Tue Feb 13 09:34:39 1996

From majordom  Tue Feb 13 09:34:39 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA09477; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:34:39 +0500
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:31:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Bart Ehrman 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Orthodox Corruptions in the Alexandrian text
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 2537
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu



On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:
> There simply is NO evidence whatsoever that the Alexandrian texttype was
> influenced in any significant manner from the various theological 
> viewpoints which affected orthodox Christianity.  Here and there there 
> are isolated readings in some few MSS which might have stemmed from or 
> were utilized by non-orthodox, but insofar as a texttype-as-a-whole would 
> be affected by heretical doctrines would imply that the fathers, pastors, 
> and other theologians of the early church were not keen watchdogs against 
> the intrusion of such heresy in their sacred texts.  I do not think this 
> is the case, nor do I consider Ehrman's case (The Orthodox Corruption 
> of Scripture) to be valid once one gets to the texttype level (Bart will 
> differ on this, of course).
> 

   I'm not sure what it would *mean* to talk about the corruption of a 
text-type, since scribes (not text-types) are the ones who create textual 
variation; if it simply means that mss of the Alexandrian text-type 
uniformly attest some forms of variation, though, then I do indeed 
disagree with Maurice's point.  The argument would have to be carried out 
in the details of course, but I should point out that I made as strong a 
case as I could (none too strong, you might say!) that in a number of 
significant places Alexandrian witnesses preserve orthodox corruptions of 
the text.  These include such important passages as:
   -- Luke 3:22 (the voice at Jesus' baptism)
   -- John 1:18 (the monogenhs theos)
   -- All of the so-called Western non=interpolations (which are actually 
non-Western interpolations; all of them anti-docetic) (I saw this as one 
of the most important "realizations" I had when making my study)
   -- Numerous others.

   Maurice suggests that this kind of variation, if conceded, would imply 
that the church leaders were not "keen watchdogs" over their texts.  *Of 
course* they weren't.  How, exactly could they be?  One wonders what kind 
of historical scenario would be required.  The fact is that there are 
numerous corruptions of the text all over the map, many of them affecting 
the exegesis of entire books and the theology of their interpreters.

   I'm happy to say, by the way, that my book (The Orthodox Corruption of 
Scripture) has just come out in paperback, priced at something under $20 
(the hardback, of course, costs something like $3 more to produce, and so 
costs $25 more to buy...)

-- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Back