Tue Mar 26 18:35:30 1996

From majordom  Tue Mar 26 18:35:30 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA00647; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 18:35:30 +0500
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 18:32:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: History of transmission, part 1
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 18473
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu


[ Warning - VERY LONG, and appearing in two parts ]

James R. Adair wrote on 25 Mar 1996:

>> I'd like to break the discussion that began with Mt 6:13 into three
>> separate topics.  In this post, I want to focus on the problem of the
>> history of transmission of the text.

I will also take this opportunity to make clarification of certain of
my positions which apparently are misunderstood.  Since Jimmy's
comments were long, mine will be three times as long as well (by now
this should be expected *;-)  I apologize for the length of this post,
but Jimmy wanted the questions answered!

[long previous quotes from Robinson omitted]

>> Checking mss against one another may very well lead to a text that
>> approaches the original text in many ways, hence the 90% agreement
>> between Byzantine & Alexandrian mss.  However, I don't see any good
>> reason to suspect that anything approaching 100% agreement would result.
>> Here's some of my reasoning.

Please note that the 90% agreement is in regard to the areas of
_undisputed_ text.  I do NOT suggest or allege that this basic 90%
agreement is due to cross-comparison and correction, since this is the
consensus textbase.

My claim is that cross-comparison and correction will tend to cause the
deviant (non-Byzantine and minority) texttypes slowly to be converted
back towards the archetypical autograph text over a large number of
copying generations, given sufficient time for such to take place.
This thesis basically is demonstrable within the extant manuscript
evidence preserved to us.

Note also that I do not claim that any minority texttype, nor even any
single MS (even within the Byzantine Textform) will ever attain 100%
identity with the autograph; the extant data of the manuscripts
themselves argues well enough against that hypothesis.


>> (1) Maurice believes that one particular subset of the Byzantine mss has
>> preserved the original text of the NT.

I believe that the underlying archetype of whatever constitutes the
Byzantine Textform preserves the original text.  I do not claim that
any single sub-group among the MSS of the Byzantine Textform uniformly
preserves that archetype, though I personally suspect the Kx group as
being closest to that archetype.

>> However, he looks at the 9th-10th
>> century Majority text, not the 15th century MT.

I actually look at all the extant evidence from the second through the
tenth century in an attempt to reconstruct the Byzantine archetype.  I
do not limit myself to merely the minuscules of the 9th and 10th
centuries, though I am quite willing to exclude later minuscule
evidence from the 11th century onward as not directly applicable to the
task of Byzantine Textform reconstruction.  Even then, I would still
not neglect readings which might appear only in those later minuscules,
though I would have a very difficult time thinking that such were
original without earlier MS, versional, and patristic testimony.

>> As he has mentioned
>> before, there are some readings which actually are the majority readings
>> in the 15th century which were not a few centuries earlier.

The entire Kr tradition (12th-14th centuries) has some readings which
are unique to that subgroup of about 200 MSS and which appear to
reflect a localized revision during that era.  I do not suggest
restriction of "majority" readings to MSS only of the 15th century, but
look at the aggregate bulk of MSS from the 11th-15th century when
speaking of such a numerical "majority".

>> Why is
>> that?  Apparently because scribes didn't check the right mss when making
>> their corrections, or maybe the mss weren't available to them, or maybe
>> there were other factors (e.g., influence of the Vulgate) that led them
>> to perpetuate certain secondary readings.

Since, barring a clear theological or dogmatic reason, no one really 
knows what may have motivated a scribe to alter the text in any given 
situation, I cannot speak with any certainty as to _why_ scribes of 
that era did what they did; only that they _did_ do what they did.  In 
the case of the minuscules, the issue is not that they failed to check
the "right" MSS, since their resultant text still remains 98%-99%
identical with the overarching Byzantine Textform archetype.

I only suggest as a hypothesis that in the case of 1Jn.2:23 and 3:1
there _may_ have been mitigating factors (sensible reading caused by
homoioteleuton; the change in script from uncial to minuscule; the
earliest minuscule MSS with a "head start" on the others, which then
would influence the developing minuscule tradition, etc.)

I do not think there was any lack of MSS available within the minuscule
era.  Which MSS may have been first consulted, however, would perhaps
leave a lasting imprint on the specific transmissional history of the
minuscules (as opposed to that of the uncials); but even this would be
in the aggregate very minor.  I doubt that the Vulgate had much (if
any) influence among Greek-speaking scribes, and even in Western
monasteries, unless a MS were bilingual or the scribe literate in Latin
but not in Greek, the Vulgate or Old Latin would have little
appreciable effect on any Greek NT MS.


>> Since it is clearly
>> demonstrable that this happened late in the transmission process, when
>> Christianity was the dominant religion in most areas where the texts were
>> copied, why shouldn't we believe that the same sort of thing happened in
>> the first few centuries of transmission (1st-3rd centuries), when
>> conditions weren't as favorable to cross-checking other mss?

What I suggest took place in the minuscule tradition in the case of the 
1Jn readings is only a minute matter on a very limited scale.  The bulk 
of the text of the MSS from the 9th-10th centuries or even later still 
reflect a text quite similar to that used by Chrysostom in the latter 
half of the fourth century.  The comparison between a few isolated
readings in the bulk of later MSS and the massive "mixture" of texts as
found in the early MSS is not a valid analogy.

Most definitely, conditions were less favorable during the first three
(even five) centuries, which amply explains why there is so much
deviation among the early papyri and uncials.  Had a steady and
unhindered process of cross-comparison and correction occurred during
that era, the text of those early documents would have been far more
uniform than is the case.

My own contention is that the "uncontrolled popular text" of the second 
and third centuries deviated as it did due to two factors -- (a) lack 
of "control" in the form of the natural process of cross-comparison and 
correction, hindered by lack of free and wide communication during the 
era of persecution; and (b) the desire of many early Christians to 
"supplement" the text with circulating oral tradition (e.g. Codex Bezae 
in Mt.20:28, Lk.6:4 or in Acts) or to grammatically/stylistically
"improve" the text as best as a scribe thought himself or herself able.
The end result of this is precisely the mish-mash of readings we find
in the early documents.  The later scribes were not encumbered by
either of these notions to any significant degree.

Only after the conversion of Constantine and the institution of free
communication and state-sponsored scribal activity would NT documents
be readily accessible and be able to be transferred around the Empire.
Once this occurred, the normal scribal processes of cross-comparison
and correction would slowly work its wonders toward the restoration of
a more unified text, which would be itself the overarching archetype
stemming from the autograph.


>> (2) Mss cross-checking may indeed help weed out secondary readings (but
>> might it not also introduce secondary readings in some cases?).

Most definitely it could, all things being equal.  Had 50% of the MSS
read KAI in a given location and 50% read DE, there is no telling which
way the evidence might go.  In fact, there are a good number of
Byzantine readings which are almost equally divided.  In those
situations, internal principles become essential in order to determine
the original reading.

However, in most cases, the balance of evidence is around 90% to 10%,
and, based upon the weight of the evidence, taken statistically, the
tendency will normally be for the 90% to overwhelm the 10% during the
cross-correction process.  Had the Alexandrian texttype been original,
the likelihood of a "new" textform introduced at a later date to gain
this 90%+ ascendancy would be almost nil.  The newly-introduced
Byzantine MSS would continually be corrected away from the Byzantine by
the pre-existing exemplars, and the Byzantine text itself would slowly
devolve back to the Alexandrian archetype within such a scenario.

The only way that situation could be prevented would be if the 
Byzantine MSS were mass-copied on a scale theretofore unknown, and 
released upon an unsuspecting public which cared little for tradition 
and familiarity, with the full force and authority of the Church and
the Empire behind it (i.e., Hort's "Byzantine revision" theory).
Barring such a circumstance, the rise and dominance of the Byzantine
Textform still remains an enigma, unless it indeed is the texttype more
likely to reflect the autograph than any other.

>> However,
>> what evidence do we have that scribes in the earliest centuries of the
>> transmission of the NT text checked other mss?  If some did, does that
>> imply that the process was widespread?

Since the earliest papyri we possess give sufficient evidence that
comparison and correction was made in virtually _all_ instances, and
thus was clearly "widespread", the only question is whether the
corrections we see merely stemmed from the original exemplar, the
scribe's own mind, or from a different exemplar.

Certain corrections seen in the early papyri clearly could not have
come from the exemplar, since they differ too radically and even
reflect a different texttype.  Some corrections are made in a different
hand from that of the original scribe, and in such a case there is no
question as to the cross-comparison practice occurring.

For the corrections in the original scribe's own hand, it remains to be 
tested whether such readings merely come from the mind of the scribe.  
This can be determined by examining all of the scribe's own blunders 
and corrections as did Colwell in regard to P45, P66 and P75.  Readings 
which do not fit the normal pattern of a scribe's habits must certainly 
stem from different exemplars (P66 mentioned previously is a case in 
point; P45 likewise will serve as an example).  Once the readings which
are atypical of a given scribe are categorized, I suggest that one will
find that most of these must reflect an exemplar beyond that of the
original used by that scribe for initial copying.


>> It seems likely that the first
>> several ms generations of most (or all) NT books were copied from a
>> single exemplar, without cross-checking other mss.

As a tautology, certainly the original autograph copy of a given NT
book was the primary source for numerous copies made therefrom.  Each
of those copies would most obviously _not_ be compared against other
copies, but against the autograph itself.  Errors would still
remain in the copies, however, since scribes and even second
readers are still fallible.  Once the autograph copy perished, as they
all did fairly quickly, being on fragile papyrus and (in this specific
case!) being heavily used, copies would then become dependent upon
other copies, with the several errors and corruptions found in each
needing to be weeded out.

At that very same time, before a more solid view of canonicity might
exist, the free addition, subtraction, transposition, and substitution
of words would also occur in various MSS, dependent in part on the
skill of the scribe or lack thereof, as well as the desire to include
tidbits of valid oral tradition and grammatical "improvements" etc.

Thus the text, once the autograph had been itself lost as a standard of
comparison, would "grow like Topsy" and, for a time, become
increasingly more corrupt.  These of course were the days of
persecution, and the issue of cross-comparison was less a problem than
simply copying and comparing the copy to the exemplar, making
corrections therefrom.  Of course, if, as in the case of P66 or other
MSS, additional exemplars may have become available, then certainly
cross-comparison would occur; but basically the first three centuries
remain the era of the uncontrolled popular text.


>> This is part of the
>> reason for the "wild" early mss described by the Alands and others.  Were
>> multiple copies of the original documents made in all cases?  If so, did
>> those copies contribute to the existing ms tradition?

Agreed that there is sufficient explanation for the "wild" and "mixed"
texts of the early era based upon the factors mentioned.  It well may
be that under the circumstances many copies were made which had no
opportunity to be compared with a second MS, and sometimes, due to
haste, not even with the exemplar itself.  The growth of the early
variations in such a manner clearly fits in with the hypothesis that
virtually all variant readings were likely created before AD 200.

Did these copies contribute to the existing MS tradition?  Certainly.
They were part and parcel of that tradition.  Whether the surviving
handful of papyri from that period is truly _representative_ of that
entire era, however, is questionable.  I think all would agree that
such is adequately representative for the situation in Egypt during
that era, but I would not attempt to extend the Egyptian data into that
which must have been typical for the entire Greek-speaking world of the
first three centuries.

>> This line of
>> questioning raises the spectre of Westcott & Hort's "primitive
>> corruptions."  Does the Byzantine priority theory rule out the
>> possibility of such primitive corruptions, and if so, on what basis?

Westcott and Hort's "primitive corruptions" occurred in places where
their favored "neutral" text was problematic and difficult to
interpret.  Since W-H themselves ruled out conjecture as a valid part
of NT textual criticism (though it is valid in textual traditions
without a large quantity of MS data), they were forced by their own
methodology to "suspect primitive corruption" which no longer was
extant and which, if known, would be able to explain the reading of the
"neutral text" as a development from that primitive corruption.

The pro-Byzantine position does not need within its own theory to
speculate in that manner.  Most of the suspected "primitive
corruptions" of W-H could have easily been answered had the Byzantine
reading been at all considered by them as the source from which their
"neutral text" had derived.  One of course could always speak
hypothetically and say that we cannot achieve 100% certainty as to the
original text, and it is always "possible" that a reading here or there
of the autograph text has disappeared -- but in view of the wealth of
manuscript, versional, and patristic evidence we possess, neither I nor
many eclectics see any need to argue in the Hortian manner on this
point.


>> (3) That scribes were intent only in transmitting the received text, and
>> not in amplifying, clarifying, or "correcting" it (from their own memory
>> or doctrinal perspective, not from another ms) is a supposition that
>> doesn't seem supported by the facts.

On the contrary, my own dissertation study ("Scribal Habits among MSS
of the Apocalypse", Southwestern Seminary, 1982) showed quite clearly
that the later scribes (especially) were not very likely to do all of
those nasty things alleged to them by most critical handbooks.

If such allegations are really to be believed, it becomes amazing how 
frequently the apparatus shows such practice occurring only here and 
there among MSS, and not on a wholesale basis.  (E.g., the alleged 
scribal practice of amplification of names and titles of Christ should 
have left the Byzantine text nowhere reading merely "Jesus" or 
"Christ," especially in the epistles, but in each case the initial 
amplification should have been made to "Jesus Christ", then to "the 
Lord Jesus Christ," and then to "our Lord Jesus Christ" etc.; but the 
evidence demonstrates that this simply did not occur on a massive
scale).

Certainly, _some_ scribes here and there did practice such "editorial"
activity on a frequent basis; but these were by far in the minority.
The bulk of the later scribes (and by this I mean from the 5th century
onward) indeed _were_ "intent only in transmitting" the text they
received (not the "received text" per se, but whatever text was at hand
in their exemplars).


>> We know that some scribes did in
>> fact supplement their texts (e.g., the addition in Mk 16:14 in W).

Not to mention the additions in Mt.20:28 and Lk.6:4 in D al previously 
mentioned.  But again, did this occur on a large scale? Not at all; in 
fact such "extra" material, as "good" as it might appear to scribes,
was still not perpetuated by many, even if known at large (and
patristic testimony at times tells us such readings were known widely).

>> Ehrman has given many examples of what he believes to be "orthodox
>> corruptions."

Bart of course does not concur with a Byzantine-priority hypothesis,
but remains within the eclectic fold.  I do find it amusing that he
does side with the Byzantine as original in certain readings like John
1:18, against virtually all other eclectics, maintaining that the
Alexandrian reading in such places is the "orthodox corruption."  Of
course, the other 50% of the time, he thinks the Byztxt is the
corruption, but half a loaf is better than none. *;-)

I also should mention that Bart's definition of "orthodox" is not
exactly my own nor that of those within the more conservative
evangelical wing, but instead reflects Baur's view that orthodoxy
merely happens to be the name given to the victors in a socio-political
drama, in which theology played only a minor role. (Please correct me
if I misrepresent you on this point, Bart).

[Continued in next message on this topic]

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back