Mon Mar 25 01:41:08 1996

From majordom  Mon Mar 25 01:41:08 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA19282; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:41:08 +0500
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:41:01 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair" 
X-Sender: jadair@scholar
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Mt 6:13
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4b12.32.19960321191503.00679f48@mail.teleport.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 2481
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, Dale M. Wheeler wrote:

> 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.)

First I want to voice some concern about the phrase "demonstrable fact of 
history."   By its very nature, history is not composed of facts, but 
rather reports and interpretations of events.  This isn't the place to 
get into the philosophy of history, but we must remember that historical 
facts are different from scientific facts (i.e., historical facts are not 
repeatable), which are in turn different from mathematical facts (i.e., 
scientific facts can't be proven logically by either deduction or 
induction).  Keeping in mind these caveats, perhaps we're better off 
dispensing with talking about historical "facts" at all and admitting 
that we're all talking about theories.

Having said that, yes, of course all of our statments about the Byzantine 
text (and other forms of the text) are theories.  The fact that no early 
Byzantine mss are known to exist is a fact, but how we deal with this 
fact is a matter of looking at our options and choosing what we think is 
the best one.  It's true that earlier is not necessarily better when it 
comes to mss, but it is a factor in determining the preferred reading.  
Probably everyone would agree that a reading that first appears in 3rd 
century ms has a greater likelihood of originality that a reading that 
first appears in a 12th century ms.  It's possible that the original 
reading was preserved in a ms that served as the exemplar for the 12th 
century ms, but most would give the reading very careful scrutiny before 
allowing that it might be original.  In other words, date is not 
determinative, but it is a factor to be considered.

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