Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tigers! · 03-09-2006, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Firstly, are we presuming that the contents of the biblical text are correct simply because it has been well transmitted to us? Is this post of mine correct, merely because it is exactly what I wrote?

One hopes it is correct, otherwise the rest of us will have no idea what you are trying to say.

Roger Pearse · 03-09-2006, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

...early in China. ...... Japanese temples ...

The transmission of texts in Oriental cultures is unknown to me, or indeed to most people. But since that process must be different from that of all Western texts, it can't be a useful method of comparison.

Quote:

In any case, we have plenty of copies of stuff directly from the writer's hand from all over the old world -- papyri in Egypt that contain letters, legal documents, grocery lists, diaries from Chinese tombs, etc.

See my other comment above. Such material again is not of the same kind.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Codec · 03-09-2006, 05:19 AM

So what does the number of copies actually tell you?

It proves that a common ancestor of the copies existed, and the more copies the more certainty that the copies you have are correct. Above a certain number though, it probably doesn't matter.

Anyway, I think my original question has been answered - the figures are basically correct, although they may be "spun" somewhat (e.g., from a casual reading you would assume they are all whole manuscripts).

Other documents weren't copied as much, because at the end of the day no one was willing to invest the time or money. However its the sole reason for your existance, you will make the copies, or have them done.

Julian · 03-09-2006, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Codec

So what does the number of copies actually tell you?

It tells us of the propensities of the people making the copies, nothing more.

Quote:

It proves that a common ancestor of the copies existed, and the more copies the more certainty that the copies you have are correct. Above a certain number though, it probably doesn't matter.

This does not follow. The number of copies has no relevance to the correctness of the copies, i.e. their conformity to the autographs. Citing the large number of christian MSS is simply an appeal to popularity.

Quote:

Anyway, I think my original question has been answered - the figures are basically correct, although they may be "spun" somewhat (e.g., from a casual reading you would assume they are all whole manuscripts).

Other documents weren't copied as much, because at the end of the day no one was willing to invest the time or money. However its the sole reason for your existance, you will make the copies, or have them done.

One MS or 6,000, partial or complete, it makes no difference and says nothing about the quality or veracity of the material and speaks only to scribal predilection.

Julian

Roger Pearse · 03-09-2006, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Codec

So what does the number of copies actually tell you?

It proves that a common ancestor of the copies existed, and the more copies the more certainty that the copies you have are correct.

Other things being equal, that might be so, but it needs qualification.

The idea that 'more copies = more certainty' relies on the idea that the copies form a bush, spreading out from the root copy. But remember the collapse of the West? In reality the transmission forms an hour-glass, spreading from the ancient root copy (or copies), growing in numbers; then narrowing down, often to just one copy ca. 800; and then all subsequent copies are based on that.

For instance Tacitus, Annales books 11-16 is based on one 12th century (?) medieval manuscript from Monte Cassino (fortunately extant), from which all the other 34 copies were made in the Renaissance. The 34 are no guarantors of the accuracy of the Cassinese ms.

Quote:

Other documents weren't copied as much, because at the end of the day no one was willing to invest the time or money.

Exactly. Note also that we, today, cannot always predict what will get copied and what will not. Every reader of Augustine's Confessions -- which is every monk in the Middle Ages -- will have heard of Cicero's Hortensius, yet it is lost. On the other hand large chunks of Petronius survive, as do works by Julian the Apostate.

Contrary to what might be expected, some of Tertullians' 'heretical' works survive, in which he lambasts a bishop. But Carolingian monks were often out of sympathy with their secularised bishops, and no doubt chuckled at the manner in which Tertullian destroys the presumptuous episcopal edict in De pudicitia 1.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Carr · 03-09-2006, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Codec

with the Bible being variously attibuted as up to 14,000 copies in existance with the first being only 200-300 years after the event, and fragments only 40years after the event.

Any complete Bibles by 230 AD?

Which fragments are only 40 years after the event? Our earliest fragment from the New Testament does not contain the word 'Jesus'.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-09-2006, 05:19 AM	#13
Codec Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Nottingham, UK Posts: 960	So what does the number of copies actually tell you? It proves that a common ancestor of the copies existed, and the more copies the more certainty that the copies you have are correct. Above a certain number though, it probably doesn't matter. Anyway, I think my original question has been answered - the figures are basically correct, although they may be "spun" somewhat (e.g., from a casual reading you would assume they are all whole manuscripts). Other documents weren't copied as much, because at the end of the day no one was willing to invest the time or money. However its the sole reason for your existance, you will make the copies, or have them done.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.