Fri Feb 16 18:57:15 1996
From majordom Fri Feb 16 18:57:15 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA26440; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 18:57:15 +0500
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 18:54:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Orthodox Corruptions in the Alexandrian text
In-Reply-To:
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 6458
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
On Tue, 13 Feb 1996, Bart Ehrman wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:
> > 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;
This is true, unless a text-type reflects either a true "recension"
(edited by an ancient single scholar or "committee" of scholars) or an
accumulation of individual scribal variation which in its cumulative
effect shows a "tendency" (e.g., as in the "Theological Tendency of Codex
Bezae in Acts" volume, which might extend to other "Western" MSS and
Fathers).
> 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)
Unless I read Nestle27 wrongly, Lk.3:22 has an adoptionist variant in D it,
with virtually all other witnesses reading the non-adoptionist variant.
I would not therefore localize the "orthodox" reading merely to the
Alexandrian witnesses in this variant. (I will have to re-read your
discussion on this point).
> -- John 1:18 (the monogenhs theos)
Your discussion of this passage I do recall quite well. However, even
though you defend the Byzantine reading as original here and suggest the
Alexandrian reading is a "strengthening" by the orthodox, you might be
surprised to find that I differ on the latter point (not on favoring the
Byzantine reading, however!).
I think that the archetype of the Alexandrian text here (likely a single
scribe's reading which became the root of the Egyptian "local text")
simply made a blunder with the nomen sacrum 0C (imagine a Theta for 0 *:-)
rather than YC, a blunder which probably reflects attraction to the
occurrence of Theon (0N) in what would have been the preceding line of the
exemplar.
(You will find that I do have a tendency to suspect accidental error
rather than deliberate corruption as the explanation for a very large
number of minority readings, especially those minority readings prevalent
in a texttype situation; the archetype MS of the minority texttype can
usually be suspected).
> -- 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)
I could agree that the Western omissions (why call them by Hort's peculiar
term?) would combine with the other tendencies in Bezae and Western
witnesses to maintain a consistent theological thematic emphasis.
> 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.
On the contrary, I do think the theologians, leaders, priests,
monk-copyists etc. WERE such "watchdogs" against blatant heresy creeping
into the text. J. Ernesti wrote long ago in his "Institutio Interpretis"
(trans. Charles Terrot, 1848, p.9) to the same effect (Ernesti also is not
a pro-Byzantine partisan):
Nor was it possible that books which were in the hands of so many
persons, which were reckoned so sacred, of which there existed so many
copies, and so many versions in different and distant countries, by a
comparison of which errors might so easily have been detected, and
whose integrity was watched over by so many doctors of the church,
could still be so corrupted by heretics, as that their corruptions
should extend to all the copies.
Tatian's Diatessaron was immensely popular before his condemnation as a
heretic. Since then, almost all MSS of that work have been destroyed
(only one small fragment in Greek exists today). Not one MS of a
canonical book reflecting Marcion's altered text exists today, nor any
MSS which stem from the various other corruptors mentioned by the
Fathers.
Certainly there are variations in individual MSS which might have
originated from one or another non-orthodox MS or source, being
introduced by a scribe on his or her own initiative. But to imagine that
a non-orthodox reading would grown and dominate the tradition as a whole
or even a single texttype (such as the Alexandrian) seems to me beyond
historical and transmissional probability.
> 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...)
Everyone should read Bart's book, even if they end up differing with his
conclusions (as I do more frequently than not). I do find it amusing
from my perspective to see Bart defending the Byzantine text from time to
time (as in Jn.1:18) in opposition to the entire Nestle/UBS committee.
Such are the ways of eclecticism *:-)
=========================================================================
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina
=========================================================================
Back