Thu Apr 4 14:29:43 1996
From majordom Thu Apr 4 14:29:43 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA23426; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 14:29:43 +0500
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 14:26:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: autographs and archetypes
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 12145
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
[long - part 2 of 2]
On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, James R. Adair wrote:
>Granting for the moment the assumption that text-type archetypes could be
>reconstructed (and I'm not sure that they can, except perhaps for the
>Byzantine, as Maurice said),
Clark and Colwell tried to reconstruct the Alexandrian archetype of
Mark, and gave up. The Western archetype is even more ephemeral.
However, I claimed only that _some_ form of primitive archetype could
be constructed for the leading texttypes.
Hort, following his own principles, claimed that "genealogy" would lead
us back to the archetype of the "neutral" text, which was that most
closely approaching the autograph. Even though no one follows Hort's
patterns or method anymore, there is nothing wrong with the principle
of arguing back from the extant evidence to various primitive
archetypes and from there to the autograph -- there _had_ to be an
underlying text which gave rise to the extant data and their
hypothetical archetypes. It therefore is not difficult to seek that
underlying "great archetype" which in fact _does_ equal the autograph.
As I said before, to do otherwise is "highly illogical, and
inconsistent with the data preserved to us in the extant witnesses."
Jimmy basically agrees on this point when he says:
>nothing I have said would prohibit the postulation of the archetype
>that lay behind the text-type archetypes.
Yet he continues:
>However, it would only be a _postulate_, not a _certainty_, and it begs
>the question to say that it would of necessity be identical with the
>autograph.
I fail to see how the question is getting begged on this point. The
"non-certainty" principle still seems to dominate, but to what
statistical degree? Even from an eclectic standpoint, if all three
major texttypes are agreed, there should be a high degree of certainty
that such is the autograph text. Even where two out of three texttypes
agree, most modern eclectics would consider that a presumption of
certainty. To me it seems peculiar continually to postulate the
"uncertainty principle" when virtually all of the text found in all
witnesses is already 100% certain, except in those 10% of places where
variation occurs. Even if I cannot guarantee or "prove" 100% certainty
as to the autograph text in a small number of variant units, this does
not mean that I must allow the uncertainty principle to dominate the
remainder of my text-critical theory or praxis, and continually to
leave the door open for suspicion of "primitive error" or conjecture.
>by their nature, conjectures are unscientific.
>That doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong, only that they rely on
>reasoned argument rather than extant textual data to make their case.
I concur that conjectures are unscientific. But if so, what place do
they have within the _science_ of textual criticism? (Metzger's answer
was to proclaim textual criticism an "art" rather than a "science"; I
thoroughly disagree).
The "reasoned argument" approach of conjecture differs little from the
rigorous eclectic methodology practiced by Kilpatrick and Elliot. The
latter, however, attempt first to seek out at least one witness to
support their conjecture before applying the identical "reasoned
arguments." Since most other eclectics (Epp's "reasoned eclectics" as
opposed to the "rigorous eclectics") strongly oppose the method of
Kilpatrick and Elliott, I would expect the same degree of opposition to
conjectural emendation.
>I don't agree that every text-type can be reconstructed with 100%
>assurance, especially the Western text-type.
My position as well, including the Byzantine texttype (though to a
lesser degree of uncertainty than the Alexandrian or Western).
_Of course_ my conclusions are derived to a large extent from my
>presuppositions, as are Maurice's. He has stated that one of his
>presuppositions is that the autographs were viewed with such high regard
>by their initial recipients that each was copied more than once (or the
>first copy was copied more than once).
This is plausible within my own theoretical outlook; however, any
theological argument concerning "high regard" of those autographs as
either scripture or canonical, let alone inspired or inerrant is _not_
necessary to support my theory, and I do not advocate that as an
essential postulate.
Allow merely that at _some_ point of time Christians or even
non-Christians considered the NT books worth perpetuating, and that at
such a time copies finally began to be copied more frequently. My
theory still functions quite well in that scenario.
The fallacy in not assuming that (for whatever reason) the autograph
was not copied multiple times lies in the nature of scribal practice.
Unless one is prepared to assume that all single copies made from
single copies of the autograph remained error-free (which no one would
maintain), then it also is to be assumed that early errors in copies of
the autograph would continue to prevail in all or almost all MSS which
eventually descended from those single copies.
Scribally-intuitive correction might eliminate some of these errors,
but they would not eliminate most or even all of them; plus there would
be no diverging textual lines whereby cross-comparison and correction
would be able to function.
So, under the scenario of only single copies being made from the
autograph for some time, Jimmy's "primitive corruption" hypothesis
would presumably take form. However, since in no case in the Greek NT
as we have it can any primitive corruption be demonstrated, wherein all
extant readings are totally nonsensical or misleading (including
Ac.16.12!), the presumption must be that the scribes somehow managed on
their own, without MS data, to eliminate all or almost all vestiges of
such primitive corruption. This is highly unlikely, given the nature
of scribal textual transmission.
The alternative hypothesis is that there were in fact varying lines of
transmission which stemmed directly from the autograph which then
became the basis for cross-comparison and correction, whether used
frequently in the early "popular text" era or not. Under the
scientific method, the best hypothesis remains that which requires the
least amount of postulates in order to be fulfilled. In this case, the
easiest and most plausible solution is to see the autograph as the
source from which a number of copies were made, each of which were
themselves copied a varying number of times, eventually diversifying
into both the "uncontrolled popular text" MSS and the "local text" MSS
which we see emerging as texttypes by at least the end of the second
century.
>He has further indicated that one
>reason for thinking this is his "view of apostolic authority and the
>evangelistic intent of communication transcending the single recipients of
>the autograph MSS." Fine. I can see why he concludes that every reading
>of the autographs has been preserved.
I must again restate that my own view of canonicity, inerrancy,
inspiration, and apostolic authority does _not_ drive the theory. The
issue is historically- and not theologically-based, and the question is
whether those living in the era of the autographs themselves considered
the works sufficiently important (for whatever reasons) to perpetuate
them, and then how to explain their perpetuation en masse in numerous
copies. Alternate scenarios, such as Jimmy's suggestion of only one
copy being made from the autograph, and one copy from the copy, for a
given period of time can certainly be suggested; but it still devolves
down to which hypothetical scenario is more plausible, given the known
facts of history, with the expansion of the church during the first
three centuries and the known multiplication of scripture and its
differentiation into "mixed texts" and texttypes within 150 years. I
suggest the extant data can most readily be explained by presuming
multiple copying of the autograph. That is all. My own theological
views do not affect this hypothesis of transmission; and even an
atheistic scholar could come to the same conclusions, even if he did
not believe the text thereby transmitted.
>I, however, am not as convinced that every NT autograph was so fortunate.
>We know that other early gospels existed, and many scholars think that
>other letters of Paul have been lost (e.g., Laodiceans, other letters to
>the Corinthians).
These works did exist, but many were not perpetuated, or exist only in
fragments such as the "Uncanonical Gospel" fragment P.Oxy.840. Others,
like the Shepherd of Hermas, which was quite popular in the early
church, exist, but were not preserved and perpetuated as with the
canonical NT literature. Without getting back into the argument over
canonicity, one still can argue that literature which was considered
more theologically "significant" (or "canonical" or whatever) would be
more likely to be perpetuated in large numbers than works which were
not viewed in the same manner.
>This suggests to me that _some_ works that made it into
>the NT may not have been copied as early or as frequently as others, such
>as the gospels and the major Pauline letters.
As Metzger noted, there are fewer MSS of the General Epistles and
Revelation than other NT books. Revelation especially, since it was
not only "disputed", but also was never read in the Greek lections.
The smaller number of MSS of the General Epistles also reflect some
dispute over their canonicity as well as limited lectionary use.
Obviously the Gospels and Pauline Epistles predominated in usage and
popularity. This did not, however, result in the remaining NT books
being excluded from ultimate canonicity.
>After all, the early
>Christians didn't have the luxury of knowing which books would ultimately
>be in the NT (this gets into the issue of the NT canon).
For which see the handbooks, whether Metzger, Bruce, von Campenhausen,
or Westcott. I will abstain from discussing the general theory of this
aspect within a text-critical forum.
>Further evidence for this presumption is the sparsity of early
>mss of books like James and 2 Peter. All this leads me to question
>whether the autographs of these books, or their immediate textual
>descendants, were copied more than once, or, if two or three copies were
>made, whether these lines of textual descent might not have completely died
>out without leaving a trace on the preserved ms tradition.
I do not think the sparsity of evidence in the General Epistles or
Revelation implies anything regarding the number of copies made from
the autograph. It does reflect the popularity or frequency of use made
of those NT books within the Orthodox Church (nascent or as ultimately
developed), and even the canonical disputes concerning such books; but
I seriously doubt that any claim can be made as to how often such books
were initially copied from the autograph. That more than one copy was
made from the autograph, I will maintain, since it is that scenario
which best explains the extant data, diversified as it is into the
various texttype alignments we currently possess.
>I'm not as certain as Maurice that all of the readings of
>the autographs have been preserved in the extant mss. Maybe they have
>been, but I suspect that they haven't in every case. At whichever
>conclusion the text critic arrives, presuppositions play a large role in
>his or her decision.
This is absolutely true. My own presuppositions, however, stem from a
working hypothesis of textual transmission and a reconstructed history
of that transmission. This is a major difference from the approach of
the modern eclectic school, and explains why I see no need for
conjecture or suspicion of "primitive error" while they (at least Jimmy
and in Ac.16.12 the N27/UBS4 editors) do.
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back