Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Schmuel <schmuel AT nyc.rr.com>]

Hi Folks,

rochelle altman - 
>Schmuel, If you are going to refer to the Siniaticus or precendents... have 
>you ever examined the Siniaticus or the Vaticanus? These two are the only 
>Greek 4th-century codices.

Schmuel
I have never examined them.  In the last post I was quoting from the 
examination
by Dean John Burgon.  

An aside: We may have an Old Latin Gospel manuscript from the  4th century, 
if not 
the 4th.. the 5th.  My sense of understanding is that it does not generally 
have the 
alexandrian textual omissions and distinctions, but I would like to see a 
study on same. 

>.I am not an NT scholar; however, I do know MSS and writing systems. There 
>can only be "blunders" if one has already decided what *should* be there.

No.
Certain types of blunders are simply obvious.

Notice what Dean John Burgon actually said...

"Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, 
or begun
and immediately cancelled: while that gross blunder ... whereby a clause is 
omitted 
because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no
less than 115 times in the New Testament "

If Dean Burgon is describing the text properly (and afaik no one has ever 
claimed
otherwise) these types of errors are *not* conditioned on what is one's view 
of the 
text.  They are simply scribal blunders.

>...  True that as many as ten different hands emended the text centuries 
>later. Emendments, however, are not necessarily "corrections." 

They indicate that those using the text had great concerns as to its accuracy.

>Are you aware that at the time of the Council of Trent there were more than 
>12,000 Latin bibles or portions of bibles floating around -- and no two 
>agreed in all details?  What makes you think that Greek texts did not have 
>"variants."

Rochelle ... I never remotely said that the Greek had no "variants".  I was 
not 
discussing that issue.  I was simply showing the state of Codex Sinaiticus. 
It is considered a "reliable" manuscript despite being oddball in text, 
agreeing
with nothing (even the closest sister, Vaticanus has, per Hoskier, 3000 
significant 
differences in the Gospels).  And worse, despite being subject to horrid 
scribal activity,
the main point in the quotes given.

That is the subject that we were discussing.  Anyway, clearly there were some
variants in the Greek and Latin texts in the early centuries.  eg. Clement of 
Alexandria wrote about how the Pericope Adultera was omitted from some
manuscripts.  The Prologue to the Canonical Epistles of the Vulgate made a
similar comment about the Johannine Comma.  These are fascinating issues 
but quite different than the abject corruptness of the manuscripts lifted up 
today
as the "most reliable", Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.  In fact, despite 
protestations, 
those two manuscripts were essentially the proof-text base for the 
Westcott-Hort NT. 

>Stop citing the KJV, it's just a translation -- a beautiful one, but with 
>all the biases of the 17th-century to contend with); Stop citing web 
>sources as the be all, end all.. 

Rochelle, you are a bit out of line here.

Dean John Burgon's book is a major historical writing, much of which is 
available
on the web. Perhaps you should read his material instead of looking for any 
cause of offense.

>Cite what is actually written in the original document that you state is 
>full 
>of "blunders." If you do not cite the originals, then you will have to tell 
>us 
>how you know that X is a "blunder" and not a later emendment..

Again, reread above what Dean Burgon said and comment directly.  Explain
how such types of errors could generally be purposeful, since they are well
known as textual errors. They are even given their own special names.

The late Dean John Burgon is a primary source scholar of incredible skill.  
There is absolutely nothing wrong with quoting from his examination.
Nothing.

>BTW, did you know that an exact copy of an existing work was considered a 
>forgery?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.  That every copyist of the 
Bible was
supposed to change the Bible ?  You might want to offer your theory in a 
coherent
manner, since afaik it is unique to Bible manuscript studies.

> "Blunders" and "errors" and "variants" -- I really wonder about that.

We all should wonder.  Especially when a manuscript full of blunders and 
errors
is considered the "most reliable".  What an incredibly strange situation.

Fortunately we don't have that problem in biblical hebrew manuscripts.

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


>Back to sitting on my hands.
>
>Rochelle
>Dr. R> I> S. Altman
>
>PS:Precedents? Hmm... all right, perhaps someone out here can tell me how 
>in the heck anyone can determine precedent when both Codices are mid-4th 
>century with two different canons written in two different scripts from two 
>different locales and from two different religious parties. The Siniaticus 
>is "Romanized"; the Vaticanus is Hellenized. Any other evidence one way or 
>another aside from the same old party juggling for supremacy going on? Just 
>curious.