|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 31, 2009 21:56:22 GMT -4
I am NOT started this thread to provoke debate among believers and non-believers! I am genuinely interested in the history of the Bible and how it was compiled. Especially what manuscripts and texts are used, which ones are more reliable and which versions of the Bible may or not be more accurate. So leave your pistols at the door before coming here...
I had previously mentioned how the KJV was based mainly on Erasmus's Textus Receptus which was based on five or six manuscripts dating from the tenth to thirteenth century. Though there is debate about this, these manuscripts are generally considered far inferior to earlier manuscripts. I had also mentioned Codex Vaticanus (for Old and New testaments) and the Codex Sinaiticus (New Testament only) which are dated from the fourth century. Codex Vaticanus was not allowed to be studied by scholars till the 19th century. I don't know why the Vatican kept it so tightly under wraps. Codex Sinaiticus apparently underwent some alterations in the sixth or seventh centuries. Some Protestants malign these texts it seems...one text being hidden in the Vatican library and the other discovered in a garbage heep of the Monastery of St. Catherines in Sinai (this has been denied by the Monastery - the garbage heep part).
What I'm really interested in too is this: are the differences between the versions and manuscripts really that great? Do they affect the interpretations of important doctrines or have dramatic influences on how a Christian would believe? I don't intend to discuss whether or not the Bible is the Word of God or anything like that.
I didn't put this is the Beyond Belief section because this thread isn't about belief but about the evolution of a document.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 31, 2009 22:10:38 GMT -4
Here is a part of Codex Vaticanus: Codex Vaticanus, Matthew 11:8b-10a
...fiesmenon; idou oi ta malaka forounteV en toiV oikoiV twn basilewn. 9 alla ti exhlqate; profhthn idein; nai, legw umin, kai perissoteron profhtou. 10 outoV estin peri ou gegraptai, idou egw apostellw ton aggelon ...
... Behold, those who wear soft clothes are in kings' houses. 9 But why did you go out? To see a prophet? Yes, I say to you, and much more than a prophet. 10 This is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger ...It's a beautiful looking manuscript. I've always been interested in old texts (being a calligrapher). I am glad that later on, spaces between words, capitals, and punctuation marks were invented!
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Jan 31, 2009 22:31:34 GMT -4
I know nothing of what it means, but I think the Hebrew script is one of the most beautiful ways of putting thought to page invented. Your right though, that is a beautiful manuscript, and thanks for sharing the translation. Though I admit, I do have a copy of a translation.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 31, 2009 22:42:39 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 31, 2009 22:58:44 GMT -4
I wish I could remember which book I'd read it in--a Bart Ehrman book, possibly?--but I read that a lot of the early transcription work was done by people who couldn't actually read. They could copy it as artwork, but they didn't actually know what they were writing. It could have been in Misquoting Jesus itself--it's a fascinating history of the transcription and translation errors of the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 31, 2009 23:00:29 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 31, 2009 23:07:12 GMT -4
I wish I could remember which book I'd read it in--a Bart Ehrman book, possibly?--but I read that a lot of the early transcription work was done by people who couldn't actually read. They could copy it as artwork, but they didn't actually know what they were writing. It could have been in Misquoting Jesus itself--it's a fascinating history of the transcription and translation errors of the Bible. I have that book, but don't remember reading that part. I'd have to check it out. I wouldn't rule it out, but I would imagine that people spending their lives in monastaries usually were considered more educated than the average person and would have been literate, if only to be able to read a bible in the first place. Also, in the middle ages, people spent time in Irish monastaries from all parts of the Christian empire (?) to study and learn because they were places of higher learning. During the "dark ages" , Irish monastaries were centres of intellectual activity.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 31, 2009 23:18:31 GMT -4
I did come across this on the web: . Despite his illiteracy he realized that legible, standardized writing was necessary for administering his new, sprawling Holy Roman Empire. Idiosyncratic writing styles had sprung up all over Europe following Imperial Rome’s collapse, and communications were increasingly hard to decipher. Even worse, ancient parchment books were crumbling, and uneducated, often illiterate, monks were sloppily and incorrectly copying them.library.fnsb.lib.ak.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=139%3Apenmanship&Itemid=90Monks who could were expected to study or write. What trades they had were also used to the benefit of the community. Illiterate monks were used for the large amounts of manual work which had to be done in the fields. They looked after the animals, built and maintained the various offices of the monastery. It was also they who looked after cooking and in general, attended to the needs of the more cerebral monks.(This would be in the ninth century) www.gerardmanleyhopkins.org/lectures_2005/monastic_ireland.htmlOrthodox Rosaries: Its invention is attributed to Saint Pachomius in the fourth century as an aid for illiterate monks to accomplish a consistent number of prayers and prostrations. Monks were often expected to carry a prayer rope almost constantly, to remind them to pray constantly in accordance with Saint Paul's injunction in I Thessalonians 5:17, "Pray without ceasing."www.rosarymarket.com/dept.asp?id=1155I think whether or not illiterate monks were copyists of the Bible is a very important point, and I have to do some research in this area. There is no doubt that there were illiterate monks, but did they work on copying Biblical texts? Hmmm...
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 31, 2009 23:29:50 GMT -4
According to Bart D. Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus the note in the margin between columns one and two was written by another scribe later on and he is reprimanding the previous copyist. The note says: Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don't change it! One thing to note, in being that there are so many manuscripts of the Bible available throughout the ages that most of the time irregularities and mistakes are caught by scholars. If only a few manuscripts existed, this would be very, very difficult and most times impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 31, 2009 23:45:48 GMT -4
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Jan 31, 2009 23:52:20 GMT -4
Do you mean the visuals of Hebrew? It can be very beautiful, but I also have seen comparable manuscripts in other languages. The Book of Kells is amazing visually. I've tried to do calligraphy based on it and found it particularly challenging. Even more so are the decorations and illustrations. images.google.ca/images?gbv=2&hl=en&safe=off&q=book+of+kells&btnG=Search+ImagesI have a few books on Illustrated Manuscripts at home and they blow me away. *snip* They are all very beautiful. Can you imagine being a monk (or similiar scribe) and spending years crouched over a dimly lit desk working on one of these works? Thank you so much, and your right, it's all so very beautiful. Here's is another thing to imagine, the great boon of writing glasses. Suddenly those who would have been forced to abandon such a precious task, could continue.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 1, 2009 0:45:28 GMT -4
Here is page 115 from Codex V. i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb184/ginniegatrit/CodexVatanicuspg115.jpgThey didn't even start John's Gospel on a new page. So not only do you get just uppercase, and no space between the letters but no space between the books of the Bible. I've highlighted in yellow the top of column three the first line in John: "In the beginning was the word, and" I tried to learn Greek once but didn't get very far. But this document is even more difficult for me because I was learning lowercase Greek, not uppercase like this document.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 1, 2009 1:00:33 GMT -4
I don't know much in this area, so indulge my amateur analysis... 1st Line: A conversion of the Codex Vatacinus text from Uppercase to Lowercase 2nd Line: The ORIGINAL C.V. manuscript 3rd Line: English rendering of the Greek 4th Line: The greek with spaces between the words This might seem simple enough, but just think that there are whole books written on what "logos" (or The Word) actually means! Notes: The 6th and 7th letter on the C.V. line might seem weird, but the midbar stroke didn't come out in the scan, I suspect. They are actually H H or two long e's . I think the biggest difficulty is finding out what a line really means. We have the words, but how do we interpret them? Does the "beginning" mean the beginning of everything? What does "the word" mean? A simple explanation: Logos (pronounced /ˈloʊːgɒs/) (Greek λόγος, logos) is an important term in philosophy, analytical psychology, rhetoric and religion. Heraclitus established the term in Western philosophy as meaning both the source and fundamental order of the cosmos. The sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to rational discourse. The Stoic philosophers identified the term with the divine animating principle pervading the universe. After Judaism came under Hellenistic influence, Philo adopted the term into Jewish philosophy. The Gospel of John identifies Jesus as the incarnation of the Logos, through which all things are made. The gospel further identifies the Logos as divine (theos).[1] Second-century Christian Apologists, such as Justin Martyr, identified Jesus as the Logos or Word of God, a distinct intermediary between God and the world.[2] In current use, Logos usually refers to the Christian sense, identifying Jesus with the Word of God.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LogosAs you go on from this line, it gets more difficult. "the word was with God, and God was the word" . So did the Christian church change what logos meant to better suit their doctrine? Ha, just noticed the source and fundamental order of the cosmos.. Could Heraclitus been referring to the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe? ;D ;D
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 1, 2009 1:02:59 GMT -4
I know nothing of what it means, but I think the Hebrew script is one of the most beautiful ways of putting thought to page invented. Your right though, that is a beautiful manuscript, and thanks for sharing the translation. Though I admit, I do have a copy of a translation. Um, are you talking about the Greek text that Ginnie posted a picture of, or some other text?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 1, 2009 1:08:47 GMT -4
I know nothing of what it means, but I think the Hebrew script is one of the most beautiful ways of putting thought to page invented. Your right though, that is a beautiful manuscript, and thanks for sharing the translation. Though I admit, I do have a copy of a translation. Um, are you talking about the Greek text that Ginnie posted a picture of, or some other text? I think he means the Hebrew script itself, you know אני חושב שהוא מתכוון תירבעה הטקסט עצמו
|
|