Thu Apr 11 07:01:52 1996

From majordom  Thu Apr 11 07:01:52 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA10117; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 07:01:52 +0500
Message-Id: <9604111059.AA48616@mail.uni-muenster.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 13:00:05 +0100
From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de
Subject: autographs and archetypes (Pauline Corpus)
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
Content-Length: 2786
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Timothy J. Finney wrote:

>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: 

>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)...
> 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...
 
> I say that it is a lesser assumption that one person made the 
>collection than a number of people or churches acting 
> simultaneously. A kind of early canon would also be required for
> the multiple model, otherwise one would expect different sets of
> Pauline Letters in different MSS.

[quoting Robinson:]

>> My main argument against the single-corpus = 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?

I would like to comment on Timothy's argument concerning the "different sets of 
Pauline Letters in different MSS". Our extant Greek MSS display three points 
where there are differences with respect to the set of the Pauline Letters.
a) The first and major point of difference with respect to its dissemination is 
the position of Hebrews: partly after 2.Thess, partly after Philemon, at least 
once after both (minuscule 794), once after Romans (P46), two times totally 
absent (F G).
b) A minor point of difference with respect to its dissemination is the changing 
position of Eph Phil Col: only two times the position Eph Col Phil can be found 
(D minuscule 5).
c) Only P46 displays a canging sequence with respect to the position of Gal: Eph 
Gal Phil Col.

What conclusions can be drawn therof? 
1) Should we take it this way: There are _only_ three points of difference with 
respect to the sets of Pauline Letters in the extant Greek MSS tradition? 
Conclusion: If we favoured the multiple collections model, more points of 
difference should have been expected.
2) Or, should we take it that way: There are _at least_ three points of 
difference with respect to the sets of Pauline Letters in the extant Greek MSS 
tradition? Conclusion: If we favoured the single collection model, even three 
points of difference should not have been expected. 
3) Should the varying position of Hebrews be judged as due to "primitive error" 
with respect to the single collection model?
4) Or, should it be judged as indicating at least a two collections model?  

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

Back