONIZE) with each other if we were to put them side by side - if you will?
      <snipped>

      <snipped> Also, if you could, be at liberty to provide me any online (or offline sources) that may provide me more detail that may be too lengthy for this forum. But in the meantime, please feel free to be as lengthy as you can/wish."<end>

      [George continuing] :

      My intention was to offer him an alternate view, and one advanced from that in the published literature.

      I believed my view to be accurate and true; as much as humanly possible...

      I am still.. under the strongest conviction that my comprehension of matters that transpired in those ancient times.. that resulted in the creation of the majestic codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; is more advanced, more accurate, and more true over all other comprehensions which are now available in the published literature.

      I am aware that this is incredulous.

      I could well be wrong, even totally wrong in my understanding..

      Then, it will be my shame.

      If I am right, this is a very big change.

      To wit : Eusebius of Kaisariea Israel about 324-325 CE produced Codex Sinaiticus, by the efforts of his staff, including; but not limited to, the use of female calligraphers.

      A few years later, he shipped per orders from state, 50 complete bound Bibles to Constantine; one of which was Codex Vaticanus, produced under sub-let in Alexandria Egypt.

      But.. I was derailed from any elaboration by Jim Snapp's strawman.

      I do not say this in the sense of reluctance to concede my mistake.

      Most on this list are familiar with the "strawman" concept of argument in a debate, but let me be explicit.

      My understanding in this case is : when a person mistakenly and prematurely and presumptuously concludes an others thought, and then; proceeds to demolish the imagined concept, then; that is the strawman argument.

      Jim imagined that I had based my comprehensions on a mistaken interpretation of a passage from the writings of Athanasius.

      As I pointed out, this is not the case; that passage in question had little to do with my over-all thinking.

      But I freely concede; that I have made several mistakes.

      1. In haste, I passed on to Steven Avery a wrong citation for Athanasius.
      2. I didn't check my work well enough.
      3. I should not have brought up the term "ordered" without something to back it up.

      James Snapp and you – Larry Swain, are most correct in pointing out the error of using that particular passage from Athanasius in support of Eusebius producing Bibles.

      Sincerely,

      George Eller.
         

    • mike karoules
      George, Thank you for being willing to share of your time and education of these matters ; and yes also for trying to knock down (at least a couple of
      Message 2 of 8 , May 23 6:43 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        George,

        Thank you for being willing to share of your time and education of these matters ; and yes also for trying to "knock down" (at least a couple of layers ) of some of the technical lingo. But I must confess and at the same time ask for your patience because I do not know what you meant when you state d "artwork." I will go back and read that post again, though.

        I thank you guys for the information. I have read up a little more on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and wish any of you to correct me if I am wrong in any of the following : First, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are not written by the same scribe (doubtful ) but very likely from the same school or "institution." Also, I would say they are close enough to be of the same textural family but maybe, as some of you described it, of two different subtexts. Also, there is reason to believe (but by no means conclusive ) that these 2 works were the result of the 50 bound Bibles that were requested by Constantine from Eusebius, with Vaticanus being one of the copies of Sinaiticus. And, (I am taking a stab here ) these two manuscripts do not harmonize all that well if we were to overlap the New Testament books that both 01 and 03(Vaticanus ) have, bearing in mind that Vaticanus is missing some material. But also the disagreement among these 2 manuscripts is
        not too much to call the harmony eggregious. IOW, the truth is somewhere in between.

        I guess I didn't get much comment about the agreement or disagreement when these 2 manuscripts are placed side by side other than that no extensive research has been done to say one way or the other. I just thought in my mind this would have been a settled issue by now. I can't help but think that Dean Burgon's statement goes too far. He said that there are not even 2consecutive verses that are alike when comparing these 2 manuscripts side by side when looking at the same "book," "chapter" and "verse."


        Thanks again folks.

        Kindly,

        Mike Karoules



        ------------------------------
        On Thu, May 23, 2013 3:25 PM EDT clearbrush wrote:

        >Larry, I couldn't get this to format in a standard reply.
        >
        >Larry,
        >
        >Thank you for your well considered, very lucid and accurate correction.
        >
        >I especially appreciate the civility demonstrated by you and James both.
        >
        >Looking back over the group records, I see that I have submitted 10
        >posts on this topic – or thread.
        >
        >My intent at the start was simple and brief; I intended to submit one
        >post only; and that - for the encouragement and potential benefit of
        >Mike Karoules, who on May 13, 2013, #7833; wrote the following :
        >
        >"Hello senoir colleagues,
        >
        >I have read from a couple of sources that it is likely that the same
        >scribe who copied manuscript Vaticanus also copied manuscript
        >Sinaiticus. I have had a question lingering in my mind for some time
        >now. SO MUCH STOCK , I feel, in the field of Textual Criticism has been
        >placed on these 2 manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) that in almost
        >all of our English translations - other textual family(s) seems to have
        >been marginalised. I ask you folks if you can tell me how much do these
        >two manuscripts HARMONIZE (or not HARMONIZE) with each other if we were
        >to put them side by side - if you will? <snipped>
        >
        ><snipped> Also, if you could, be at liberty to provide me any online (or
        >offline sources) that may provide me more detail that may be too lengthy
        >for this forum. But in the meantime, please feel free to be as lengthy
        >as you can/wish."<end>
        >
        >[George continuing] :
        >
        >My intention was to offer him an alternate view, and one advanced from
        >that in the published literature.
        >
        >I believed my view to be accurate and true; as much as humanly
        >possible...
        >
        >I am still.. under the strongest conviction that my comprehension of
        >matters that transpired in those ancient times.. that resulted in the
        >creation of the majestic codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; is more
        >advanced, more accurate, and more true over all other comprehensions
        >which are now available in the published literature.
        >
        >I am aware that this is incredulous.
        >
        >I could well be wrong, even totally wrong in my understanding..
        >
        >Then, it will be my shame.
        >
        >If I am right, this is a very big change.
        >
        >To wit : Eusebius of Kaisariea Israel about 324-325 CE produced Codex
        >Sinaiticus, by the efforts of his staff, including; but not limited to,
        >the use of female calligraphers.
        >
        >A few years later, he shipped per orders from state, 50 complete bound
        >Bibles to Constantine; one of which was Codex Vaticanus, produced under
        >sub-let in Alexandria Egypt.
        >
        >But.. I was derailed from any elaboration by Jim Snapp's strawman.
        >
        >I do not say this in the sense of reluctance to concede my mistake.
        >
        >Most on this list are familiar with the "strawman" concept of
        >argument in a debate, but let me be explicit.
        >
        >My understanding in this case is : when a person mistakenly and
        >prematurely and presumptuously concludes an others thought, and then;
        >proceeds to demolish the imagined concept, then; that is the strawman
        >argument.
        >
        >Jim imagined that I had based my comprehensions on a mistaken
        >interpretation of a passage from the writings of Athanasius.
        >
        >As I pointed out, this is not the case; that passage in question had
        >little to do with my over-all thinking.
        >
        >But I freely concede; that I have made several mistakes.
        >
        >1. In haste, I passed on to Steven Avery a wrong citation for
        >Athanasius.
        >2. I didn't check my work well enough.
        >3. I should not have brought up the term "ordered" without
        >something to back it up.
        >
        >James Snapp and you – Larry Swain, are most correct in pointing out
        >the error of using that particular passage from Athanasius in support of
        >Eusebius producing Bibles.
        >
        >Sincerely,
        >
        >George Eller.
        >
        >
        >
      • Vox Verax
        Mike, As I mentioned in the earlier post, I have not directly addressed your question of whether or not Vaticanus and Sinaiticus share a copyist; I have only
        Message 3 of 8 , May 24 5:55 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Mike,

          As I mentioned in the earlier post, I have not directly addressed your question of whether or not Vaticanus and Sinaiticus share a copyist; I have only laid the groundwork for that, by answering the question of whether or not they share a scriptorium. Please stay tuned, and I will try to answer the main question.

          Have you read T.C. Skeat's 1999 article "The Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus, and Constantine" yet?

          Now about the questions you have just asked:

          (1) Were Vaticanus and Sinaiticus written by the same
          scribe?

          Each MS' production involved more than one copyist, so a better way of framing the question is to ask, "Did the same individual participate in the production of both manuscripts?" Regarding this question, please stay tuned.

          (2) Were Vaticanus and Sinaiticus written at the same scriptorium?

          Very probably, yes.

          (3) Do Vaticanus and Sinaiticus represent the same text-type?

          For the most part, although Sinaiticus' text is Western in John 1:1-8:38. Also, Vaticanus' text tends to be noticably better (that is, a better representative of the Alexandrian Text) than Sinaiticus' in the General Epistles, as if the exemplar of Vaticanus escaped a bad "correction" which the exemplar of Sinaiticus (or an ancestor of the exemplar) had experienced. (Also, in the OT/Apocrypha portion, they have entirely different forms of Tobit.)

          (4) Were Vaticanus and Sinaiticus among the 50 copies prepared for Constantine by Eusebius of Caesarea?

          Some major textual critics have expressed a suspicion that this is the case, but no one has really developed a case to promote the idea except T.C. Skeat (in the article I mentioned). In the second half of the answer I am preparing for you, I intend to explain why neither Vaticanus nor Sinaiticus were prepared with the supervision of Eusebius.

          (5) Is Vaticanus a copy of Sinaiticus?

          No.

          (6) Are the disagreement between these two manuscript remarkably bad?

          Sometimes, such as when one or the other has a short reading that originated due to parablepsis. But that doesn't mean that they are not closely related. Different copying-methods, and different levels of competence, can account for many of the textual differences.

          To illustrate: picture a copy of, say, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" being hand-copied by two individuals. One individual is new to the job, and he works mechanically, for the most part. He personally reads his exemplar. He slowly copies the text syllable by syllable. But, there are some things in the text that offend him, such as some nearly incomprehensible sentence-structures and obscure terms, and he slightly adjusts the text to conform to his ideas of what a sensibly and sensitively-written book should say. Meanwhile, the other individual also works mechanically for the most part, but using a different method. He has a friend read the text for him, and he quickly writes down what he hears (regardless of whether it is sensible and sensitive or not). Spelling is a low priority for him, and if his friend accidentally skips something, the loss might not be detected. Adding to the mix is the copyist's previous copying-experience; he has been a copyist for years, and has some notion of what the text should say, and so sometimes he relies on his memory rather than on what his friend says, especially when his friend occasionally speaks faster than he can write.

          With two such different techniques of copying being used, when the tasks were completed, we would have two very different copies of "Uncle Tom's Cabin," even though each one is a witness to the contents of a close ancestor, rather than a distant one.) The differences may sometimes be "bad," but inasmuch as these differences imply independent production, this tends to justify greater confidence in the text where the two copies agree.

          (7) Does Dean Burgon's statement that there are not even 2 consecutive verses that are alike when comparing these 2 manuscripts side by side when looking at the same "book," "chapter" and "verse" go too far?

          That's not what Burgon said. Burgon said that it's easier to find two consecutive verses in which Aleph and B disagree than it is to find two consecutive verses in which they agree. If you have any doubt that this is indeed the case, consult Hoskier's data, or pick a few passages at random and make your own comparisons, using collations, images, or Swanson.

          God willing, I will have the opportunity to continue my answer to your initial question in a week or so.

          Yours in Christ,

          James Snapp, Jr.
        • clearbrush
          Hi Again Mike, It is nice to read your post, you have surely stirred up discussion here, and that is a good thing. You have probably hit on a sensitive nerve
          Message 4 of 8 , May 24 1:54 PM
          • 0 Attachment

            Hi Again Mike,


            It is nice to read your post, you have surely stirred up discussion here, and that is a good thing. You have probably hit on a sensitive nerve in textual criticism, and much of the discussion that has taken place may not have happened without you.

            I will try, as simple as practical, to give you my version of the situation regarding Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (too much information often fogs up the points); which will probably not find a lot of agreement among the list members; but it will give them the opportunity to offer their views. And I am hoping that it may be of interest to some others, and possibly at least a bit to all of the readers.


            In your request for any correction in your understanding of the relationship between the two manuscripts, the main one that I would offer, is that Vaticanus is not a copy of Sinaiticus. It is very independent.


            The art work in Vaticanus : The article in wiki is a good place to start; you have probably already seen it, but it may be good to review it again. Some examples are on the wiki site, (you can find more on the Internet) and it appears on a lot of pages (I won't trouble us with studied accounts). Following is an excerpt from WIKI :


            "It has been postulated that at one time the manuscript was in the possession of Cardinal Bessarion because the minuscule supplement has a text similar to one of Bessarion's manuscripts. According to Paul Canart, the decorative initials added to the manuscript in the Middle Ages are reminiscent of Constantinopolitan decoration of the 10th century, but the poor execution gives the impression they were added in the 11th or 12th century, and likely not before the 12th century in light of the way they appear in connection with notes in a minuscule hand at the beginning of the book of Daniel."


            Paul Canart has support from other art authorities specializing in this area.


            As I have previously noted, to me – the art work is the best approach available to determine where Vaticanus was located before being placed in the Vatican library (i.e., prior to 1448). Through a chain of events (I'm skipping for now), there is imo good reason to conclude that the manuscript was taken from Constantinople during it's sack in April 1204.


            If we ponder over the probable facts about Vaticanus being in Constantinople prior to 1204, we should picture a rather plain, undecorated, small but quite thick, and very ancient, complete Bible (probably unimpressive to most Greeks) being tucked away in a revered library for almost 900 years.


            Since Vaticanus is an improvement over Sinaiticus in regards to Bible production; and being pretty sure they both originated in the very area of Eusebius and the Bishop of Alexandria, Sinaiticus would not have been modeled after Vaticanus; i.e., Sinaiticus came first. I could add much more that points Sinaiticus to Eusebius.


            In closing, answering your main query; I have not seen any publication that I can remember, that has either the column by column, or verse by verse comparison. Maybe someone else here has. There have been over 100 years to have done such a thing.


            Finally, from your and my perspective; Dean Burgon was probably more right than wrong.


            Blessings in your studies, and keep your chin up, George.




            --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, mike karoules wrote:
            >
            >
            > George,
            >
            > Thank you for being willing to share of your time and education of these matters ; and yes also for trying to "knock down" (at least a couple of layers ) of some of the technical lingo. But I must confess and at the same time ask for your patience because I do not know what you meant when you state d "artwork." I will go back and read that post again, though.
            >
            > I thank you guys for the information. I have read up a little more on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and wish any of you to correct me if I am wrong in any of the following : First, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are not written by the same scribe (doubtful ) but very likely from the same school or "institution." Also, I would say they are close enough to be of the same textural family but maybe, as some of you described it, of two different subtexts. Also, there is reason to believe (but by no means conclusive ) that these 2 works were the result of the 50 bound Bibles that were requested by Constantine from Eusebius, with Vaticanus being one of the copies of Sinaiticus. And, (I am taking a stab here ) these two manuscripts do not harmonize all that well if we were to overlap the New Testament books that both 01 and 03(Vaticanus ) have, bearing in mind that Vaticanus is missing some material. But also the disagreement among these 2 manuscripts is
            > not too much to call the harmony eggregious. IOW, the truth is somewhere in between.
            >
            > I guess I didn't get much comment about the agreement or disagreement when these 2 manuscripts are placed side by side other than that no extensive research has been done to say one way or the other. I just thought in my mind this would have been a settled issue by now. I can't help but think that Dean Burgon's statement goes too far. He said that there are not even 2consecutive verses that are alike when comparing these 2 manuscripts side by side when looking at the same "book," "chapter" and "verse."
            >
            >
            > Thanks again folks.
            >
            > Kindly,
            >
            > Mike Karoules
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------
            > On Thu, May 23, 2013 3:25 PM EDT clearbrush wrote:
            >
            > >Larry, I couldn't get this to format in a standard reply.
            > >
            > >Larry,
            > >
            > >Thank you for your well considered, very lucid and accurate correction.
            > >
            > >I especially appreciate the civility demonstrated by you and James both.
            > >
            > >Looking back over the group records, I see that I have submitted 10
            > >posts on this topic â€" or thread.
            > >
            > >My intent at the start was simple and brief; I intended to submit one
            > >post only; and that - for the encouragement and potential benefit of
            > >Mike Karoules, who on May 13, 2013, #7833; wrote the following :
            > >
            > >"Hello senoir colleagues,
            > >
            > >I have read from a couple of sources that it is likely that the same
            > >scribe who copied manuscript Vaticanus also copied manuscript
            > >Sinaiticus. I have had a question lingering in my mind for some time
            > >now. SO MUCH STOCK , I feel, in the field of Textual Criticism has been
            > >placed on these 2 manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) that in almost
            > >all of our English translations - other textual family(s) seems to have
            > >been marginalised. I ask you folks if you can tell me how much do these
            > >two manuscripts HARMONIZE (or not HARMONIZE) with each other if we were
            > >to put them side by side - if you will?
            > >
            > > Also, if you could, be at liberty to provide me any online (or
            > >offline sources) that may provide me more detail that may be too lengthy
            > >for this forum. But in the meantime, please feel free to be as lengthy
            > >as you can/wish."
            > >
            > >[George continuing] :
            > >
            > >My intention was to offer him an alternate view, and one advanced from
            > >that in the published literature.
            > >
            > >I believed my view to be accurate and true; as much as humanly
            > >possible...
            > >
            > >I am still.. under the strongest conviction that my comprehension of
            > >matters that transpired in those ancient times.. that resulted in the
            > >creation of the majestic codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; is more
            > >advanced, more accurate, and more true over all other comprehensions
            > >which are now available in the published literature.
            > >
            > >I am aware that this is incredulous.
            > >
            > >I could well be wrong, even totally wrong in my understanding..
            > >
            > >Then, it will be my shame.
            > >
            > >If I am right, this is a very big change.
            > >
            > >To wit : Eusebius of Kaisariea Israel about 324-325 CE produced Codex
            > >Sinaiticus, by the efforts of his staff, including; but not limited to,
            > >the use of female calligraphers.
            > >
            > >A few years later, he shipped per orders from state, 50 complete bound
            > >Bibles to Constantine; one of which was Codex Vaticanus, produced under
            > >sub-let in Alexandria Egypt.
            > >
            > >But.. I was derailed from any elaboration by Jim Snapp's strawman.
            > >
            > >I do not say this in the sense of reluctance to concede my mistake.
            > >
            > >Most on this list are familiar with the "strawman" concept of
            > >argument in a debate, but let me be explicit.
            > >
            > >My understanding in this case is : when a person mistakenly and
            > >prematurely and presumptuously concludes an others thought, and then;
            > >proceeds to demolish the imagined concept, then; that is the strawman
            > >argument.
            > >
            > >Jim imagined that I had based my comprehensions on a mistaken
            > >interpretation of a passage from the writings of Athanasius.
            > >
            > >As I pointed out, this is not the case; that passage in question had
            > >little to do with my over-all thinking.
            > >
            > >But I freely concede; that I have made several mistakes.
            > >
            > >1. In haste, I passed on to Steven Avery a wrong citation for
            > >Athanasius.
            > >2. I didn't check my work well enough.
            > >3. I should not have brought up the term "ordered" without
            > >something to back it up.
            > >
            > >James Snapp and you â€" Larry Swain, are most correct in pointing out
            > >the error of using that particular passage from Athanasius in support of
            > >Eusebius producing Bibles.
            > >
            > >Sincerely,
            > >
            > >George Eller.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
          • Larry Swain
            George, Strongest convictions of the truth of a position are all well and good, but what is wanted is evidence. I ve askuch,ed previously for such evidence,
            Message 5 of 8 , May 25 12:41 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              George, 
              Strongest convictions of the truth of a position are all well and good, but what is wanted is evidence.  I've askuch,ed previously for such evidence, and ask again.
               
              --
              Larry Swain
              theswain@...
               
               
               
              On Thu, May 23, 2013, at 02:25 PM, clearbrush wrote:
               

              Larry, I couldn't get this to format in a standard reply.

               
              Larry,
               
              Thank you for your well considered, very lucid and accurate correction.
               
              I especially appreciate the civility demonstrated by you and James both.
               
              Looking back over the group records, I see that I have submitted 10 posts on this topic – or thread.
               
              My intent at the start was simple and brief; I intended to submit one post only; and that - for the encouragement and potential benefit of Mike Karoules, who on May 13, 2013, #7833; wrote the following :
               
              "Hello senoir colleagues,
               
              I have read from a couple of sources that it is likely that the same scribe who copied manuscript Vaticanus also copied manuscript Sinaiticus. I have had a question lingering in my mind for some time now. SO MUCH STOCK , I feel, in the field of Textual Criticism has been placed on these 2 manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) that in almost all of our English translations - other textual family(s) seems to have been marginalised. I ask you folks if you can tell me how much do these two manuscripts HARMONIZE (or not HARMONIZE) with each other if we were to put them side by side - if you will? <snipped>
               
              <snipped> Also, if you could, be at liberty to provide me any online (or offline sources) that may provide me more detail that may be too lengthy for this forum. But in the meantime, please feel free to be as lengthy as you can/wish."<end>
               
              [George continuing] :
               
              My intention was to offer him an alternate view, and one advanced from that in the published literature.
               
              I believed my view to be accurate and true; as much as humanly possible...
               
              I am still.. under the strongest conviction that my comprehension of matters that transpired in those ancient times.. that resulted in the creation of the majestic codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; is more advanced, more accurate, and more true over all other comprehensions which are now available in the published literature.
               
              I am aware that this is incredulous.
               
              I could well be wrong, even totally wrong in my understanding..
               
              Then, it will be my shame.
               
              If I am right, this is a very big change.
               
              To wit : Eusebius of Kaisariea Israel about 324-325 CE produced Codex Sinaiticus, by the efforts of his staff, including; but not limited to, the use of female calligraphers.
               
              A few years later, he shipped per orders from state, 50 complete bound Bibles to Constantine; one of which was Codex Vaticanus, produced under sub-let in Alexandria Egypt.
               
              But.. I was derailed from any elaboration by Jim Snapp's strawman.
               
              I do not say this in the sense of reluctance to concede my mistake.
               
              Most on this list are familiar with the "strawman" concept of argument in a debate, but let me be explicit.
               
              My understanding in this case is : when a person mistakenly and prematurely and presumptuously concludes an others thought, and then; proceeds to demolish the imagined concept, then; that is the strawman argument.
               
              Jim imagined that I had based my comprehensions on a mistaken interpretation of a passage from the writings of Athanasius.
               
              As I pointed out, this is not the case; that passage in question had little to do with my over-all thinking.
               
              But I freely concede; that I have made several mistakes.
               
              1. In haste, I passed on to Steven Avery a wrong citation for Athanasius.
              2. I didn't check my work well enough.
              3. I should not have brought up the term "ordered" without something to back it up.
               
              James Snapp and you – Larry Swain, are most correct in pointing out the error of using that particular passage from Athanasius in support of Eusebius producing Bibles.
               
              Sincerely,
               
              George Eller.
                 
               

              -- 
              http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web
              
            • David Inglis
              This web page http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/marcion.html discusses the words used to describe Jesus in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. It contains this
              Message 6 of 8 , May 27 10:56 AM
              • 0 Attachment

                This web page http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/marcion.html discusses the words used to describe Jesus in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. It contains this information:

                 

                One of the most startling things in Justin's unfavorable review of Marcion is the surprising appearance of the word "Christians" as a commonly used title to describe the members of Marcionite churches. By AD 138, Marcionites could be found in "every nation." At this early time, there is some confusion about the correct spelling for "Christian." It is known that Marcion preferred to call Jesus the "Chrestos" (which means the Kind or Helpful One). "… [T]he spelling for 'Chrestos' (=the Good one) [is] derived from an ancient inscription to a Marcionite synagogue" (Daniel Jon Mahar. English Reconstruction and Translation of Marcion's version of To The Galatians. p. 1).

                 

                The same page then has: Not many know that the Sinaiticus manuscript has a peculiar way of spelling the word Christian. Everywhere this title appears, that Fourth Century manuscript spells it "Chrestian." Vaticanus, a manuscript of the same age, utilizes a slightly transitional spelling: "Chreistian."   …    In Vaticanus and Sinaiticus it is not possible to discover how Jesus' main title (Christ) was spelled. A scribal device called "nomina sacra" was employed as a emphatic technique to highlight special words. The highlighted words were shortened. Because of this, the scribes left out the main vowel every time. Most Greek editions restore the vowel as an iota ("i"). By making a back formation from the Sinaiticus' "Chrestian," the word "Chrestos" appears as the proper title for Jesus. Through this logical method, it can be reasonably argued that Jesus' normal title should be fully spelled "Chrestos" throughout Sinaiticus.

                 

                Are these statements about Vaticanus and Sinaiticus actually true, and if so, what weight does this give to the view that early ‘christianity’ did not refer to Jesus as ‘the Christ?’

                David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

              • yennifmit
                Hi David, On Chrestos, Suetonius (Life of Claudius 25.4) said Since the Jews constantly made disturbance at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from
                Message 7 of 8 , May 27 9:50 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi David,

                  On Chrestos, Suetonius (Life of Claudius 25.4) said "Since the Jews constantly made disturbance at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome..." A note on this text which talks about Chrestus is in _A New Eusebius_ (rev. ed.; SPCK, 1987), page 2. Some think this took place in 49 AD.

                  On spelling in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the vowels in question are dropped in the nomen sacrum for Christos (e.g. IC XC or IHC XPC). (BTW, I don't think nomina sacra were for emphasis; I think that they were an early Christian device to make identification of their writings (e.g. Paul's Letters) more difficult.) Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both have their own ways of spelling. Calling "Chreistian" transitional is questionable because EI/I/E/H interchange is common. (See Gignac, _A grammar of the Greek papyri of the
                  Roman and Byzantine periods. Vol. 1. Phonology_ (Testi e
                  documenti per lo studio dell'antichità, 55-1; Milan: Istituto
                  Editoriale Cisalpino - La Goliardica, 1975).

                  Concerning whether early Christianity preferred Christos or Chrestos, I would think "Christos". What do the earliest MSS have at Acts 11.26 and 1 Peter 4.16? The Christ (Greek) = Messiah (Hebrew) equivalence only works for Christos.

                  Best,

                  Tim

                  --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "David Inglis" <davidinglis2@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > This web page http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/marcion.html discusses the words used to describe Jesus in Vaticanus
                  > and Sinaiticus. It contains this information:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > One of the most startling things in Justin's unfavorable review of Marcion is the surprising appearance of the word
                  > "Christians" as a commonly used title to describe the members of Marcionite churches. By AD 138, Marcionites could be
                  > found in "every nation." At this early time, there is some confusion about the correct spelling for "Christian." It is
                  > known that Marcion preferred to call Jesus the "Chrestos" (which means the Kind or Helpful One). ". [T]he spelling for
                  > 'Chrestos' (=the Good one) [is] derived from an ancient inscription to a Marcionite synagogue" (Daniel Jon Mahar.
                  > English Reconstruction and Translation of Marcion's version of To The Galatians. p. 1).
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > The same page then has: Not many know that the Sinaiticus manuscript has a peculiar way of spelling the word Christian.
                  > Everywhere this title appears, that Fourth Century manuscript spells it "Chrestian." Vaticanus, a manuscript of the same
                  > age, utilizes a slightly transitional spelling: "Chreistian." . In Vaticanus and Sinaiticus it is not possible to
                  > discover how Jesus' main title (Christ) was spelled. A scribal device called "nomina sacra" was employed as a emphatic
                  > technique to highlight special words. The highlighted words were shortened. Because of this, the scribes left out the
                  > main vowel every time. Most Greek editions restore the vowel as an iota ("i"). By making a back formation from the
                  > Sinaiticus' "Chrestian," the word "Chrestos" appears as the proper title for Jesus. Through this logical method, it can
                  > be reasonably argued that Jesus' normal title should be fully spelled "Chrestos" throughout Sinaiticus.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Are these statements about Vaticanus and Sinaiticus actually true, and if so, what weight does this give to the view
                  > that early 'christianity' did not refer to Jesus as 'the Christ?'
                  >
                  > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
                  >
                • clearbrush
                  Reference : Eusebius, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus It may be of some interest to read the final thoughts of Theodore Cressy Skeat (15 February 1907 — 25 June 2003);
                  Message 8 of 8 , May 31 10:19 AM
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Reference : Eusebius, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus


                    It may be of some interest to read the final thoughts of Theodore Cressy Skeat (15 February 1907 — 25 June 2003); not long before he passed away, on the subject of Eusebius, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and the fifty Bible shipment to Constantine. Some may be aware of the text of his private letter to Prof. Norelli, (excusing himself from the Colloque for the publication of Le manuscrit B de la Bible (Vaticanus graecus 1209) Introduction au fac-similé, Actes du Colloque de Genève (11 juin 2001), Contributions supplémentaires); (because of Skeat's declining health and age – 94). This is the formal introduction to the facsimile to Vaticanus. Wieland had sent out a notification some time ago, and I did not buy the publication; but stumbled across it two days ago on the Internet. Following is a short excerpt from that Introduction with the main text of Skeat's private letter.


                    « 24 May 2001

                    Dear Professor Norelli,

                    In sending a message of good wishes to the Colloque which is so closely connected with my own work, I feel that this may be an appropriate moment to reflect on something which must, I believe, be one of the most extraordinary

                    events in the whole history of manuscripts.


                    Constantine told Eusebius that when all the fifty manuscripts of the Bible which he had ordered had been safely delivered to Constantinople, he himself would inspect them, and there can be no possible doubt that he did so. The delivery of

                    the last three or four manuscripts must therefore have been a very special occasion, since it enabled Constantine, at last, to carry out his expressed intention of inspecting the full fifty manuscripts.


                    In these circumstances it is, I think, legitimate for us to reflect on this extraordinary occasion and to try to picture for ourselves the course of events. Thus, we may imagine the fifty great manuscripts, shown open, and laid out on long tables, covered, no doubt with some rich material such as silk or tapestry, and accompanied by the ornamental book-boxes, the [POLUTELWS HSKHMENA TEUCH - polutelwz hskhmena teuch ](unable to format gk), which Eusebius says he provided to afford maximum protection for the manuscripts during the long overland journey from Caesarea to Constantinople. What else, if anything, would have been on the tables? Here we have only our imagination to rely on. Were there for instance, vessels of gold or silver, objects d'art, pictures? Surely there must have been flowers, to offset the stark simplicity of the great manuscripts.


                    Then there would have come the great moment — the arrival of the Emperor, accompanied by court officials and guards, and, of course, the Bishop of Constantinople and all the local clergy, each of them, no doubt, hoping to acquire one of the Bibles. The Caesarean deacon who accompanied the final delivery of manuscripts must have been there, to answer questions or to draw attention to special features.


                    We can picture the Emperor walking up and down between the long tables, stopping to turn over the leaves of one of the manuscripts or picking up another to examine the binding, and, when he finally declared himself satisfied, everyone

                    must have breathed a sigh of relief.


                    Besides the Emperor himself, there might have been present other members of the Imperial family. Constantine's three sons were, I believe, at this time all in important positions away from Constantinople, but there could have been other members, such as Delmatius and Hannibalianus, then in high favour, but destined, like so many others, to perish in the blood-bath which followed the death of Constantine. Of the few survivors, there might have been one, at

                    this time a boy of three or four, no doubt in charge of a nurse, who was destined, thirty years later, to succeed to the throne ; to abjure the religion which Constantine had espoused ; and to be known to posterity as — Julian the Apostate.


                    Eusebius himself, I think we can be sure, was not there; otherwise he could hardly have failed to record the fact. He had, after all, failed to carry out to the letter Constantine's orders that all fifty manuscripts should be delivered in a single consignment, and he must have experienced an enormous feeling of relief at having escaped the usual consequences of such failure.


                    Such, then, is the picture which I have tried, however inadequately, to recreate here, and it is above all essential to realise that it, or some-thing very like it,

                    must actually have occurred, irrespective of whether the Codex Sinaiticus, or the

                    Codex Vaticanus, or both, or neither, were among the fifty manuscripts.


                    According to my reconstruction, Vaticanus is the sole survivor of that historic occasion, and the officials of the Vatican Library may, if they wish, like to reflect that they have on their shelves a manuscript which has been personally

                    inspected by Constantine the Great.


                    [puis, écrit à la main :]

                    With all good wishes,

                    Yours sincerely -

                    Theodore Skeat. »


                    This is not offered as "proof" for any particular position; however, it was gratifying for me to have such an eminence as Skeat essentially complimenting my position.

                    I would diverge from him on his conclusion that Eusebius' greek for "3s and 4s" probably meant shipments of 3 and 4 volumes at a time – Eusebius is explicit in noting Constantine's provision for two carriages, and offers no explanation why he was unable to meet the requirements (the tone of Eusebius' text imo, infers a satisfaction by Eusebius on meeting a deadline with the 50 Bibles in one shipment).


                    George Eller


                    --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "clearbrush" wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > Hi Again Mike,
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > It is nice to read your post, you have surely stirred up discussion
                    > here, and that is a good thing. You have probably hit on a sensitive
                    > nerve in textual criticism, and much of the discussion that has taken
                    > place may not have happened without you.
                    >
                    > I will try, as simple as practical, to give you my version of the
                    > situation regarding Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (too much
                    > information often fogs up the points); which will probably not find a
                    > lot of agreement among the list members; but it will give them the
                    > opportunity to offer their views. And I am hoping that it may be of
                    > interest to some others, and possibly at least a bit to all of the
                    > readers.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > In your request for any correction in your understanding of the
                    > relationship between the two manuscripts, the main one that I would
                    > offer, is that Vaticanus is not a copy of Sinaiticus. It is very
                    > independent.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > The art work in Vaticanus : The article in wiki is a good place to
                    > start; you have probably already seen it, but it may be good to review
                    > it again. Some examples are on the wiki site, (you can find more on the
                    > Internet) and it appears on a lot of pages (I won't trouble us with
                    > studied accounts). Following is an excerpt from WIKI :
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > "It has been postulated that at one time the manuscript was in the
                    > possession of Cardinal Bessarion because the minuscule supplement has a
                    > text similar to one of Bessarion's manuscripts. According to Paul
                    > Canart, the decorative initials added to the manuscript in the Middle
                    > Ages are reminiscent of Constantinopolitan decoration of the 10th
                    > century, but the poor execution gives the impression they were added in
                    > the 11th or 12th century, and likely not before the 12th century in
                    > light of the way they appear in connection with notes in a minuscule
                    > hand at the beginning of the book of Daniel."
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Paul Canart has support from other art authorities specializing in this
                    > area.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > As I have previously noted, to me – the art work is the best
                    > approach available to determine where Vaticanus was located before being
                    > placed in the Vatican library (i.e., prior to 1448). Through a chain of
                    > events (I'm skipping for now), there is imo good reason to conclude that
                    > the manuscript was taken from Constantinople during it's sack in April
                    > 1204.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > If we ponder over the probable facts about Vaticanus being in
                    > Constantinople prior to 1204, we should picture a rather plain,
                    > undecorated, small but quite thick, and very ancient, complete Bible
                    > (probably unimpressive to most Greeks) being tucked away in a revered
                    > library for almost 900 years.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Since Vaticanus is an improvement over Sinaiticus in regards to Bible
                    > production; and being pretty sure they both originated in the very area
                    > of Eusebius and the Bishop of Alexandria, Sinaiticus would not have been
                    > modeled after Vaticanus; i.e., Sinaiticus came first. I could add much
                    > more that points Sinaiticus to Eusebius.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > In closing, answering your main query; I have not seen any publication
                    > that I can remember, that has either the column by column, or verse by
                    > verse comparison. Maybe someone else here has. There have been over 100
                    > years to have done such a thing.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Finally, from your and my perspective; Dean Burgon was probably more
                    > right than wrong.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Blessings in your studies, and keep your chin up, George.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, mike karoules wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > George,
                    > >
                    > > Thank you for being willing to share of your time and education of
                    > these matters ; and yes also for trying to "knock down" (at least a
                    > couple of layers ) of some of the technical lingo. But I must confess
                    > and at the same time ask for your patience because I do not know what
                    > you meant when you state d "artwork." I will go back and read that post
                    > again, though.
                    > >
                    > > I thank you guys for the information. I have read up a little more
                    > on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and wish any of you to correct me if I am
                    > wrong in any of the following : First, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are
                    > not written by the same scribe (doubtful ) but very likely from the same
                    > school or "institution." Also, I would say they are close enough to be
                    > of the same textural family but maybe, as some of you described it, of
                    > two different subtexts. Also, there is reason to believe (but by no
                    > means conclusive ) that these 2 works were the result of the 50 bound
                    > Bibles that were requested by Constantine from Eusebius, with Vaticanus
                    > being one of the copies of Sinaiticus. And, (I am taking a stab here
                    > ) these two manuscripts do not harmonize all that well if we were to
                    > overlap the New Testament books that both 01 and 03(Vaticanus ) have,
                    > bearing in mind that Vaticanus is missing some material. But also the
                    > disagreement among these 2 manuscripts is
                    > > not too much to call the harmony eggregious. IOW, the truth is
                    > somewhere in between.
                    > >
                    > > I guess I didn't get much comment about the agreement or disagreement
                    > when these 2 manuscripts are placed side by side other than that no
                    > extensive research has been done to say one way or the other. I just
                    > thought in my mind this would have been a settled issue by now. I
                    > can't help but think that Dean Burgon's statement goes too far. He
                    > said that there are not even 2consecutive verses that are alike when
                    > comparing these 2 manuscripts side by side when looking at the same
                    > "book," "chapter" and "verse."
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Thanks again folks.
                    > >
                    > > Kindly,
                    > >
                    > > Mike Karoules
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > ------------------------------
                    > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 3:25 PM EDT clearbrush wrote:
                    > >
                    > > >Larry, I couldn't get this to format in a standard reply.
                    > > >
                    > > >Larry,
                    > > >
                    > > >Thank you for your well considered, very lucid and accurate
                    > correction.
                    > > >
                    > > >I especially appreciate the civility demonstrated by you and James
                    > both.
                    > > >
                    > > >Looking back over the group records, I see that I have submitted 10
                    > > >posts on this topic â€" or thread.
                    > > >
                    > > >My intent at the start was simple and brief; I intended to submit one
                    > > >post only; and that - for the encouragement and potential benefit of
                    > > >Mike Karoules, who on May 13, 2013, #7833; wrote the following :
                    > > >
                    > > >"Hello senoir colleagues,
                    > > >
                    > > >I have read from a couple of sources that it is likely that the same
                    > > >scribe who copied manuscript Vaticanus also copied manuscript
                    > > >Sinaiticus. I have had a question lingering in my mind for some time
                    > > >now. SO MUCH STOCK , I feel, in the field of Textual Criticism has
                    > been
                    > > >placed on these 2 manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) that in
                    > almost
                    > > >all of our English translations - other textual family(s) seems to
                    > have
                    > > >been marginalised. I ask you folks if you can tell me how much do
                    > these
                    > > >two manuscripts HARMONIZE (or not HARMONIZE) with each other if we
                    > were
                    > > >to put them side by side - if you will?
                    > > >
                    > > > Also, if you could, be at liberty to provide me any online (or
                    > > >offline sources) that may provide me more detail that may be too
                    > lengthy
                    > > >for this forum. But in the meantime, please feel free to be as
                    > lengthy
                    > > >as you can/wish."
                    > > >
                    > > >[George continuing] :
                    > > >
                    > > >My intention was to offer him an alternate view, and one advanced
                    > from
                    > > >that in the published literature.
                    > > >
                    > > >I believed my view to be accurate and true; as much as humanly
                    > > >possible...
                    > > >
                    > > >I am still.. under the strongest conviction that my comprehension of
                    > > >matters that transpired in those ancient times.. that resulted in the
                    > > >creation of the majestic codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; is more
                    > > >advanced, more accurate, and more true over all other comprehensions
                    > > >which are now available in the published literature.
                    > > >
                    > > >I am aware that this is incredulous.
                    > > >
                    > > >I could well be wrong, even totally wrong in my understanding..
                    > > >
                    > > >Then, it will be my shame.
                    > > >
                    > > >If I am right, this is a very big change.
                    > > >
                    > > >To wit : Eusebius of Kaisariea Israel about 324-325 CE produced Codex
                    > > >Sinaiticus, by the efforts of his staff, including; but not limited
                    > to,
                    > > >the use of female calligraphers.
                    > > >
                    > > >A few years later, he shipped per orders from state, 50 complete
                    > bound
                    > > >Bibles to Constantine; one of which was Codex Vaticanus, produced
                    > under
                    > > >sub-let in Alexandria Egypt.
                    > > >
                    > > >But.. I was derailed from any elaboration by Jim Snapp's strawman.
                    > > >
                    > > >I do not say this in the sense of reluctance to concede my mistake.
                    > > >
                    > > >Most on this list are familiar with the "strawman" concept of
                    > > >argument in a debate, but let me be explicit.
                    > > >
                    > > >My understanding in this case is : when a person mistakenly and
                    > > >prematurely and presumptuously concludes an others thought, and then;
                    > > >proceeds to demolish the imagined concept, then; that is the strawman
                    > > >argument.
                    > > >
                    > > >Jim imagined that I had based my comprehensions on a mistaken
                    > > >interpretation of a passage from the writings of Athanasius.
                    > > >
                    > > >As I pointed out, this is not the case; that passage in question had
                    > > >little to do with my over-all thinking.
                    > > >
                    > > >But I freely concede; that I have made several mistakes.
                    > > >
                    > > >1. In haste, I passed on to Steven Avery a wrong citation for
                    > > >Athanasius.
                    > > >2. I didn't check my work well enough.
                    > > >3. I should not have brought up the term "ordered" without
                    > > >something to back it up.
                    > > >
                    > > >James Snapp and you â€" Larry Swain, are most correct in
                    > pointing out
                    > > >the error of using that particular passage from Athanasius in support
                    > of
                    > > >Eusebius producing Bibles.
                    > > >
                    > > >Sincerely,
                    > > >
                    > > >George Eller.
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.