aa5874

Another example of "Chinese whispers".

A scribe is not just anybody who copies something.

darstec

What do you mean by Chinese whispers? Do you deny that scribes were responsible for making duplicate copies of existing works even if hired by the author himself?

I don't understand your point. An author around the first century is complaining that he has seen copies of his own works that have been altered. He was upset about it. What problem do you have with that. It is evidence that books have been altered even within the lifetime of the author himself. Do you deny books have been changed throughout history, especially ancient ones?

aa5874

There is a major difference between forgeries and and the works of scribes.

It is similar to the difference between counterfeit and legal tender currency.

darstec

Why bring up forgeries? These were works of the writer that were altered, just like all of the books of the bible or the works of Josephus. Do you consider the works of Josephus to be forgeries?

J-D

You say that scribes had a copying technique which guaranteed 100% accuracy, but you haven't explained what this technique is supposed to be, because there is no such technique and couldn't possibly be.

aa5874

I bring up forgeries because there were forgeries in antiquity.

Can you prove or demonstrate that a single scribe made a single mistake in all the writings of Josephus?

Can you demonstrate that the forged "TF" in Antiquities 18.3.3 was FIRST done by a scribe without authorisation?

It MUST be that all alterations done to produce the very same result, a bogus history of Jesus believers, was master-minded by some central authority and not scribes.

aa5874

But, I did. Do you know what proof-reading is?

I do not even have to be a scribe to copy your post 100% accurately.

I will do it now free of cost.

"You say that scribes had a copying technique which
guaranteed 100% accuracy, but you haven't explained what this technique is
supposed to be, because there is no such technique and couldn't possibly
be."


And if you find any errors, I will re-write it without any additional charge.

J-D

Yes, I do know what proof-reading is. My father is a published author and I remember using his corrected galley proofs as scrap paper. I used to live with a professional editor and occasionally helped out with editing jobs. I've seen proof-reading done and I've done it myself. And I've seen documents proof-read and errors still get through.

There is no proof-reading technique which can be guaranteed to produce 100% accuracy in 100% of cases. Ask anybody in the editing profession if you don't believe me.

No human technique or process is infallible because no human being is infallible.

If scribal copying were infallibly 100% accurate, all the manuscripts of The Canterbury Tales, for example, would be letter-by-letter identical. But they aren't. There are many variations, and collating them is a major topic of Chaucerian research. How do you explain that?

show_no_mercy

As I understand it, Christians didn't have their works copied by professional scribes until the late 3rd or 4th century. Before that, it was just some layman Christian who had time to spare -- and was possibly illiterate; just copying the shapes.

ΚΑΙΙΗΣΟΥΣΟΛΕΓΟΜΕΝΟΣΙΟΥΣΤΟ ΣΟΙΟΝΤΕΣΕΚΠΕΡΙΤΟΜΗΣΟΥΤΟΙΜ ΟΝΟΙΣΥΝΕΡΓΟΙΕΙΣΤΗΝΒΑΣΙΛΕΙ ΑΝΤΟΥΘΕΟΥΟΙΤΙΝΕΣΕΓΕΝΗΣΘΗΣ ΑΝΜΟΙΠΑΡΗΓΟΡΙΑ

Now imagine entire manuscripts like this. All of the letters in one run on sentence like this. Yeah, I'd probably make some mistakes too.

bacht

love that passage - maybe anti-Josianic reform sentiment?