Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Rochelle:

The attitude towards documents that you call "modern" where the format
was unimportant but the content is, is derived from the thinking found
in Tanakh and New Testament. That makes it unique among ancient
attitudes towards writing. That does not mean that individuals
following that attitude were not influenced by the attitude that
existed among the Greeks, Romans, etc., but that they did not consider
themselves bound by them.

As a result I find your argument that the differences in writing style
between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus reflect different political factions
vying for power within the ancient church a theory that is less than
convincing. However, I have no problem with the concept that those
differences reflect different geographical locations. I have heard the
theory that these are the only remaining copies of the "Great Bibles"
that Constantine ordered to be placed in all churches, in which case
many would have been hastily done, using materials of uncertain
quality locally available. As a result, many of these "Great Bibles"
early on would have been recognized as less than stellar examples of
the copyist's art.

Because this attitude that you call "modern" is also an ancient one,
albeit a minority ancient one, therefore early corrections of
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus could be just that, corrections.

Karl W. Randolph.

On 10/23/06, rochelle altman <willaa AT netvision.net.il> wrote:
> >Peter,
> >
> >I a, perfectly aware of the fact that most are papyri gragments. Schmuel
> >was going on about the Siniaticus, no?
> >
> >And I do find it fascinating the way moderns apply their standardization
> >approaches to a text to the ancients  -- as if the ancients had the same
> >approach to what was a "copy" as we do today..Oh, dear, just look at all
> >those variants... "blunders" one and all, right?  Ever stop to think that
> >perhaps, just maybe, a change of word here, a change of format there. a
> >change of size  -- et voila, it's not a forgery cause it is not an exact
> >duplicate..
> >
> >Thanks for the giggles,
> >
> >Rochelle
> >:
> >>On 22/10/2006 19:44, rochelle altman wrote:
> >>>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..
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Possibly the only two codices, but not the only two Greek manuscripts
> >>from that period. Most of the others are papyri. The format and material
> >>used is irrelevant to the issue.
> >>
> >>Peter Kirk
> >>E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
> >>Blog:    http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
> >>Website: http://www.qaya.org/