Mon Mar 18 17:39:42 1996
From majordom Mon Mar 18 17:39:42 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA16812; Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:39:42 +0500
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:36:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: MT/BT
In-Reply-To: <31498150.1BE4@uni-muenster.de>
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 10528
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Status: O
X-Status:
On Fri, 15 Mar 1996, Klaus Wachtel wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 Mar, Maurice Robinson wrote:
>
> > The overwhelming majority of post-10th century minuscules are secondary in
> > cases such as 1 Jn.2:23 and 1 Jn.3:1, since that mere numerical majority
> > is not supported by the earlier testimony.
>
> May I ask, then, on which earlier testimony the decision for the Byz. text EK
> instead of XWRIS is based in James 2,18 (except the doubtful evidence of P54)?
Since I am willing to include in my count minuscules of the 9th and 10th
centuries, they would be considered of weight in the 2:18 variant. The MSS
of the 11th and later centuries are not essential toward establishing the
Byzantine reading.
According to Tischendorf's 8th edition, EK is supported by K and L among
the uncials as well as virtually all the minuscules. Versional testimony
admittedly supports XWRIS, though I suspect this might be due to the
difficulty inherent in interpreting EK in context and opting for an
"easier" reading when the process of translation occurred. Von Soden
offers a few more details, but I would not want to try to extract the
evidence therefrom with all his "gg" etc. P54 may support the EK reading,
but I would not attempt to build a case from an uncertain papyrus reading.
The "M" in N27 must be broken into its component parts by century to
determine which "M" minuscule MSS might be of the 9th and 10th century;
there should be a sufficient quantity in any case. If the Text und
Textwert series has this variant noted (I am not able to access library
material at present), the full conspectus of Greek manuscript evidence
would be observable.
> > Had this been an error, producing a clearly "more difficult" reading, the
> > question still remains as to why scribes would not act in accordance with
> > their supposed tendencies and correct the reading to the "easier" and
> > certainly clearer XWRIS.
>
> This is a most interesting question, although I doubt that XWRIS is "easier";
> I would say that it -in contrast with EK- fits the context.
"Easier" of course is not in regard to our mindset, but to that of the
scribes. A smooth and readily-understandable reading like XWRIS is
certainly far "easier" in the context than is EK, and "fitting the
context" is the precise definition of "easier" when related to a scribe's
mind.
> I think, there are
> three reasons, why EK was not replaced with XWRIS.
> 1) Medieval Byzantine scribes were copyists, not editors in the modern sense
> of the word. Normally they effectively controlled themselves and were
> controlled by others, as is shown most convincingly by Kr. Besides, how can
> we be sure that scribes were able to compare mss. which had XWRIS in 2,18?
Agreed that most scribes were faithful copyists and not editors. I suspect
that "control" was evinced more by their faithfulness to duty and the
accurate reproduction of their exemplars (e.g., the various imprecatory
curses which might apply to those "falsifying" or "corrupting" the word of
God) than from abbot-oriented or peer control, let alone from orthodoxy
in general.
In view of the scribes' normal faithfulness in copying, it becomes quite
peculiar then to assume that this mass of medieval scribes would by and
large all become "editorial" and make the text more difficult by changing
XWRIS to EK. Even allowing that one or two scribes were "editorial" in
their technique, why would (or should) the mass of other scribes then
choose to accept and follow the editorial change emanating from a single
scriptorium which created a reading which was clearly _more_ difficult
than the simple XWRIS ?
Scribes certainly would have been able to compare MSS and to insert
corrections when necessary. Merely because none of the XWRIS manuscripts
cited in N27 have a correction noted does not establish the non-existence
of cross-comparison and correction in any given variant unit. From the
extant evidence of MSS and comments by various Fathers, the normal
practice was always to compare at least against the exemplar and
preferably to have a diorthotes proof and correct the copy against a
different exemplar.
Tischendorf's 8th edition shows his MS 78 was corrected to XWRIS from an
original EK (I can't convert to Gregory-Aland numbers right now), which
demonstrates at least one scribe altering the text in the "easier"
direction, as I would claim.
> 2) EK was in the right manuscripts, namely in the exemplars of the Byz. text
> minuscules.
Agreed that EK was in the "right" manuscripts -- but I define that as the
line stemming from the autograph. Since you would claim otherwise, you
need to provide an explanation as to _which_ MS or MSS were the archetypes
of the supposedly "later" Byzantine texttype, and also explain how
supposedly "erroneous" and "difficult" readings in such MSS were allowed
to remain, when such goes against the claimed nature of scribes to smooth
out such difficulties, either by glosses in the margin or by altering the
text itself.
Basically I am asking for a demonstration of how the easier XWRIS reading
could have given rise to a more difficult EK. EK does occur in the next
clause; however, attraction cannot be assumed when such is supposed to
produce an erroneous reading which appears in the vast mass of MSS.
Attraction or assimilation will always be limited to a small handful of
unrelated MSS or those of a sub-type or family. Further, XWRIS itself
appears in the next verse, and offered scribes a simple escape from what
might have appeared to have been an interpretative difficulty; that a
minority of scribes might choose that option fits the pattern of
assimilation quite well.
> 3) EK doesn't offend a reader who doesn't attend to the context beyond 2,18,
> -what of course might happen to a scribe as well.
Some scribes copied letter by letter; others syllable by syllable or word
by word. Certainly in such situations scribal errors could occur.
However, when the scribe himself/herself completed the copying of a book
or chapter and re-read that portion against the original exemplar, context
then would be of primary importance, and simple errors such as EK for
XWRIS or vice versa would readily be caught.
Also, if the error were made apart from the exemplar, then correction
would be made. Still further, if the proofreading diorthotes were
comparing the finished product against a different exemplar, there would
be even less reason to suppose an erroneous reading would have much chance
to be perpetuated.
Only MSS and versions from a local-text and minority texttype situation
would be expected to perpetuate such an error beyond more than one or two
copying generations. The chances of an erroneous EK permeating the entire
mass of Greek minuscules merely because P54, K and L may have read thus
seems impossible if the sensible XWRIS as found in the earlier minority
MSS and versions were the original reading. There still needs to be a
_good_ transmissional history which can account for the dominance of the
Byzantine reading here as well as for the entire Byzantine Textform.
> > I still maintain that difficulty of interpretation would be a primary cause
> > for scribes to alter the text to an easier reading, ...
>
> Mere difficulty of a reading, of course, doesn't suffice to prove its
> originality. For example, the reading of codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in
> Js 1,17 results in an extremely difficult text, as is frequently the case
> with errors.
I would suggest that the explanation in 1:17 is simply error in Aleph* B.
Similar error also occurs in the other minority groups cited there in N27
(614, 1505 pc; 1832, 2138 pc; p23, etc.). The error is brought about
because the Byzantine reading itself there (favored by N27) remains
difficult of interpretation, as even the proffered conjectures
demonstrate. Difficult readings which arise from a difficult reading
hardly parallel the case of a difficult reading supposedly arising from an
easier reading as is the case with James 2:18.
> have understood 2,18a as a concession: "[I concede that] you have faith,
> [if you concede that] I have works [and now let's part as friends]".
> Under this condition 2,18b seems to make sense in spite of EK. But what
> about 2,19? V. 19 is clearly directed against someone whose faith
> consists in nothing but an unclear notion of God.
There is actually a difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of
2:19, which may affect how one then reads 2:18. Has the comment of the
objector ceased at the end of the first clause of 2:18? Does the
objector continue through all of 2:18? Or does the objector continue to
speak even in 2:19? If so, the complaint might be directed against
James himself, e.g.,
[James speaking:] "Someone might say:
[objector:] "You have faith and I have works. Show me _your_ faith out of
_your_ works, and I will show you _my_ faith out of _my_ works.
You believe that God is one; you do well. (But) even the
demons `believe' -- and they tremble."
[James resumes:] But do you want to know, O empty man, that faith
apart from (XWRIS) works is _dead_?......
This interpretation is just as valid as any other, and can make sense
with the Byzantine reading in place, without producing nonsense. There
are also other places where the objector's statement can begin and end
which does not make the Byzantine reading invalid.
> In my opinion it is
> very unlikely that the author could have urged the same person in 2,18b
> to show his faith by his works. V. 19 requires an opponent who relies
> on nothing but his faith.
Exegetically noteworthy in v.19 is that the faith spoken of is only in
God, and not related to Christ. Hence we may have a hyperbole in
bringing in the demons, merely as an extreme example.
Either way, if there is even a remote possibility of interpretative
difficulties in v.19 (where the textual variation is not serious), the
likelihood of v.18 having an alteration to help alleviate such
difficulties becomes more probable.
=========================================================================
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina
=========================================================================
Back