Freethought & Rationalism Archive

darstec · 06-27-2006, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

You cannot compare the two situations. Print is an entirely different matter, statistically speaking. With handwriting you are guaranteed variations. The time of the copy and the frequency distribution does, indeed, say something about reliability. The real problem here is a lack of early manuscripts, i.e. we have no early picture of variant distribution, severity or causality.

Julian

I still think the numbers relate. Consider a scriborium with 50 scribes listening to a lecturer reciting a passage who pronounces a word incorrectly, or skips down to the next line. In time those 50 are used as examples to reproduce more, in some cases "eaches", and others multiple copies in a group scriborium. While the numbers are much smaller, lacking the first, still doesn't bring us any closer to the original. And as we grow further away in time from the originals, we get greater and greater numbers of manuscripts. Considering that a vast majority of those "24,000 manuscripts" tend to be later than earlier makes my analogy apt.

Julian · 06-27-2006, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Would it not be reasonable, tho, to suppose that it is similar to the same factors as viewed in 15th century Italian mss where we have the copy from which a number of descendants derive? Such as the 34 (?) mss of Tacitus?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I suspect not, considering the presence of the Western tradition. The large divergence between the families (Western and Alexandrian) point to an early and rather severe split in manuscript tradition, one that is nearly impossible to reconstruct but eloquently indicates its presence. It would seem that the first few rounds of copying in the second century saw a large number of profound changes. While the Byzantine variants are easily understood, the Western ones are more complicated but far more interesting as they reveal an earlier strata as opposed to the Byzantine which displays later revisions and are therefore traceable to some extent.

Julian

Julian · 06-27-2006, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

I still think the numbers relate. Consider a scriborium with 50 scribes listening to a lecturer reciting a passage who pronounces a word incorrectly, or skips down to the next line. In time those 50 are used as examples to reproduce more, in some cases "eaches", and others multiple copies in a group scriborium. While the numbers are much smaller, lacking the first, still doesn't bring us any closer to the original. And as we grow further away in time from the originals, we get greater and greater numbers of manuscripts. Considering that a vast majority of those "24,000 manuscripts" tend to be later than earlier makes my analogy apt.

But we are not dealing with a single trajectory. When copying from dictation in a scriptorium not all the scribes were likely to make the same mistake and such errors are fairly easy to spot and were frequently corrected in later copies. Remember, they were generally proof-read before release. Periblepsis, like h.t. and h.a. are also easily detected. Many scribes also had multiple copies of the text and were able to compare. There are many reasons why you get a good statistical spread, you usually do when dealing with a lot of people making human errors.

Personally, I don't think that we are nearly as close to the autographs as is generally thought, but that is merely my personal opinion.

Julian

Ben C Smith · 06-27-2006, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

So if there was a novel with a first run of 1000 copies were published and lost, and the second edition of this novel has a misprint or material added/deleted and 10 million copies were made of it. And the third edition copied the second edition with 15 million copies made, the vast number of 25 million copies assures us that we now have a faithful rendition of the original?

My statement had nothing to do with which variant(s) we trace back to the original and which we chalk up to copyist error. It had to do with the difference between authenticating the original text and authenticating the events and ideas narrated by that text. Your suddenly changing the subject leads me to believe that you tacitly agree with the distinction that I made.

Ben.

darstec · 06-27-2006, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

My statement had nothing to do with which variant(s) we trace back to the original and which we chalk up to copyist error. It had to do with the difference between authenticating the original text and authenticating the events and ideas narrated by that text. Your suddenly changing the subject leads me to believe that you tacitly agree with the distinction that I made.

Ben.

I agree that there is a distinction. I disagree in so far as I do not think we have enough evidence to authenticate either. [At least for scripture.]

Roger Pearse · 06-27-2006, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

The large divergence between the families (Western and Alexandrian) point to an early and rather severe split in manuscript tradition, one that is nearly impossible to reconstruct but eloquently indicates its presence. It would seem that the first few rounds of copying in the second century saw a large number of profound changes.

I'm not sure about this. How severe is the difference in the Western text, from the point of view of the user of that text?

From the point of view of a textual scholar, it is, I agree; but from the point of view of a text user, the changes are really not very serious. If we look at an English translation of the Western text of Acts, with the deviations in bold -- and that the changes come through in translation is, I agree, severe as textual variations go -- we see very little of substance.

But your point is rather that this is indication of some free changes to the text early in the transmission, and I agree that this can happen. Do we know how many of these make it through into the Byzantine text -- i.e. the main transmission stream in the middle ages? (I have no idea, myself). There must always be wild copies of texts around, for any text. Is our knowledge of the western text merely another indication of an unusually good knowledge of the tradition at an early stage?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

S.C.Carlson · 06-27-2006, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

My questions were because of what I saw, not the lack thereof. In addressing your example, I asked "You mean to say the second scribe left whole and obvious gaps in the line?" Your answer was to provide a link which never answered the question. But once again thanks for the link. The fault was mine for assuming you had more knowledge on the subject than you do.

The linked-to page does indeed have images showing "whole and obvious gaps in the line." If those images did not answer your question, I do not know what will.

Stephen

S&H · 06-27-2006, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

The NUMBER of manuscripts has NOTHING to do with their TRUTH. Consider -

* the Iliad - over 600 manuscripts, more than the NT until after 1000AD - does this mean that the Iliad was more true than the NT until about 1000AD, but from the middle ages on, the NT became MORE TRUE than the Iliad?
* the works of 10thC. Yen-Shou of Hangchow - about 400,000 copies exist, about 4000 times as many copies as NT copies at that time - does this make the work over 4000 times MORE TRUE than the NT?
* the Book of Mormon - there are millions of copies of this work, many dating maybe a FEW YEARS after the original - would this make the Book of Mormon much MORE TRUE than the NT?
* the Lord of the Rings - there are many millions of copies of this work, (including the original manuscript AFAIK), dating from very soon after its writing - does this makes the Lord of the Rings of vastly more true than the NT?

No.
It should be obvious that the NUMBER of copies attesting to a work gives no support to the truth of the contents - yet apologists repeatedly bring this point up as if it proves something.

Iasion

Thanks for your responds. I only listed it because someone was questioning the number of copies.

Thanks again for your responds.

darstec · 06-27-2006, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

The large divergence between the families (Western and Alexandrian) point to an early and rather severe split in manuscript tradition, one that is nearly impossible to reconstruct but eloquently indicates its presence. It would seem that the first few rounds of copying in the second century saw a large number of profound changes.

I'm not sure about this. How severe is the difference in the Western text, from the point of view of the user of that text?

The translator of that piece seems to think the changes are very important.

Quote:

There must be some reason for the striking difference between this text and that with which we are familiar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

From the point of view of a textual scholar, it is, I agree; but from the point of view of a text user, the changes are really not very serious. If we look at an English translation of the Western text of Acts, with the deviations in bold -- and that the changes come through in translation is, I agree, severe as textual variations go -- we see very little of substance.

Roger Pearse

And like much of the stuff on your website, this author/translator is biased to the extreme. So naturally you wouldn't see much of a difference in the English translations.

Quote:

I will state at once why these additions and this correction, though small in extent, are of such general interest and importance. It is not only because they clear up some long-standing obscurities, but that they are decisive as to the early date of the writing of the Acts, and consequently of the early dates of the Gospels. How important it is to be assured of these early dates needs no enforcement. It is obvious that early Christian writings, derived from personal knowledge or from contemporary testimony, are of a wholly different value, as evidence for the truth of the historic basis of our Christian faith, from writings of a hundred, or seventy, or even forty years later.

I have said that the additional matter and an omission in this text of the Acts are decisive as to the early date of its composition, if this text is accepted as really Lucan in origin. My own judgment on this question could carry no |3 weight. But I will quote on this point two of the admittedly highest authorities on New Testament criticism, both of them reluctant witnesses, Harnack and Schmiedel.

It behooves Canon J. M. WILSON, D.D. to translate the melding of the two traditions as close as possible to the Received Text while at the same time be able to maintain at least one family is almost the Lucian original (and an eyewitness to the events).

darstec · 06-27-2006, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

The linked-to page does indeed have images showing "whole and obvious gaps in the line." If those images did not answer your question, I do not know what will.

Stephen

We are obviously talking in cross purposes. I don't think you understand my question. Could you point to an exact photograph and an exact line that addresses my question? I went back again and thoroughly examined every photograph there and saw no examples. The only thing slightly resembling what I am asking are places on the manuscript where some letters or words are slightly more faded than others, but none that I saw gave rise to an alternate reading of the text.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.