Thu Mar 21 14:12:51 1996
From majordom Thu Mar 21 14:12:51 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA06167; Thu, 21 Mar 1996 14:12:51 +0500
Message-Id: <1.5.4b12.32.19960321191503.00679f48@mail.teleport.com>
X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4b12 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 11:15:03 -0800
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Dale M. Wheeler"
Subject: Re: Mt 6:13
Content-Length: 2782
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
As a preface to the following comments, let me say to those reading this
list and who are tempted to use my comments out of context in another forum,
that it is not only proper "netiquette," but it would seem to me the
appropriate behaviour of a Christian gentleman/gentlewoman, to ask if it is
okay to quote someone else's comments in another context or forum. Thank
you for your consideration.
Jimmy Adair wrote:
>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,
But Jimmy wouldn't you acknowledge that since we have no manuscripts from
the early period in the Byz area that any conclusion we draw about what
happened in that area is simply a theory and not a demonstrable fact of
history (I assume that you would believe that such mss did at one time
exist.). The fact that none of the earliest NT mss reflect a distinctly Byz
text tells us nothing more than that, unless you want, in my opinion, to
fall into the fallacy of saying earlier is better, just because its earlier
(regardless of the character of the mss, their wide divergence from one
another, etc.) But since we must try to reconstruct the history of the
text, we must posit and test various theories (which is what TC is engaged
in). Thus, it seems to me, we are left with a couple of possible
conclusions from the Egyptian data in realtionship to the Byz:
(1) What we see going on in Egypt textually is exactly, or at least
reasonably close to what was going on throughout Christianity at the time
(and then we must demonstrate some mechanism for the emergence of the Byz
form which does not match the Alex; without a "Lucian-type" recension, can
we demonstrate a manuscript tradition that makes sense of the transition
form Alex -->> Byz ?).
(2) What we see going on in Egypt textually is totally different (for some
reason) from what was going in the Byz area, and the subsequent Byz text
which emerges reflects the Byz manuscript tradition.
Well, there are our two competing theories...and we are all trying to
reconstruct the lost history of the descent of the mss in the Byz region.
This is why I said we need more research on scribal practice, manuscript
relationships, etc., in the Byz area, and between those mss and others. I
suggest that progress is being made and that more will be made soon...
***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Chair, Biblical Languages Dept Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com
***********************************************************************
Back