Tue Mar 19 20:25:52 1996
From majordom Tue Mar 19 20:25:52 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA25430; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 20:25:52 +0500
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 20:23:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: James 2:18
In-Reply-To:
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 12698
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Status: O
X-Status:
[Warning - long response! First half interpretative; second half
text-critical]
On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, James R. Adair wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:
> Despite my attempts to do so, I can still see no difference in emphasis
> between "faith not having works" and "faith without works." Of course
> the examples are different, and the wording changes slightly, but the
> variation is just for rhetorical effect, it seems to me.
Again, I still see quite different angles of approach and emphasis in
2:14-19 and 2:20-26 which would call for different terms. Inaction when
opportunity to do good arises reflects a dead (nonproductive) faith --
"faith not having works" -- but failure to act when in a time of severe
testing is "faith apart from works". Both are called "dead", but there
are clearly two different types of faith-in-action which are being
described, and rhetorically it seems quite clear that different terms are
used to describe each situation.
> According to UBS4, the French version Traduction Oecumenique de la Bible
> treats Jas 2:18-19 as one quotation, although I don't know if it reads
> XWRIS or EK.
Zane Hodges also takes 2:18-19 as a single quotation, and he does read EK
in his commentary.
> I can see how these
> verses might be a single extended quotation, but I can't see how the
> hypothetical person can be considered an objector, regardless of how long
> the quote is.
But why not? James rhetorically introduces him as an objector: "But someone
will say...", and also refutes him in the strongest terms, basically "You
blockhead!" (O empty man). If this objector is merely saying the same
thing as James, why such abuse? (either XWRIS or EK would still bring
down the same criticism from James).
> The hypothetical person is claiming to have works, the
> _same_ position that James is taking. Furthermore, if EK is read, the
> argument of this person, whether an opponent or not, seems to go
> nowhere.
Not at all, if emphasis is understood in the context as I indicated:
"Show me _your_ faith from _your_ works and I will show you _my_ faith
from _my_ works." Is there not the possibility that the objector is
actually the one who is the _prime_ illustration of the failure to do good
to those needing clothing and food in vv.14ff ?
He may well be arguing in vv.18-19 that his "other" works demonstrate his
faith quite sufficiently, so why pick on him for his inaction in that one
specific area (of course the point is clear: whoever knows what should be
done and fails to do it is guilty of sin; objections to the effect of
"Lord, Lord, didn't we do all these mighty works in your name" may still
result in "depart from me....I never knew you!"). James calls him
foolish, and then intensifies the example by suggesting that inaction in
times of charitable opportunity will similarly be followed by a greater
inaction in times of testing or persecution -- unless faith is
continually demonstrated by works in ALL situation, the faith remains dead.
> I suppose it could be argued that James just didn't make his
> point very well, but I like to think that clarity rather than obfuscation
> was an important concern of the author.
And with this I also would agree. Since the vast majority of (at
least the minuscule) scribes read EK, they obviously did not have a great
concern that the text was meaningless without XWRIS in the passage.
Obfuscation should be reflected in comments or correction, which did not
occur; rather, EK remained perpetuated in that context. One might
perhaps check various patristic exegesis here (if the passage is covered
at all).
> Now this is the classic majority text argument (in this form of the
> majority text theory, as Maurice has differentiated them): errors
> introduced in mss will tend to be corrected by the overall process of
> cross-checking with other mss, especially when the diorthotes is
> involved. This view assumes a controlled ms copying process from almost
> the beginning of the period of ms transmission, and I don't think that
> this was the case. It certainly does explain, however, why there is such
> agreement among later Byzantine mss.
I obviously concur with the first half of this comment. Cross-comparison
and correction is generally assumed among MSS. However, the matter of
"control" as expressed in the second sentence sounds more like some
formal imposition rather than the common general practice found among
scribes in any given situation. As Colwell noted, "control" may be a
proper term, but when and by whom such control was imposed remains
questionable. I suggest no formal control whatsoever, but merely the
normal scribal practice of copying faithfully, reading over one's work,
and having a brother monk or another reader compare your work with a
separate MS. The "control" is really found in the perpetuated TEXT
itself, and not in the scribe or diorthotes.
Viewed in this light, then, yes, there WAS "control" from the very
beginning of MS transmission, and the early papyri with their corrections
(often from an outside exemplar, as demonstrable in e.g., p66) reflect
such "control" from the earliest stages of transmission which are
evidenced. This control does NOT, however, explain the vast agreement
among Byzantine witnesses, since the early MSS themselves reflect a wide
deviation from the single autograph text of any book during the period of
the "uncontrolled popular nature" of the text.
The church during this period was a persecuted minority, and the
opportunities for free exchange of documents and more formal methods of
reproduction were not common. It thus should not surprise anyone to find
that during the period when the church was NOT state-sponsored, deviations
were common, and the text was altered in many ways, creating the early
Western variants, as well as other corruptions. I suspect that even the
creation of the Alexandrian texttype reflects an Egyptian localized attempt
to purge out such corruptions, during the first third of the second
century, but even this attempt did not "restore" the autograph text, nor
end the uncontrolled corruption.
Only after the legitimization of Christianity under Constantine would a
new Pax Romana allow free communication and exchange of MSS between
churches. Once this occurred, cross-comparison and correction would tend
to weed out not only the corrupt elements of individual MSS, but also
would slowly tend to eradicate the particular "local" nature of various
texts, slowly but inexorably moving back toward the overarching common
text from which all of the extant MSS had derived.
Viewed in this light, the fact that the later Byzantine MSS (in the period
before the 11th century) tend toward one main textform is not surprising.
The fact that the Byzantine MSS themselves are subdivided into what appear
to be localized or time-bound subgroups (e.g. K1, Ka, Kc, Kr etc.) without
ever coming to a full unity of text argues strongly that there were no
external controls imposed upon the scribes even during the later period of
transmissional history.
As Hodges aptly stated regarding the supposed "process" view of Colwell,
which assumed that the Alexandrian text or something like it was original
(quoted in the introduction to my Greek NT edition):
"No one has yet explained how a long, slow process spread out over many
centuries as well as over a wide geographical area, and involving a
multitude of copyists, who often knew nothing of the state of the text
outside of their own monasteries or scriptoria, could achieve this
widespread uniformity out of the diversity presented by the earlier
[Western and Alexandrian] forms of text....An unguided process achieving
relative stability and uniformity in the diversified textual,
historical, and cultural circumstances in which the New Testament was
copied, imposes impossible strains on our imagination."
I later commented in that same introduction: "Only a common, pre-existing
archetype will permit order ever to come out of chaos. Even that
possibility depends upon both the process of time and sufficient scribal
concern for the text being copied." But if one begins with a presumption
of Byzantine originality, then the common archetype does exist and is
restorable. Other models (including contemporary eclecticism) seek for a
different "autograph text", one which cannot satisfactorily explain its
virtual self-destruction and utter failure to resuscitate during the 1500
years of transmissional history.
> I have asked before whether Maurice (or anyone) can give me some examples
> in which the majority text (in the 9th/10th centuries) does _not_ contain
> what he considers to be the "original" reading. If there are no
> examples, it leads me to suspect that the real criterion is the authority
> of the Byzantine text-type.
My theory is "Byzantine-priority", and it does assume that the majority
text up to and including the 10th century will best reflect what is truly
"Byzantine". I have definite reasons for agreeing with Scrivener not to
cut the time period any earlier, but that has to do with a paper I am
preparing on the non-existence of early Byzantine MSS (and no, I do not
agree with Burgon or Pickering that they were so heavily used that they
simply "wore out," and that those early MSS which remain were the worst
possible examples -- such absurdity I totally reject).
However, for the sake of argument, I have no problem in cutting the time
period to the sixth century, and still seeking out a "majority" consensus
of Greek MSS and Greek fathers at the very least -- any text thus
constructed will still approach more closely to the Byzantine Textform
than any other texttype or sub-type.
In fact, even for the sake of argument were only the five leading MSS of
the Alexandrian texttype utilized, their consensus "majority" reading
would still slowly move more to the Byzantine side than otherwise -- this
fact is what caused Kenneth Clark to suggest to me that the Byzantine
Textform indeed did have the potential to be the original source from
which all the other types derived.
Of course, the standard eclectic explanation of this circumstance is that
slow "Byzantine" or "Byzantine-like" corruption was seeping into each and
every Alexandrian MS as time went on, but this is merely assuming the
point to be proven, viz., that the Byzantine Textform is "late" and
subsequent to the Alex and Western types. From a Byzantine-priority
standpoint, the Alex and Western are merely small minority deviations from
the overarching Byzantine Textform, and most of their variants can be
explained as accidental corruption away from the Byzantine or deliberate
editorializing to smooth out or "correct" the Byzantine. The view is
dependent upon the presuppositional perspective of the observer, obviously.
> Those who see the Alexandrian text-type as
> generally superior are often accused (and not entirely unjustly, in my
> opinion) of twisting their arguments to make the Alexandrian reading
> appear to be original. The same charge can be made against the Byzantine
> priority approach, unless, as I say, examples of "original" non-Byzantine
> readings can be produced.
Why should this be a requirement, if the hypothesis under consideration
is the originality of the Byzantine Textform as a whole? What you
suggest is an alternative hypothesis which requires non-Byzantine
readings to make up the final text, i.e., another form of eclectic
methodology.
Why cannot someone who favors the Alexandrian text argue the hypothesis of
a true "Alexandrian-priority" and build a hypothesis better than Hort's
arguing from the union of B and P75 (where extant) or of the union of B L
C and Aleph for the archetypical Alexandrian text, and follow the results
strictly? Would you demand of such a person that his hypothesis must
include non-Alexandrian readings, or else it is invalid? Of course not;
and it is the same with a Byzantine-priority position -- the goal of this
hypothesis is to recreate the Byzantine Textform without extraneous
elements, in the hope that by doing so the autograph form of the text
might be recoverable.
=========================================================================
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina
=========================================================================
Back