Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 06-26-2011, 09:31 AM

JW:
Here is Snapp's next criticism:

Quote:

(2) He states that “the general view is that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not originate from the same scriptorium.” However, the consensus, upheld by Tischendorf, Kirsopp Lake, and Milne & Skeat, has been that they do originate from the same scriptorium.

Here is what Dr. Carrier said [my bold]:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php...ends2#In_Greek

Quote:

J.K. Elliott asserts that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were produced by the same scribe (in Black, PEM, pp. 85-86), but as he adduces no arguments or evidence in support of that claim, I'm compelled to reject it as spurious. Even if they derive from the same scriptorium (a more plausible claim, although it's widely rejected and the evidence does not support it—yet he assumes it without argument on pp. 82-83), Elliott himself admits such mss. can still derive from different exemplars (ibid., p. 83 n. 4), and we know for a fact these two must have, as their texts frequently do not agree. For example, Mark 1:40, 2:22, 10:26, and 15:44, all differ between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and I just flipped to four random pages of the Aland text. Such disagreements between them number in the thousands.30 Moreover, expensive projects like these would not have relied on a single exemplar but been checked against several (e.g. the Vaticanus frequently indicates the existence of variant readings, and shows influence from both major text types, the Western and Alexandrian). Apologists like to denigrate the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as aberrant texts, 'exceptions to the rule' (combining the fallacies of special pleading and poisoning the well) when in fact all early NT mss. are at least as deviant and flawed as they are (so cannot claim any greater authority over them on grounds of 'accuracy'), and yet these two were clearly very authoritative texts, expensively produced by the church, based on multiple exemplars, and of the earliest date among all known mss. (some scholars estimate their exemplars dated as early as the late 2nd century; and no extant mss. date earlier than these mss. themselves). They are therefore far more authoritative than deniers would have it.

Quote:

30 See Wikipedia entries (cited above) for evidence and bibliography. The general view is that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not originate from the same scriptorium, so I do not know on what Elliott bases his contrary assumption. They do show many second-hand corrections aligning each other, and bear other similarities, but many of these corrections were made centuries later, some as late as the 12th century (and thus do not indicate origin in the same scriptorium), and their other similarities no more indicate a common scriptorium than a common fashion among all scriptoria of the period. Even shared decorative devices at best may indicate scribes trained in the same school, but such is not entailed, as such elements were commonplace. Moreover, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus bear significant differences (e.g. they do not contain all the same books), which argues against a common origin.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 06-26-2011, 11:07 AM

JW:
I'm now going to add my own observations to Eusebius (E) qualifications as a Textual Critic to my previous list of quotes mined from Wikipedia:

Textual Criticism Expertise

1)

Quote:

The library's biblical and theological contents were more impressive: Origen's Hexapla and Tetrapla, a copy of (it was claimed) the original Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew, and many of Origen's own writings.[19

2)

Quote:

Marginal comments in extant manuscripts note that Pamphilus and his friends and pupils, including Eusebius, corrected and revised much of the biblical text in their library.[19

3)

Quote:

Pamphilus and Eusebius occupied themselves with the textual criticism of the Septuagint text of the Old Testament and especially of the New Testament. An edition of the Septuagint seems to have been already prepared by Origen, which, according to Jerome, was revised and circulated by Eusebius and Pamphilus.

4) Eusebius had a Scriptorium.

Writings

1) Demonstrations of the Gospel

2) Preparations for the Gospel

3) On Discrepancies between the Gospels

4) Ecclesiastical History

5) Onomasticon

6)

Quote:

For an easier survey of the material of the four Evangelists, Eusebius divided his edition of the New Testament into paragraphs and provided it with a synoptical table so that it might be easier to find the pericopes that belong together. These canon tables or "Eusebian canons" remained in use throughout the Middle Ages, and illuminated manuscript versions are important for the study of early medieval art. Eusebius detailed in Epistula ad Carpianum how to use his canons.

Resources

1)

Quote:

Together with the books of his patron Ambrosius, Origen's library (including the original manuscripts of his works[12][notes 1]) formed the core of the collection that Pamphilus established.

2)

Quote:

Pamphilus also managed a school that was similar to (or perhaps a re-establishment of[15]) that of Origen.[16] Pamphilus was compared to Demetrius of Phalerum and Pisistratus, for he had gathered Bibles "from all parts of the world".[17]

3)

Quote:

Soon after joining Pamphilus' school, Eusebius started helping his master expand the library's collections and broaden access to its resources.

Predecessors

1)

Quote:

Through the activities of the theologian Origen (185/6–254)

2)

Quote:

and the school of his follower Pamphilus (later 3rd century – 309), Caesarea became a center of Christian learning

International Reputation

1)

Quote:

played a prominent role at the Council of Nicaea in 325. Eusebius, a learned man and famous author, enjoyed the favour of the Emperor Constantine.

2) Selected by Constantine to produce 50 authoritative Bibles.

3) Eusebius' Canon considered authoritative by all.

Position

1)

Quote:

Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine about the year 314

Objectivity

1)

Quote:

Eusebius was an early and vocal supporter of Arius

Necessity

1) Chosen by Constantine to lead the Arian controversy meetings. Required knowledge of all textual traditions.

Geography

1) Constantine, from the West, selected Eusebius as his primary Church representative and eventually gained control of the East along with the West.

Authority

1) Eusebius is generally considered the top Textual Critic of his time and one of the all time leading Textual Critics by Authority.

Successor

1) Jerome had similar credentials as Eusebius above, was a successor of Eusebius' and considered Eusebius a great Textual Critic.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 07-02-2011, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Here is Snapp's next criticism:

Quote:

(2) He states that “the general view is that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not originate from the same scriptorium.” However, the consensus, upheld by Tischendorf, Kirsopp Lake, and Milne & Skeat, has been that they do originate from the same scriptorium.

JW:
Dr. Carrier said that from memory he thinks the general view is as he stated but to replace this claim with:

Quote:

(a more plausible claim, although it's widely rejected [same Scriptorium] and the evidence does not support it—yet he assumes it without argument on pp. 82-83)

and for the related footnote:

Quote:

On the debate whether they derive from the same scriptorium or even the same half of the century see Dirk Jongkind, ''Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus'' (2007): pp. 18-21. Jongkind also demonstrates throughout his text that Vaticanus and Sinaticus used different exemplars. This is now generally beyond dispute. The evidence that they nevertheless derive from the same scriptorium is much weaker.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 07-17-2011, 02:32 PM

JW:
Regarding [can't believe I'm saying this]the critical Textual Criticism credentials of Eusebius[/can't believe I'm saying this] Dr. Carrier has agreed to puff up the related section of The Article as follows:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php...ends2#Eusebius

Quote:

So that leaves us with the 4th century and later. The next relevant author is therefore Eusebius (c. 320 A.D.). In his Letter to Marinus (a.k.a. Ad Marinum) Eusebius specifically addresses the authenticity of the LE. He says "it is not current in all the copies," and in fact not only do "the accurate copies" end at verse 16:8, but "nearly all the copies" do, the LE only "being rarely found in some copies." Eusebius was a renowned publisher of Bibles, supervised a scriptorium, and had charge of the most extensive Christian library then in the world, whose members had actively sought the gathering of countless manuscripts of the Bible on an ongoing basis for over a century (from Origen to Pamphilus to Eusebius himself), and Eusebius' authority on the Biblical text was universally accepted by his peers and successors. So the fact that he observed the LE to be rare, and not present at all in the most trusted manuscripts, proves that the later mss. tradition, in which most copies contain the LE, is a later medieval development.

This testimony supports the conclusion that the LE is not original to Mark, but was interpolated in only a few mss. sometime before the 4th century. The Eusebian Canons also exclude the LE, so Eusebius himself considered it non-canonical.70 And there is no valid basis for rejecting his testimony. He had seen vastly more manuscripts of the first three centuries than any modern scholar could ever hope to, and thus we are in no position to gainsay him. No early witness contradicts his testimony. And even if he could be exaggerating, he can't be lying, since Jerome corroborates him (see section 5.3.12), and Jerome would know, having extensive experience with even more manuscripts than Eusebius. In fact, were the evidence any different Eusebius would have defended the LE's authenticity, not doubted it, much less have supported that doubt with a lie. We must conclude Eusebius has given us a sufficiently accurate report on the state of the LE text. Eusebius shows no knowledge at all of the SE.

Eusebius' testimony alone is clear and authoritative, at least establishing the existence of the LE as of c. 300 A.D. Had it originated any later, Eusebius would have been aware of its recent appearance, but he shows no certainty as to its origin, so it can't have been composed and inserted later than the 3rd century. Accordingly, I find none of the later patristic attestations of any relevance. They merely repeat what we already know from Eusebius. Some even appear to have been using Eusebius as their source on the matter.71 Kelhoffer even shows how a remark attributed (possibly pseudonymously) to the 6th century author Victor of Antioch deviously rewrites the same argument from Ad Marinum into an argument for exactly the opposite conclusion, thus betraying knowledge of the Ad Marinum in the very effort to gainsay it. This very same passage from Pseudo(?)-Victor then confesses to having added the LE to manuscripts that lacked it! We can thus see how the LE came to proliferate in copies of Mark and the OE eclipsed.72

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

rhutchin · 07-19-2011, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WAR_ON_ERROR

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

I would have to agree with your sentiments here. As a former fundamentalist and former inerrantist looking for better answers (in a whole range of areas) I find it frustrating that too much rationalist material in this area is from those reacting against nutty religious ideas rather than coolly looking at the evidence.

While I'm not really sure why an inerrantist can't simply just disown the ending of Mark and call the rest of the Bible inerrant, one would have to be grossly unaware of the rest of Carrier's work to come to the conclusion you and others have come to. Carrier is obviously free to engage a range of audiences and he had just two projects to do for the errancywiki. The shallow end of the pool is just as persistent in our culture as the rest of it.

The most notable, and comprehensive, defense of the LE in Mark is Last 12 verses of Mark (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Burgon. Will Carrier address Burgon's arguments and generally follow Burgon's outline to allow easy analysis of the arguments for and against?

rhutchin · 07-20-2011, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The most notable, and comprehensive, defense of the LE in Mark is Last 12 verses of Mark (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Burgon. Will Carrier address Burgon's arguments and generally follow Burgon's outline to allow easy analysis of the arguments for and against?

The book is available online here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/burgon/mark.toc.html

and can be downloaded for free (at least I did).

avi · 07-21-2011, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The most notable, and comprehensive, defense of the LE in Mark is Last 12 verses of Mark ( via: Amazon UK ) by Burgon. Will Carrier address Burgon's arguments and generally follow Burgon's outline to allow easy analysis of the arguments for and against?
The book is available online here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/burgon/mark.toc.html

and can be downloaded for free (at least I did) (emphasis by avi).

Hi rhutchin,

I will not burden you with the old adage, you get what you pay for......

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Burgon, writing in the middle of the nineteenth century

(1) That the evidence of MSS. is altogether fatal to their claims;

I stopped right there.

I don't know the answer, of course. I am very suspicious, because Codex Sinaiticus has a space, a blank space, which is quite unusual, separating Mark 16:8 and Luke 1:1.

Wearing my 21st century goggles, it looks as though the scribe, or the supervisor of the scribe, knew of the additional passages, but also knew that those passages were not universally agreed upon, back in the early fourth century, when Codex Sinaiticus was first created.

To me, the pause for reflection by a scribe, or his supervisor, 17 centuries earlier, suggests that smarter folks than I, had concluded there was reasonable doubt, at that time, regarding the validity, or lack thereof, of the excluded verses, so, unless new manuscript evidence has now emerged, to repudiate the doubts of the scribes 1700 years ago, I am disinclined to give the benefit of the doubt to any argument which ostensibly supersedes those impressions of long ago.

avi

rhutchin · 07-23-2011, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The most notable, and comprehensive, defense of the LE in Mark is Last 12 verses of Mark ( via: Amazon UK ) by Burgon. Will Carrier address Burgon's arguments and generally follow Burgon's outline to allow easy analysis of the arguments for and against?
The book is available online here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/burgon/mark.toc.html

and can be downloaded for free (at least I did) (emphasis by avi).

Hi rhutchin,

I will not burden you with the old adage, you get what you pay for......

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Burgon, writing in the middle of the nineteenth century

(1) That the evidence of MSS. is altogether fatal to their claims;

I stopped right there.

I don't know the answer, of course. I am very suspicious, because Codex Sinaiticus has a space, a blank space, which is quite unusual, separating Mark 16:8 and Luke 1:1.

Wearing my 21st century goggles, it looks as though the scribe, or the supervisor of the scribe, knew of the additional passages, but also knew that those passages were not universally agreed upon, back in the early fourth century, when Codex Sinaiticus was first created.

To me, the pause for reflection by a scribe, or his supervisor, 17 centuries earlier, suggests that smarter folks than I, had concluded there was reasonable doubt, at that time, regarding the validity, or lack thereof, of the excluded verses, so, unless new manuscript evidence has now emerged, to repudiate the doubts of the scribes 1700 years ago, I am disinclined to give the benefit of the doubt to any argument which ostensibly supersedes those impressions of long ago.

Or perhaps the scribes were undertaking a major revision of the existing text to conform to their thinking and were not sure that they could get away with deleting this section. They then allowed space to put it in if they had to.

We can speculate anything but 21st century goggles probably don't help much in determining what actually happened.

aa5874 · 07-23-2011, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

....To me, the pause for reflection by a scribe, or his supervisor, 17 centuries earlier, suggests that smarter folks than I, had concluded there was reasonable doubt, at that time, regarding the validity, or lack thereof, of the excluded verses, so, unless new manuscript evidence has now emerged, to repudiate the doubts of the scribes 1700 years ago, I am disinclined to give the benefit of the doubt to any argument which ostensibly supersedes those impressions of long ago.

avi

I find the claim that the information in the Extant Codices are the direct result and responsibility of scribes to be not logical at all.

Scribes are NOT responsible for DOCTRINE.

Scribes make hand written copies of documents.

Once it is understood that it was the LEADER or leaders of a cult that determined what was TAUGHT then it is EXTREMELY unlikely that a Scribal error could have cause a DOCTRINAL change.

All the so-called Christian cults of antiquity had their LEADERS and they INTRODUCED their peculiar DOCTRINE which could NOT be altered by Scribal error.

For example, Marcion's Phantom Teachings is NOT expected to be changed by Scribal error while Marcion or the leader of the Marcionites had ALREADY established the Marcionite Doctrine.

The Scribal errors would be EASILY IDENTIFIED and changed as soon as it was noticed.

Scribes made hand-written copies of documents and were NOT responsible for the Doctrine of the Church or Christian cults.

JoeWallack · 11-22-2011, 08:03 AM

JW:
Regarding Dr. Carrier's related article:

Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication

The star supposed witness for LE is Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons"), which kind of says it all. Dr. Carrier does his Skeptical best to doubt Irenaeus here:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php...ends2#Irenaeus

including:

Quote:

The only other relevant author from the 2nd century is Irenaeus (c. 185 AD). He appears to provide the only reliable evidence that the LE was in any copies of Mark in the 2nd century. But the mss. of Irenaeus are notoriously corrupt and problematic. He only mentions the LE once, and that in a passage that only survives in Latin translation, yet the Latin texts of Irenaeus are among those most tampered with.

An example of this phenomenon is Mark 1:2:

Mark 1:2 and New Testament Textual Criticism Study By: Daniel B. Wallace

Wallace (I would currently rate him the top Christian Bible scholar) writes:

Quote:

The witnesses that have “in the prophets” are A, E, F, G, H, P, W, S, family 13, the majority of minuscules, the bulk of lectionaries, one Vulgate MS, Syriac Harclean (6th century Byzantine version), a few scattered Bohairic MSS, Ethiopic, Slavic, Ireneaus (Latin translation), and Asterius. Except for Ireneaus (second century), the earliest evidence for this is thus from the late fourth century (W and Asterius). The difficulty of Ireneaus is that he wrote in Greek but has been preserved largely in Latin. His Greek remains have “in Isaiah the prophet.” Only the later Latin translation has “in the prophets.” The KJV reading is thus in harmony with the majority of late manuscripts (MSS).

Clear extant evidence that original Irenaeus was forged to agree with subsequent Christian Assertian. There is a difference though in that the Irenaeus reference to the LE in Latin does have more scope than the 1:2 forgery.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.