Wed Mar 13 02:09:09 1996

From majordom  Wed Mar 13 02:09:09 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA06509; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 02:09:09 +0500
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 02:06:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Andrew  Gross 
To: HuldrychZ@aol.com
Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Tiq. Soph.
In-Reply-To: <960312190400_349347943@mail06.mail.aol.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 967
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Status: O
X-Status: 


On Tue, 12 Mar 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote:

> But, isn't it so that the Tiq. Soph. ARE demonstrable evidence of scribal
> changes?
> 
> Jim West

Hello Jim,

I'm not sure if this particular response is specifically in response to my 
message about methodological considerations, but I will assume that it 
is.  (I hope that's not too egocentric  (-:).

I was not saying that there was no demonstrable evidence of scribal change
in Biblical manuscripts.  I simply assumed that your question was trying
to examine how widespread scribal manipulation of the text was.  If you
have something like the Tiq. Soph., where someone comes out and says,
"This is where we changed the text...", the answer would be pretty clear 
for those instances.

However, evidence as clear as that is the rare exception.  Most of the
time, demonstrating deliberate scribal manipulation is a more formidable
task.  Nonetheless, I certainly would not deny that it occurred.



andrew gross

Back