Great moments in textual transmission.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Great moments in textual transmission.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

One of my favorite things ever, from codex Vaticanus:

Hebrews 1.3 Vaticanus: 3 ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φανερῶν φέρων φανερῶν τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς.

The first scribe has φανερῶν. A second scribe has replaced it with φέρων instead. A third scribe has erased φέρων and rewritten φανερῶν. In the margin next to this word, that third scribe has famously written, "Fool and knave, leave the old one, do not change it" (ἀμαθέστατε καὶ κακέ· ἄφες τὸν παλαιόν, μὴ μεταποίει).

Hebrews 1.3 Vaticanus.png
Hebrews 1.3 Vaticanus.png (574.92 KiB) Viewed 8750 times

Ironically, the modern critical texts prefer φέρων, thus siding with the rebuked scribe.

Feel free to add your own favorite moments, if desired.

Ben.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Great moments in textual transmission.

Post by mlinssen »

Image

Gospel of Thomas, parable of the "leaven"

Fourth line from the top, last word before the lacuna:

ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ

KELLIA Coptic Dictionary entry: https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C3685, the word defaults to ⲥⲓⲣ (Coptic knows many dialects)

The Crum page is very interesting: http://coptot.manuscriptroom.com/crum-c ... pageID=353

Four entries for ⲥⲓⲣ!
  1. First milk, butter
  2. Leaven
  3. Hair, line
  4. Jar
Let's see if you can locate to which ⲥⲓⲣ this variant ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ belongs
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Great moments in textual transmission.

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
one of my favourites

Matthew, Luke and John indicated that Peter denied Jesus three times before a rooster crowed. Mark however, recorded Jesus’ prophecy as follows: “Assuredly, I say to you that today, even this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times”. So does also the Fayyum-Fragment. In the Synoptics the story has three elements: Jesus predicts, the roster crows, Peter remembers.

The textual problem of GMark starts with a look at the six oldest extant codices of Mark 14 and the famous Codex Regius. There is only one codex which agrees completely in the main points with our usual text: Codex Alexandrinus. The internal contradictions in these ancient Bibles are amazing because there are nonsensical variants. In one Codex, for example, only one crow is announced, but then two actually happen. The reverse variant also exists.

GMark 14:30 .. before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me 14:68 ... and the rooster crowed 14:72 And immediately the rooster crowed a second time 14:72 And Peter remembered ... Before the rooster crows twice ...
Codex Sinaiticus only once omitted rooster crowed once only once
Codex Washingtonianus only once omitted rooster crowed second time only once
Codex Ephraemi only once rooster crowed rooster crowed again only once
Codex Bezae only once rooster crowed rooster crowed second time omitted
Codex Regius twice omitted rooster crowed once twice
Codex Vaticanus twice omitted rooster crowed second time twice
Codex Alexandrinus twice rooster crowed rooster crowed second time twice


The scribe of the Codex Bezae seems to have recognized the contradiction of his Vorlage (only one crow is announced, but then two actually happen) and therefore did not repeat the wording of the prophecy of 14:30 when Peter remembered in 14:72. In the Codex Bezae it only reads

"and Peter remembered the saying which Jesus had said"

and then the verse breaks off.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Great moments in textual transmission.

Post by Charles Wilson »

A few years ago, I had to check out "My god, my God, for this was I spared?". It's a popular translation in the Aramaic population though some say it makes little sense.

For the record, I must say that it makes perfect sense and should probably be the chosen Translation. However...

Lamsa uses this Translation so I went to the Lamsa Site and found [emph. added]:

""...few this was I spared?"

I wrote the Society and they said indeed that was what the SCANNER had produced during an Optical Character Recognition run.
We're not out of the woods on transmission of text quite yet.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Great moments in textual transmission.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

mlinssen wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:50 pmFour entries for ⲥⲓⲣ!
  1. First milk, butter
  2. Leaven
  3. Hair, line
  4. Jar
Let's see if you can locate to which ⲥⲓⲣ this variant ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ belongs
In the context of breadbaking, my first guess, of course, would be leaven. My second would be butter. In light of the topic of the thread, do you think that this word got corrupted in the process of textual transmission?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Great moments in textual transmission.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:26 pm .
one of my favourites
Yes, I love that one, too. :) We had a good discussion about it a while back, if I recall.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Great moments in textual transmission.

Post by mlinssen »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Oct 27, 2020 1:43 pm
mlinssen wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:50 pmFour entries for ⲥⲓⲣ!
  1. First milk, butter
  2. Leaven
  3. Hair, line
  4. Jar
Let's see if you can locate to which ⲥⲓⲣ this variant ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ belongs
In the context of breadbaking, my first guess, of course, would be leaven. My second would be butter. In light of the topic of the thread, do you think that this word got corrupted in the process of textual transmission?
[edited 20201028 15:58 UTC as there were a huge number of typos]
You hit the entire topic of textual transmission on the very head of its very nail, Ben.
This, that, and only and exactly this and that, is the issue at hand. There is content, and only content, to a text. And the entire context of the entire text should be only in the text itself - to begin with

Yet people are clumsy fools, always putting content into their own context first, and thence acting upon it.
You say - and rightly so from a human point of view - in the context of... And that is alright.
But then you add the word bread baking, and that comes from your head, and your head alone. No such thing in the text, nothing at all; only the word "make into" suggests a process of any kind.
Baking? Indeed, a regular and most certainly not unusual context for dough being turned into bread. But is there an oven? No.

So you, and everyone else, adds that context that is not there at all, and which is impossible to justify given the content of its context (sic!) that can only be retrieved from the text itself, given the fact that there is no strictly related text that says anything at all in addition to this

So. I'm not giving you a hard time at all I hope, this is just a perfect opportunity to spell it all out. I have the utmost respect for your brilliant thoroughness so I take pleasure (not gloating) in the fact that even you make this perfectly legit assumption

Now, my point of the utmost importance is, as Goodacre would say, the direction (of dependence).
There is no way that you can translate ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ, that can only mean colostrum, with leaven. But.. . you can use its dialect variant of ⲥⲓⲣ and then write ⲥⲓⲣ. And then anything goes, because ⲥⲓⲣ can indeed mean 4 different things, whereas ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ can only mean one single thing whatsoever: colostrum (or butter)

So. If we take this text, it says colostrum, and given the many references to children as infants (not adolescents, or even middle aged children of say 6-10 years) and their drinking of milk, this again is a funny joke by Thomas, of which he makes many.
Not only wordplay, but sayings play. In stead of water you take milk, not unusual but just more luxurious. And instead of cow milk or goat milk or anything, you take human milk! Now that is rare and weird of course and it immediately rips this logion out of any normalcy and throws it directly into a figurative application, impossible to be mistaken for a literal or regular situation

And that is what this text right here does, no question about it. Was it meant to be like this, or anything? No idea, but in this very text the only translation can be colostrum, turning it into an unmistakably metaphysical message.
So Ben your first guess is completely unjustified, your second is the lesser of two choices and completely out of context with this text, where there is an abundant context of colostrum and entirely no context at all of butter - and certainly not one of leaven

Again, no hard feelings but I get really excited about this verse, and many others. What is the possible translation and then what is the possible interpretation of that translation?

Did it get corrupted? No. Thomas is full of examples like this, and it is evident that it got taken, carelessly read and translated, and that result got copied by the canonicals, Marcion, etc.
The other solution would be that Thomas took those and then fabricated these variants, as a joke, just as people like to take literal words of others and put them into an embarrassing context.
Decades ago I lived in the States and saw the Bush-Dukakis debate on television. "card-carrying member of" some organisation is what Bush accused Dukakis of being. If I remember correctly it was a clearly positive organisation, charity or so, but the message was clear and the damage done because that phrase had only one association and that was with the communist party.
Take words out of context and place them in a quite different one and the damage can be devastating

So yes, Thomas could have done that in order to ridicule the canonicals, the intent to do such is clearly present throughout Thomas, with his comments on fasting etc, the loathing of the prophets, etc

But can you make this error by translating? No. You can't take Greek or Aramaic or gawds know what, where it says leaven, and then write that down as the dialect variant of colostrum. Impossible, not in one go. First you would have to translate that into Coptic ⲥⲓⲣ in one text, and then you would have to use that text as a source, and then you must choose between which of the 4 synonyms you like best - be only then could someone read the ⲥⲓⲣ for leaven, interpret it as being the ⲥⲓⲣ for colostrum, and then take the dialect variant of the latter

Maybe it was the second translator who created the joke?
Also possible, anything is possible. Yet what is plausible, what is beyond reasonable doubt?

One thing is for sure: if we take this text and the canonicals, and if we have to discuss direction of dependence, then there is only one: the first copier misread it, or even knew it was the dialect variant for ⲥⲓⲣ, then put that last word in his own context of the literal content of the text, and came up with the translation of "leaven"
Last edited by mlinssen on Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Great moments in textual transmission.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

mlinssen wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:04 amThere is no way that you can translate ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ, that can only mean colostrum, with leaven. But.. you can use its dialect variant of ⲥⲓⲣ and then write ⲥⲓⲣ. And then anything goes, because can mean 4 different things, whereas ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ can only mean one single thing whatsoever: colostrum

So. If we take this text, it says colostrum, and given the many references to children as infants (not adolescents, or even middle aged children of day 6-10 years) and their drinking of milk, this again is a funny joke but Thomas, of which he makes many. Not only wordplay, but sayings play. In stead of water you take milk, not unusual but just more luxurious. And instead of cow milk or goat milk or anything, you take human milk!
It sounds like you are saying that ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ, a spelling variant of ⲥⲓⲣ, is a variant which can mean only human milk. Is that correct? It never means animal milk or animal butter, even though that is what Crum seems to be saying it can mean at the link you gave?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Great moments in textual transmission.

Post by mlinssen »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 5:01 am
mlinssen wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:04 amThere is no way that you can translate ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ, that can only mean colostrum, with leaven. But.. you can use its dialect variant of ⲥⲓⲣ and then write ⲥⲓⲣ. And then anything goes, because can mean 4 different things, whereas ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ can only mean one single thing whatsoever: colostrum

So. If we take this text, it says colostrum, and given the many references to children as infants (not adolescents, or even middle aged children of day 6-10 years) and their drinking of milk, this again is a funny joke but Thomas, of which he makes many. Not only wordplay, but sayings play. In stead of water you take milk, not unusual but just more luxurious. And instead of cow milk or goat milk or anything, you take human milk!
It sounds like you are saying that ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ, a spelling variant of ⲥⲓⲣ, is a variant which can mean only human milk. Is that correct? It never means animal milk or animal butter, even though that is what Crum seems to be saying it can mean at the link you gave?
Ha! That's not what I said. No indeed, it can be animal milk as well - but in the context of Thomas the first plausible application would be human. It doesn't specify either in Crum, yet given the examples there it does get used in both the contexts
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Great moments in textual transmission.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

mlinssen wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:07 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 5:01 am
mlinssen wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:04 amThere is no way that you can translate ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ, that can only mean colostrum, with leaven. But.. you can use its dialect variant of ⲥⲓⲣ and then write ⲥⲓⲣ. And then anything goes, because can mean 4 different things, whereas ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ can only mean one single thing whatsoever: colostrum

So. If we take this text, it says colostrum, and given the many references to children as infants (not adolescents, or even middle aged children of day 6-10 years) and their drinking of milk, this again is a funny joke but Thomas, of which he makes many. Not only wordplay, but sayings play. In stead of water you take milk, not unusual but just more luxurious. And instead of cow milk or goat milk or anything, you take human milk!
It sounds like you are saying that ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ, a spelling variant of ⲥⲓⲣ, is a variant which can mean only human milk. Is that correct? It never means animal milk or animal butter, even though that is what Crum seems to be saying it can mean at the link you gave?
Ha! That's not what I said. No indeed, it can be animal milk as well....
Sorry, I must have misinterpreted your words.
It doesn't specify either in Crum, yet given the examples there it does get used in both the contexts
Let us start there, then. In which example(s) in Crum does this spelling variant mean human milk?
Post Reply