tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post4376170092296969990..comments2024-03-20T12:35:12.828-04:00Comments on The Text of the Gospels: Dirk Jongkind versus Reality: Vaticanus' ScribeJames Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-39019164361858145832019-10-18T04:03:36.627-04:002019-10-18T04:03:36.627-04:00James Snapp,
I know you weren't insinuating ...James Snapp, <br /><br />I know you weren't insinuating that Dr. Jongkind was "intentionally confusing and misleading his audience", but only warning against the possibility of some of his audience jumping to that conclusion. I was just giving my own personal opinion and reasons why I think it's very unlikely that he was being intentionally misleading. Sorry if I was ambiguous.<br /><br />As far as cod.B having less blunders than the above given roll of Ms. and witnesses. My point was not to elevate B to a level of scribal precision that would justify his comments concerning it's first hand scribal blunders in actuality. I was trying to veiw Dirk's comments from his perspective and persuasion. Codex B had a better original scribe and has a better Text in general than א D Lewis cod. etc...but your correct, it's no "Ferrari". Although from the perspective of Dr. Jongkind, it's the best he's got... unfortunately, cod.B is not all that good (from my point of view).Matthew M. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16314585538959945496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-35591568556121168032019-10-17T21:51:52.525-04:002019-10-17T21:51:52.525-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Matthew M. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16314585538959945496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-57058839518423155192019-10-17T20:16:27.041-04:002019-10-17T20:16:27.041-04:00Matthew M Rose,
A careful reading of the final s...Matthew M Rose, <br /><br />A careful reading of the final sentence of the post should make it clear that I am not charging Jongkind with intentionally confusing and misleading his audience; rather, I am saying that if he were to continue to give listeners the impression that the scribe of B made hardly any blunders, when this is demonstrably untrue, people would be likely to make just such an accusation. It would be better to avoid exaggeration, and simply say that the scribe of B was a good scribe with a penchant for itacistic anomalies and a tendency to drop articles and, in some epistles, to transpose consecutive sacred names.<br /><br /><< Let's be honest, cod. B has less "blunders" than those mentioned above >><br /><br />Setting aside itacistic anomalies, sure. But being the fastest antelope in the herd does not make one a Ferrari. James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-87847632770276723382019-10-17T19:36:30.795-04:002019-10-17T19:36:30.795-04:00Hi Timothy, I never said it was of no value,--And ...Hi Timothy, I never said it was of no value,--And as it goes, I hold it in higher regards than; cod. א, cod. Beza, the papryi in general or the Sinatic Syr., to give a few examples.<br /><br />However, I by no means rate it as a manuscript with hardly any blunders. Nor do I esteem it with the homage that the Critical Text School has for the last 150 years or so. I believe that it should be considered as a generally "bad" manuscript as far as readings go. Although in my experience it's better than the mss. and witnesses listed above.<br /><br />Now as far as the basis for my personal judgment. Burgon, Scrivener, Vercellone etc. came to similar conclusions and after personally spending (quite literally) thousands of hours pouring over the Text, the variants and the various Critical Apparatus (Codex Vaticanus and it's readings being a primary focus). The end result was a reinforcement of their previous conclusions. Why, you may ask? In a word Homoeoteleuton, in two Homoeoarcton, three Dittography, four obvious editorial modifications, five rare and singular readings up the wazoo. These would be my primary reasons for rejecting the claim that Vaticanus is a manuscript with hardly any scribal blunders, or is a very "good" manuscript in general.<br /><br />Even so it's early date must always be accounted for and evaluated in any and all variant units. Meaning, it's age and it's weight/value as a manuscript are two separate issues (for the most part). -MMR Matthew M. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16314585538959945496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-41862570164926437502019-10-17T17:20:45.671-04:002019-10-17T17:20:45.671-04:00MMR,
What is the source of your personal judgement...MMR,<br />What is the source of your personal judgement of B that makes it of value to anyone but you. Obviously, you can have and are free to express it, I am just wondering if you have some basis for this proclamation?<br />Timothy Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06641788186736340533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-37373742007851465792019-10-17T16:29:47.964-04:002019-10-17T16:29:47.964-04:00... partially justified in his conclusion. However...... partially justified in his conclusion. However, I agree with the overall critique given above by James Snapp and have always personally considered Vaticanus to be untrustworthy and riddled with common (& some uncommon) errors. Albeit, when the voice of universal antiquity is on it's side, I give it as much weight as any ms., when it stands alone,--or nearly alone, I hold it suspect. As did Scrivener and Burgon in time past.Matthew M. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16314585538959945496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-47479110440029566842019-10-17T16:16:46.130-04:002019-10-17T16:16:46.130-04:00Interesting post. Personally I find Dr. Jongkind t...Interesting post. Personally I find Dr. Jongkind to be of a far to mild temperament (along side a very gentle personality) to be guilty of ”intentionally confusing and misleading his audience.". He comes across as very genuine and as his name insinuates,"kind". There may be a difference in perspective which is causing his overly sympathetic evaluation of cod. B. When consideration is given to the fact that: cod. א, P45 P66 and other early papyri, cod. D, the Lewis codex, Clement Alex. & Origen are valued as some of the most important witnesses to his preferred Text and subsequent readings. It becomes understandable how Dr. Jongkind came to consider the Vatican codex as a manuscript copied by a scribe who "hardly made any""blunders". Let's be honest, cod. B has less "blunders" than those mentioned above and so from that perspective he is Matthew M. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16314585538959945496noreply@blogger.com