Sat Feb 3 17:17:11 1996
From majordom Sat Feb 3 17:17:11 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA07250; Sat, 3 Feb 1996 17:17:11 +0500
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 17:17:02 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair"
X-Sender: jadair@scholar
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Future subjunctive
In-Reply-To:
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 5347
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
I'm going to respond to a couple of points, then I plan to let the topic
rest for now. I think perhaps we've ridden this particular horse far enough!
On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:
> Over a lengthy period of time (speaking in terms of centuries), and
> especially with the freer communication and exchange of MSS following the
> legitimization of Christianity under Constantine, the same tendency would
> become more universalized. Rather than ONE local text growing and growing
> to dominate the field (which is transmissionally implausible in the
> extreme, given the situation of monks and copyists during most centuries),
> it is far more likely that the ongoing process of cross-comparison and
> correction would inexorably tend to bring all MSS slowly back to the
> original "universal" base text which existed before the localized variants
> were created, which "universal" base text could only be the autograph.
>
> [snip]
>
> By this analogy, there should never have been the problems in the Old
> Latin text, with all its multifarious versions and alterations. Rome's
> use of the Latin should have been so influential that Jerome would never
> have needed to be commissioned to produce order (the Vulgate) out of chaos
> (the Old Latin texts).
>
> The history of the Greek MSS reflects clearly an era of uncontrolled
> popular transmission, up to around AD 200; however, there was no Greek
> Jerome commissioned or needed to restore textual uniformity and/or order
> out of the Greek MSS (claims regarding Lucian for the NT text lack all
> historical verifiability as well as plausibility).
>
> The Greek MSS, without official "control" or "sponsorship" of a single
> unified text, somehow by the normal processes of copying and correcting
> MSS, ended up with a basically unitary Textform in the Byzantine text.
> Yet there clearly are sufficient sub-groups within the Byzantine Textform
> and variations within individual Byzantine MSS to demonstrate that NO
> controls were ever sought or imposed in regard to that text. As I state
> in the introduction to my Greek NT edition, the reason for this is simple:
> barring a formally-commissioned revision in the manner or Jerome, the
> results of which are then dogmatically imposed by formal decree, "only a
> common pre-existing archetype will permit order ever to come out of
> chaos."
I have a problem with your historical conclusion here. Why should we
believe that continuous copying and correcting of mss from different
locales would restore the text to a state approximating its original form?
By the same rationale, one could argue that as a result of the theological
disputes from Nicea to Chalcedon, Constantinople, and beyond the church
was able to reconstruct and restore the doctrinal system of the early
church. I for one don't believe that is what happened. Your reference to
Jerome seems to favor my position as well. It's true that the state of OL
mss cried out for control, but just because Jerome was able to produce a
single, consistent text, does that mean that it reflected the original
readings, either Latin or Greek? I don't think so. I think understanding
the history of the church and its relationship with the state illuminates
the history of the text of the NT, but I don't think the evidence is
sufficient to be anything more than suggestive about what might plausibly
have transpired in the transmission of the text. Thus, I don't think any
text-type, Byzantine or Alexandrian, can be established as preferable on a
historical basis. I realize that this position calls into question to
some extent the value of external evidence in evaluating textual variants.
> Assuming that the Byzantine Text can be defended in any given portion of
> text on internal grounds (much as I have done for the 1Cor13:3 reading as
> well as the alleged harmonization reading earlier discussed), if such
> defense were to be extended sequentially from variant to variant within a
> pericope, a chapter, or an entire book, the cumulative result of continued
> defense of individual Byzantine readings would point directly to the
> originality of the Byzantine Textform as an entity. I maintain that such
> a variant-by-variant defense CAN be performed successfully, in which case
> internal evidence alone argues for Byzantine-priority as well as the the
> subsequent and secondary nature of the Alexandrian, Western, and other
> texttypes. As Colwell did say from within an eclectic perspective, "Hort
> has put genealogical blinders on our eyes."
In light of my earlier comments, I believe that what you suggest is exactly
what must be done: each reading must be evaluated one by one, with more
emphasis placed on internal than on external evidence. Individual
readings in one witness or tradition will need to be compared to other
readings in that witness/tradition to see if any patterns emerge that
would indicate a theological or transcriptional Tendenz. However, no
appeal should be made to the "superiority" of one family of mss over
another, since this appeal just begs the text-critical question.
Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------
Back