05-03-2004, 01:10 AM
Why yes I would Paul, wouldn't you?
NOT! hehe
I'm not sure if that is a fair analogy. For one, we don't have a known original in anyones hands. We have copies and a bunch of statements from people who were suppose to be there during that timeframe, but nothing for sure.
We also had our fair share of folks doing the revising thing in many areas.
Here is an example:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol1No1/MsVatSyr268.html">http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol1No1/MsVatSyr268.html</a><!-- m -->
One manuscript made it through that did not receive the major revising that the other 3 did. Why were they revising in the first place? Wasn't the old reading the preferred one? Etc, etc, etc. Too many folks playing around with things.
Just happens that the revisors were tailoring the texts to the shorter condensed received text, IE vulgate. Thomas of Harkle didn't make the texts with the apparatus from any Syriac version, he made it from the known greek western text version he had on hand. Others came in years later and changed it. Now what for? Why would anyone think that it was needed?
This change to the shorter style text, the standardization, was happening all over the place after a while. My only possible answer to it would be that too much of the Old Latin free paraphrasing entered into the texts in areas, and these folks thought they were doing a service by condensing all texts to the this "safer" version that arose. Luckily, some texts slipped by their hands.
Anyways, the drama continues huh?
NOT! hehe
I'm not sure if that is a fair analogy. For one, we don't have a known original in anyones hands. We have copies and a bunch of statements from people who were suppose to be there during that timeframe, but nothing for sure.
We also had our fair share of folks doing the revising thing in many areas.
Here is an example:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol1No1/MsVatSyr268.html">http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol1No1/MsVatSyr268.html</a><!-- m -->
One manuscript made it through that did not receive the major revising that the other 3 did. Why were they revising in the first place? Wasn't the old reading the preferred one? Etc, etc, etc. Too many folks playing around with things.
Just happens that the revisors were tailoring the texts to the shorter condensed received text, IE vulgate. Thomas of Harkle didn't make the texts with the apparatus from any Syriac version, he made it from the known greek western text version he had on hand. Others came in years later and changed it. Now what for? Why would anyone think that it was needed?
This change to the shorter style text, the standardization, was happening all over the place after a while. My only possible answer to it would be that too much of the Old Latin free paraphrasing entered into the texts in areas, and these folks thought they were doing a service by condensing all texts to the this "safer" version that arose. Luckily, some texts slipped by their hands.
Anyways, the drama continues huh?