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.
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 casemany 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?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.