Thu Apr 11 03:37:54 1996
From majordom Thu Apr 11 03:37:54 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA09402; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 03:37:54 +0500
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:34:49 +0800 (WST)
From: Timothy John Finney
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: archetype and autographs
In-Reply-To: <9604081841.AA12092@scholar.cc.emory.edu>
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Content-Length: 3778
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
In partial reply to the comments by Maurice Robinson on 4 Apr 1996
concerning the scenario I put forward for the assemblage of an archetype
of the Pauline Corpus, I offer the following:=20
It occurs to me that there is an important difference between the multiple
collections model of Maurice Robinson and the single collection model
which I reiterated (someone else must have already said it). The
difference is that the multiple model gives multiple independent early
witnesses to each component (i.e. autograph or copy of autograph), whereas
the single model does not. Therefore, the multiple model would, all other
things being equal, give a greater chance of recovering the autographs
than the single model, which would only allow recovery of its own
archetype which is the collection and not the autographs. So to answer the
question of the extent to which the autographs of the Pauline collection
are recoverable, it is necessary to decide between these models, if we
can.=20
I am indebted to Maurice for his quote of Tertullian (who was writing a=20
full century after the collection seems to have been made) which favours=20
the multiple model. Nevertheless, I venture to say that Occam's razor=20
favours the single model. (Occam's razor: The hypothesis which explains
the given evidence with the least (in number and difficulty) assumptions
is best.) I say that it is a lesser assumption that one person made the=20
collection than a number of people or churches acting simultaneously. A=20
kind of early canon would also be required for the multiple model,=20
otherwise one would expect different sets of Pauline Letters in different=
=20
MSS.
> My main argument against the single-corpus =3D archetype scenario is
> again transmissional: if errors existed in the corpus-archetype, why do
> they not exist among the extant MSS in significant quantity,
> transcending the various texttype limits?
Perhaps obvious primitive errors do not exist because they were corrected
by copyists who were used to correcting transcription errors. What happens
at the site of corruption is either a seamless correction, where the
intended text obvious, or =D4an explosion of variants=D5, to paraphrase the
Alands, where not it is not so. How did you correct my errors? The "=D4text
is obvious" in the first case, but did I intend to write "where not so"=20
or "where it is not" or "where it is not so"? (Actually, I intended to
write what I did.)
> First problem: what are the "primitive corruptions" and how does one=20
> authoritatively recognize them? You cannot test a hypothesis without a=
=20
> standard of comparison, and I doubt any two textual critics would agree=
=20
> on a list of primitive corruptions for even Romans, let alone the=20
> entire Pauline corpus.
Yes, this is a problem. Yet F.F. Bruce was bold enough to list what he=20
thought may be a number of primitive corruptions in Hebrews.
Concerning the C program:
> Did you have a parameter included which would allow for a regular or=20
> almost regular process of cross-comparison and correction to occur,=20
> including a proviso that when the exemplar differed from the second MS=20
> used for correction, a third copy might be sought out in at least 50%=20
> of the cases. If you can reprogram with that scenario included, I=20
> again would be interested in the results.
I a=D5m about to put the program on the tc ftp site. It is as I wrote it
without the suggested changes. There is a parameter that allows for
=D4correctins=D5 to be made, but not by comparison with otherMSS. The
suggestion to include a facility for MS correction by comparison is duly
noted, but will have to wait for more leisurely times.=20
Tim Finney
Baptist Theological College
20 Hayman Rd, Bentley WA 6102
Australia
Back