Tue Mar 19 20:51:28 1996

From majordom  Tue Mar 19 20:51:28 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA25512; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 20:51:28 +0500
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 20:48:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: James 2:18
In-Reply-To: <314EF57C.1438@uni-muenster.de>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 3160
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Status: O
X-Status: 



On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Klaus Wachtel wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Mar, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> > And I conclude that parablepsis might produce error in a single MS and a
> > few others copied therefrom, but I cannot see such error growing to a
> > dominant position within transmissional history without a word of protest
> > or numerous corrections by scribes.

> What about the Byzantine omissions in 1Jn 2,23 and 3,1, then?

This is of course one of the issues which I intend to deal with in my
paper on the non-existence of early Byzantine MSS.  Without going into a
very extended discussion here, I would suggest that at the time of the
switch from uncial to minuscule (9th-10th centuries) certain key MSS were
selected as archetypes for the primary minuscule copies. In the case of
1John, the key MS which was selected apparently had omitted the clauses in
question by homoioteleuton, and the later MSS which were copied therefrom 
followed suit in the omission.  

If the minuscule archetype were copied in sufficient quantity during the
very initial period of minuscule distribution, the _omission_ of those two
readings would dominate and (through the cross-correction process) would
eliminate whatever vestiges remained of the longer reading which had
previously dominated transmissional history before the radical change of
script.  

I.e., the cross-comparison and correction process would work normally, but
the minuscule would form a new "archetype" which would dominate the
tradition from that point, and consultation with earlier uncials would not
occur, primarily due to the change of script (within 50 years of the
change of script scribes were complaining that they could no longer read
the uncial texts). 

The true "Byzantine" Textform reading remains that which includes the
passages in question, even if the mass of minuscules from the beginning of
that era failed to perpetuate the autograph text accurately.  This does not
invalidate the former hypothesis, but in fact confirms it, given that a 
"new" archetype situation has come into existence.

That the minuscule-oriented scribes did not protest (at least as far as we
know) is probably indicative of the respect with which they held the
selected archetypical copies and the monastery or scriptorium which was
primarily responsible for beginning the minuscule revolution.  

Note that the original locus of my quoted statement above deals with the
possibility of a very EARLY error growing into a position of dominance,
without mass correction or words of protest.  This is NOT the case with
1Jn.2:23 or 3:1, since, except for sporadic cases of individual
homoioteleuton, the longer reading in both variant units was utterly
dominant from century II until century X. 


=========================================================================
                       Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
            Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
              Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
                      Wake Forest, North Carolina
                   
=========================================================================

Back