Thu Mar 21 00:09:12 1996
From majordom Thu Mar 21 00:09:12 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA02644; Thu, 21 Mar 1996 00:09:12 +0500
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 00:06:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Mt 6:13
In-Reply-To:
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 16958
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Status: O
X-Status:
[Warning - another long one!]
On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, James R. Adair wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote (speaking of the first three
> Christian centuries):
> > would slowly tend to eradicate the particular "local" nature of various
> > texts, slowly but inexorably moving back toward the overarching common
> > text from which all of the extant MSS had derived.
> Why would the text tend toward the archetype and not toward some other
> heretofore (perhaps) unknown text? We know that oral traditions change
> over time (e.g., different forms of the Enuma Elish epic); why shouldn't
> written traditions do the same? For example, the stories in Chronicles
> that parallel those in Samuel and Kings are quite similar, but not nearly
> identical, even when the Chronicler was clearly using a written source.
There is a major difference between the transmissional history of a set
text and the development and (obvious) revision of a tradition or myth as
found in Enuma Elish. Chronicles in no way claims to be a direct
perpetuation of the narrative in Samuel or Kings, and if it had attempted
to do so, many Jewish scribes would have objected strongly. To put things
in proper perspective, one has to deal with the transmission of the books
of Samuel as their own proper entity, and look at that issue alone
text-critically (certainly there is plenty to work with, considering the
Massoretic Text vs the LXX vs the DSS etc.). But the analogy offered
above does not hold in regard to textual transmission of a given canonical
OT or NT book, any more than suggestions that the gospel of John reflects
the latest development of the Jesus story as altered from Mark.
But why would the text tend toward the archetype? For the simple reason
that, regardless of texttype, the archetype IS preserved in over 90% of
the text of virtually all MSS. Textual criticism is always recognized as
dealing with a minority of the textbase. In the minority of text which
possesses variant readings the known practice of scribes WAS to compare
against both the exemplar and to have second readers and other exemplars
compared against the copy. Only if a second textual tradition had as much
support as a first textual tradition would the likelihood of moving away
from the autograph be increased; so long as the main text dominated in the
proportion of ca.80% to 20%, the tendency through the very normal scribal
processes of cross-comparison and correction would be to move the minority
text inexorably toward the majority.
Why was the textual divergence not greater (as with the various versions
of the Enuma Elish)? Simply because, as opposed to a growing and
developing myth, the text of the NT or OT, once it had reached "canonical"
status, became basically fixed as an entity, and a specific religious
concern and scribal care was given to canonical texts to a degree
different from that of other literature (though obviously the presence of
variant readings does not eliminate the fact that perfect transmission of
the text did not occur under human fallible agency).
> Changes from "Yahweh" to "Elohim" are numerous, for example, as are
> substitutions of synonyms.
But in which texts? Not in the canonical Massoretic text of the individual
books. Only in the clearly editorial differences in two entirely
different sets of canonical books (Samuel/Kings versus Chronicles), which
were authored at different times and for different theological/historical
purposes. This argument is apples and oranges, and does not apply to the
normal textual criticism of any given OT or NT book.
> The later OT versions (e.g., V, P) tend to
> reflect a Vorlage similar to the proto-MT, not because it was the
> "original," but because it had become the standard text. The Odes, which
> circulated in the LXX but were culled from both OT and NT texts, are close
> to, but not identical with, the Majority Text (as far as I can tell from a
> brief perusal) in the NT portions.
I suspect (with most scholars) that the Massoretic Text of the OT is much
closer to the original form than the LXX or Samaritan Pentateuch, DSS or
other versions, though it still has its interpretative and text-critical
problems; but this is another issue entirely and reflects a different text
critical genre than that of the NT where the divergence is not so much the
versions versus the Greek MSS, but the Greek MSS versus themselves in
varying texttypes (which does not occur to the same degree in the Hebrew
MSS).
The Odes vary text-critically depending upon which LXX MSS possess them,
since we still have the same B-Aleph vs A and other MSS problem in the LXX
which seems to reflect Alexandrian vs Byzantine in the NT (the Greek
Orthodox church today seems to prefer to follow Alexandrinus and its
companions in the LXX rather than the B-Aleph text).
> All these facts suggest to me that _unity_ of reading among a majority of
> mss does not imply _originality_ of reading.
By the OT analogy, unity of reading does at least reflect the Massoretic
"originality" of the text, if not the autograph. But the Massoretes are
recognized as a dislocating factor in the history of transmission of the
OT text, just as Jerome is a dislocating factor in the history of the
Latin NT text. Had there been a Byzantine recension as Hort postulated,
the resultant dislocation in the history of transmission of the NT would
call the Byzantine textual unity into question. Without such a revision
taking place, that same unity goes back instead to a presumption of
autograph originality. This is no more than Hort's initial presumption
(which he spent most of his introduction attempting to refute, and that
primarily by arguing for a formal Byzantine recension). Hort stated in
his Introduction, p.45:
"A theoretical presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant
documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents
at each stage of transmission than vice versa."
Barring a major dislocation in the history of transmission, Hort's
statement remains valid, and it is this Hortian principle upon which the
current Byzantine-priority position is anchored.
> The fact that _none_ of the
> earliest NT mss reflects a distinctly Byzantine text suggests to me that
> the later Byzantine consensus is lately arrived at, just as the Masoretic
> Text is not identical (nor nearly identical) to the "original" OT text
> (leaving aside questions of what "original" means when speaking of these
> texts).
I would question that assumption in regard to the Massoretic text, since
the strong agreement of DSS Isaiah-A confirms that the same texttype was
extant in at least the first century (along with other DSS Hebrew texts
which followed more of a LXX type of text). There is no prevailing
reason why the Massoretic text might not more accurately reflect the
original text of the canonical OT books than any other type; only
speculative opinion can argue such is "not nearly identical" to whatever
the original might be. Given the historical scribal preservation of the
Massoretic type of text and its scribal/theological connections to the
successors of the Temple scribal fraternity, there is probably more
likelihood that such a text indeed is closer to the original Vorlage than
the versional or DSS alternatives.
I would ask what is a "distinctly Byzantine text", since the current
definitions of even "distinctive Byzantine readings" no longer match
Hort's classic definition. If I were to claim like Colwell that a 70%
cutoff level of readings agreeing with the Byzantine Textform would
establish a MS as Byzantine, I would suggest that many of the early
documents (papyri and non-Byzantine uncials) do come close to that
threshhold, contrary to popular text-critical opinion.
Assuming (for the sake of arguing the pro-Byzantine hypothesis) that
readings held in common by Byzantine and Alexandrian MSS are counted as
Byzantine, and also that readings held in common by Western and Byzantine
MSS are also considered as Byzantine, the percentage of "Byzantine-ness"
in the early MSS will generally hover between 55%-65%; they may not be
fully Byzantine, but they are not far from it, when viewed from the
standpoint of our hypothesis.
The error of modern eclecticism is to consider a Byz+Alex reading as
basically Alexandrian and not Byzantine, merely due to the presupposition
of the "late" nature of the Byzantine MSS, which merely "adopted" the
Alexandrian reading. Ditto with the Byz+Western readings, since the
Western text is presupposed to be "earlier" than the Byzantine. Once the
presuppositions are altered, the greater will appear the "Byzantine"
nature of even the strongest non-Byzantine MSS, versions and fathers
(Burgon has been criticized for claiming the fathers supported Byzantine
readings in the proportion of 2:1 (=66%), claiming that this was due to
his use of uncritical editions. But on the contrary, the real issue is
how he tabulated a reading as Byzantine -- and that was to count the
Alex+Byz and West+Byz as Byzantine, since from a pro-Byzantine
presuppositional stance there is no other way to count such readings --
they are merely autograph readings from which the minority Alexandrian
and/or Western witnesses happened NOT to depart.
> Maurice has mentioned a paper he is working on that explains the
> disappearance of the earliest Byzantine witnesses. I will definitely be
> interested to read it.
That paper will likely not be completed before sometime next year. The
basic thesis and outline is completed and the writing has begun, but
ensuring accurate and sufficient documentation is quite time-consuming,
specifically because there is so little written material on this subject,
since the last century has been so convinced of the secondary nature of
the Byzantine Textform. The data has to be extracted almost between the
lines. However, I am hoping to read this paper before the ETS San
Francisco meeting in 1997, which allows plenty of time for research and
refinement.
> This is precisely what I was trying to establish: that the position in
> question starts from the assumption, not of the general superiority of the
> Byzantine text, but of the _originality_ of that text-type.
Indeed the presuppositional stance is tied to a belief that, unlike
eclecticism, wherein the original text lies scattered hither and yon among
the extant witnesses and must be painstakingly recovered piece by piece,
the original text is more likely to have perpetuated itself in a single
texttype, whether Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine, or Caesarean.
The primary appeal in this type of approach is to external evidence first,
with sufficient testing by internal evidence principles. Modern
eclecticism proceeds first from internal principles and secondarily from
an appeal to external evidence. There are clearly two different
methodologies, and it is amusing to find that the external evidence
emphasis of the Byzantine-priority school differs little in method from
that of Hort (who favored the Alexandrian texttype on primarily external
grounds) or A.C.Clark (who favored the Western text primarily on external
grounds). As Hort strongly urged, "Knowledge of documents must precede
final judgement upon readings"; modern eclecticism seems to have reversed
this principle in theory, if not in practice.
> This is
> different from an assumption of general Alexandrian superiority, which
> many (not all) eclectics make.
But on what basis? The subjective judgment of which readings are
superior, based upon what scribes are supposedly inclined to do? Except
when such principles contradict the favorite "older MSS" of the
Alexandrian texttype, which still remains the strongest underlying
principle of modern eclecticism (save for the rigorous eclectics such as
Kilpatrick and Elliott).
Should an eclectic scholar decide on primarily internal grounds to follow
the Byzantine text 80% of the time, I suspect the SBL text-critical
seminar would laugh that eclectic out of court, despite his ability to
explain and defend such readings; the pro-Alexandrian bias still reigns
supreme among modern eclectics, despite their acceptance of a handful of
Byzantine readings here and there (a collation of W-H's 1881 text and the
N27 text will reveal only about 600 differences, of which 300 involve the
presence or absence of brackets; yet Hort's text was supposedly based
primarily on external evidence while modern eclecticism supposedly has
transcended that barrier).
> Arguments in favor of specific Byzantine
> readings, though often quite clever (and undoubtedly sometimes correct!),
> are not the bases for textual decisions, but are the consequences of
> readings predetermined by the external evidence.
So we have to be merely "clever" to argue the pro-Byzantine text, and
sometimes actually luck out? I think not. Certainly, the external data
are the presuppositional basis for textual decisions, but the internal
evidence, utilizing NORMAL text-critical principles, still needs to be
used to validate and support those externally-based text-critical decisions.
It also must be remembered that the reason for going to external data as
a primary resource, and for determining the Byzantine Textform as the
best of the external evidence does NOT stem from decisions made about
individual variant readings as an a priori, nor upon selecting the
Byzantine text itself as an a priori, but first from attempting to
construct a thoroughly reliable history of transmission, and seeing which
pieces best fit into the reconstruction of that history. As stated
previously, "Textual criticism without a history of transmission is
impossible" (H.H.Oliver). The recent discussion has moved away from that
underlying presuppositional position to such an extent that I think we
are off on an false tangent which is coming around to a straw man issue
that the Byzantine text is favored because of mere say-so; this most
definitely is not the case.
> Of course, it can be
> argued that the Byzantine tradition was chosen in the first place because
> it contained superior readings (as many argue of the Alexandrian text),
> but it does not follow that just because some, or many, Byzantine
> readings are judged to be original that _all_ are.
Actually from a pro-Byzantine position, the truth is that we do NOT
proceed as did Hort, and do not look for any initial superiority of
readings within the Byzantine Textform. The first and primary principle
is constructing a hypothesis for the history of transmission and then
testing that hypothesis against the known textual data. Only after the
most suitable external candidate (on the texttype level) for autograph
originality is selected does an examination of its internal readings
begin.
Then, just as Hort claimed with regard to the Alexandrian text, certain
Byzantine readings did NOT commend themselves at first, but upon closer
examination are seen to actually be superior and have indications of
originality based upon normal text-critical principles of internal
evidence. Some Byzantine readings remain where internal defense leads to
no definite conclusion; these isolated instances, however, do not negate
the basic principles of transmissional history nor the general conclusion
regarding the superiority of the Byzantine Textform.
> To look at another example, the ending of the Lord's Prayer in Mt 6:13
> ("for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.")
> is present in the Majority Text, including several uncials, and many
> early versions. However, it definitely looks like an early addition,
> probably from a liturgical setting (thus the "amen"). How does the
> Byzantine priority view evaluate this reading?
This one was answered well by both Burgon and Scrivener in the last
century. In the liturgical practice of the early church the closing
doxology was liturgically stated by the priest alone, and not by the
laity. It thus is not surprising to find that a minority of MSS leave out
the words which may have been thought by the scribe wrongly to have been
inserted into the exemplar he was copying to so as to liturgically "fill
out" the prayer. Since the scribe "knew" that the laity did not say the
closing doxology, it would not seem proper for these words to have
originally been included in the instructions to the disciples as to how
they (laity) ought to pray. (I see no need to argue assimilation to the
Lukan form of the prayer, which does not have the doxology in any
texttype).
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc.Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back