Tue Mar 26 18:37:28 1996
From majordom Tue Mar 26 18:37:28 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA00700; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 18:37:28 +0500
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 18:34:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: History of transmission, part II
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 12896
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
[ Continued from previous message on same topic ]
James R. Adair wrote on 25 Mar 1996:
>> It is also clear that some scribes harmonized one passage
>> with another, especially in the gospels (or, from the Byzantine priority
>> perspective, scribes omitted material found in other gospels?).
Wisselink's published dissertation on "Assimilation" in the Gospels
argues strongly against such suggestions being implemented on the wide
scale. Certainly, even the N27 apparatus shows individual MSS and even
small groups of MSS harmonizing one parallel passage to another, and
there are abundant cases of such harmonization cited. However, a "leap
of faith" occurs text-critically when eclectics assume from the known
limited harmonization data that _any_ agreement in reading in parallel
places in the gospels on the texttype level "must" be the result of a
similar "harmonization" process.
Wisselink and I both argue that the very fact that frequent
harmonization is found sporadically among various MSS and is _not_
perpetuated by any significant number of scribes clearly demonstrates
that such would likewise not carry itself over to the texttype level.
Indeed, the only way that harmonization on the large scale can be
alleged against the Byzantine Textform is to revert back to Hort's
"Byzantine revision" hypothesis, which, if true, would allow for such a
revision to incorporate such widespread harmonizations and then to
formally promote them on the large scale.
Most true harmonizations, by the way, are by conforming words and word
order to that of a parallel text. Inclusion of parallel material
rather than harmonization by omission (i.e. thus creating the shorter
reading) would be characteristic of harmonizing readings, but not the
reverse.
>> When
>> translations are considered alongside Greek mss, the evidence is
>> increased that some scribes, especially (but not exclusively) early ones,
>> altered their text as they transmitted it (this doesn't even consider
>> accidental changes to the text). While many of these changes would be
>> eliminated by the cross-checking process, would all of them be?
The issue of versional differences is often due to limitations of those
versions in rendering the Greek text or idiom into their language.
Hence cases of the definite article or word order almost never can be
resolved by an appeal to the versions. (See especially the various
excellent "limitation" chapters in Metzger's _Early Versions of the NT_
volume). Whoever was responsible for a versional translation, be it a
single scribe/translator or committee, had to deal both with the factor
of the limitations involved in translating from Greek to the language
of that version and with the limitations and errors inherent in the
MS(S) available to him or her at the point of such translation. During
this process I suspect a good number of alterations may have been made
to the text which were deemed essential by the translator(s), but these
would not all be resolved by cross-checking and correction.
Once the versional translation had been created, its further MSS would
have their own transmissional history and their own specific errors.
Rarely would later versional copies be compared with Greek MSS to
attempt a "restoration". The Syriac text seems to be the primary
exception, in which the later Harkleian revises the Peshitto into a
more stringently Byzantine text (placing non-Byzantine readings in the
margin).
>> (4) Finally, there is the issue of the "dislocating factor" in the
>> history of transmission. In the case of the Hebrew OT text, the
>> destruction of the temple was one important dislocating factor.
Which, though obviously a grave event, did not seem to seriously damage
the transmission of the Hebrew biblical text.
> In the
>> case of the LXX, the influence of Origen's Hexapla, which introduced a
>> Greek text much closer to the MT, was a dislocating factor.
Though again, I fail to see much influence from the Hexapla on the
extant MSS of the LXX. More MT readings should have appeared in the
basic LXX MSS as a result, but instead we find most MSS still
maintaining their typical "LXX style" text versus the MT.
>> Maurice has
>> noted that Jerome's Vulgate was a dislocating factor in the transmission
>> of the Latin text (many OL mss contain numerous Vulgate readings). Was
>> there a dislocating factor in the history of the Greek NT text, one that
>> would irrevocably alter the course of the transmission of the text?
Jerome's revision did resolve the chaos existing among the Old Latin
MSS. It was a "dislocation," but one which tended toward restoration.
The Vulgate, even based on a primarily Alexandrian text, was far
superior to the mixed "western" Old Latin confusion. Had Jerome
decided to select a Byzantine rather than an Alexandrian MS for his
revision, I daresay the history of the Vulgate would have been quite
different, not to mention the practice of NT textual criticism.
I would suggest that there were two "dislocating" factors in the
history of the Greek text, but even in these cases the tendency is
still toward "restoration" of the autograph and not with the intent of
placing a wholly new text before the world which would mysteriously be
adopted by virtually everyone without official promulgation or sanction
such as Jerome's Vulgate enjoyed.
Rather than Hort's Byzantine revision, the two biggest dislocating
factors in the history of transmission were (a) the shift from papyrus
to vellum and (b) the legitimization of Christianity under Constantine
(the former basically dependent on the latter). With both freedom to
disseminate, compare, and correct scriptural texts and the introduction
of a more durable material to write upon, the opportunity would arise
for a greater stability of text than ever had been the case. Without a
Jerome or even a Lucian, the slow process of textual restoration could
freely begin in the 4th century, with the result of that process being
seen only through the passage of time.
>> I can think of several possibilities:
These of course all have been mentioned by other critics of the
Byzantine position (D. A. Carson, Gordon Fee, Bruce Metzger, Kurt
Aland, etc.)
>> (a) the persecutions of Decian and Diocletian, which destroyed
>> numerous NT mss;
Most definitely. But unless one wishes to argue that all things were
not equal, the surrender and destruction of MSS would proportionally
have affected all extant texttypes so that the result, once the
persecution was over, would be basically the same ratio of whatever
types existed previously.
Certainly the Alexandrian and Western MSS were not seized in the
greater proportion, since they are still around from the early
centuries. I do not think that from your perspective you would want to
argue that it was primarily the Byzantine MSS which were thus seized,
since that would argue in _my_ favor. Thus, for all concerned, the
best assumption is that the proportion of surviving MSS generally
reflected the proportion of MSS destroyed. If so, then this
persecution, though severe, did not radically alter the transmissional
history of NT MSS, though it did reduce their overall numbers
significantly.
>> (b) the Muslim revolution,
I will come to this after considering points (c) and (d), since you
make them part of the reason for (b).
>> (c) the shift in
>> the seat of the Roman government from Rome to Constantinople (Byzantium),
>> home of the Byzantine text--Rome did retain (or gain) religious
>> ascendancy, but the text in Rome was transmitted in Latin, primarily in
>> the form of the Vulgate, which, though close to the Byzantine text-type,
>> is not by any means synonymous with it;
The Latin West and the Byzantine East were already separated
linguistically and textually long before the shift in the seat of
government occurred. Old Latin and Vulgate MSS from before the fall of
Rome are no more Byzantine in character than those from after that
fall. Neither are the Greek MSS following the fall of Rome more
"Alexandrian" than they had previously been, even though influence from
the Vulgate might have been expected to tend in that direction. The
Vulgate, however you cut it, is _not_ "close to the Byzantine
text-type", but to the Alexandrian.
Only the Graeco-Latin MSS (many produced in southern Italy) appear to
show cross-pollination in either direction from Latin to Greek or Greek
to Latin. In any case, the shift in the seat of government did not
affect the transmission of the Greek text itself. The episcopal see of
Constantinople was already influential, but so too were Rome, Antioch,
Jerusalem, and Alexandria, and no one of these dominated textual
preference or even appeared to show much concern with such.
(d) the ecumenical councils of
>> Nicea and Chalcedon (among others) might have led to the suppression of
>> questionable readings or to orthodox "improvements" to the text. Any or
>> all of these might have been dislocating factors in the history of the
>> transmission of the NT text.
I immediately suspect the word "might" in a historical context where we
know fairly well what the precise concerns of these councils happened
to be, down to the single iota in HOMOOUSIOS vs HOMOIOUSIOS. There is
no evidence whatever that indicates that these councils took any
concern with specific readings of the text, let alone to
enthusiastically support a specific Byzantine reading. Had they in
fact done so, then it would be likely that the resultant "orthodoxy"
would not only be theological and creedal, but also textual, and those
who are now doctrinally "orthodox" in the sense of Nicea and Chalcedon
would be under the same obligation to accept the Byzantine text as they
are to accept the deity of Christ and the orthodox creeds. Q.E.D.....
>> (b) the Muslim revolution,
>> which swept over Egypt and Palestine, virtually eliminating Egyptian
>> texts, hence the Alexandrian text-type (of course, the Alexandrian text
>> was already limited in influence, but why?--see c & d);
Back to this point (having from my perspective now dismissed (c) and
(d) --- Even granting for the sake of argument the presumption that the
Moslem conquest would have wiped out the text in a given region: are
you suggesting that the _only_ influence the Alexandrian texttype had
in the seventh century emanated from Egypt? If the Alexandrian
texttype were in fact NOT a "local text" of Egypt (which I would
maintain), but instead closer to the autograph, that texttype should
have been utterly dominant in the Greek-speaking region of the Empire,
and the destruction of MSS within a merely localized region should
NEVER have eliminated the dominant Alexandrian text elsewhere.
On the other hand, if the Alexandrian text were merely a local text of
Egypt, why then should it be considered more likely the autograph than
the Greek texts which were originally sent to various localities in
Greece, Asia Minor and even Rome, and the descendants of which
themselves should still maintain a dominance in those regions
unaffected by the Moslem conquest?
But on the contrary, the Moslem conquest in fact did _not_ utterly wipe
out Christianity nor the biblical MSS in the conquered territories,
even though the great library at Alexandria was destroyed -- and that
not due to its possessing Christian works, but due to its massive
collection of pagan works.
The early Moslems allowed the conquered peoples to retain their
religion and their sacred books. They definitely made life difficult
for those believers by adding "incentives" to convert to Islam such as
triple taxation, inability to hold office, etc., but the Coptic church
in Egypt survived and continues to survive until this day, maintaining
its scriptures intact. Without in any way being an apologist for
Islam, Saladin and others like him were not exactly Saddam Hussein or
the Ayatollah Khomeini. I thus minimize the effect of the Moslem
conquest EXCEPT in regard to its creating a lack of freedom of movement
between Christians in those conquered regions and therefore their MSS
likewise.
Before I forget...you left out (e) the influence of John Chrysostom in
using what was basically a Byzantine text. That text as he preached
it, was supposedly like the latest study bible endorsed by Billy Graham
which everyone immediately wanted to begin using. *;-)
I kid you not -- this is another alleged reason for the growing
acceptance and dominance of the Byzantine Textform -- a reason which in
my opinion still holds about as much water as any of the others.
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back