Fri Apr 5 11:13:29 1996

From majordom  Fri Apr  5 11:13:29 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA27804; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 11:13:29 +0500
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 11:10:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: autographs and archetypes
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 4307
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu


On Fri, 2 Apr 96, Ulrich Schmid wrote:

[first quoting Robinson:]

>> No other work of antiquity has such a wealth of support, and no
>> classical scholar would suggest that primitive error were likely
>> in such a situation.

>It is quite an other thing, to be sure, if one has to accept every
>single conjectural emendation, but it is simply a fact that most, if
>not all classical scholars never totally rule out the need for
>divinatio even in the New Testament.

Most classical scholars are not dabbling in NT matters; however, if any
would do so and still claim conjecture as a necessary principle, they are
carrying baggage left over from the usual paucity of documentary evidence
which prevails among the classics.  I still maintain that any responsible
classical editor, were he or she faced with an abundance of evidence for,
say, Euripides, which approached that of the NT, would suddenly shrink
back dramatically from any need for "divinatio". 

>I just may give an example from Patristic literature, the so-called
>'Dialog des Adamantius PERI THS EIS QEON ORQHS PISTEWS' (author
>unknown, composed between around 330 and 363 A.D.). The text is
>conserved in 10 manuscripts stemming from 12th to 16th centuries. They
>all go back to one single heavily corrupted archetype including
>corruptions of all sorts (nonsense readings, interchange of leaves,
>etc.). . . .
>We know that the corruption goes back at least
>to 40 to 70 years after the date of composition. Looking only at the
>textual transmission of the dialogue Rufin was in no different
>situation with respect to this peculiar reading than we are today. What
>makes the difference is that we know the dialogue's source.

This in itself is quite typical of the state of classical literature, and
already begs for emendation.  There is no parallel here to the NT
situation. Ten MSS versus 5000+, along with versions and fathers, make a
world of difference in regard to what praxis should be followed in
relation to the NT data. 

>Personally I would opt for extreme caution with
>respect to conjectural emendation.

So would all eclectic critics, and in practice (save for Ac.16.12 in the
current critical text) the consensus of even the eclectic critics is that
conjectural emendation has no legitimate _necessity_ in regard to the text
of the NT.  So why is this point being so strongly maintained?  Is there
some compelling reason why the "uncertainty principle" needs to be held,
even in light of the mass of evidence we possess? 

>On the other hand there
>is the very crucial point that the New Testament is not just one book,
>but in fact a _collection_ of books consisting of different
>_subcollections_. With respect to this problem conjectural emendation
>is never to be ruled out. 

The individual nature of the NT books is granted, but there is still no
need for conjecture even in the books with the least amount of MS support. 
This also seems to be the opinion of the UBS/Nestle editors, since they do
NOT adopt any conjectures into their main text of either the General Epp.
or Revelation.  The critical edition makes a conjecture but once, and that
in Acts. So again, why is there a necessity to argue for the legitimacy 
of conjecture in relation to the NT data?

>Because, what can be reconstructed as
>archetype of the textual transmission may not be identical with what
>was written down for example by Tertius (c.f. the doxology and the
>ending of Pauls letter to the Romans).

This depends upon the theory of the archetype, and whether it it is 
considered to equal the autograph.  

In the case of the doxology to Romans, I have no problem with placing that
doxology where it properly (and rhetorically) belongs, viz. at the end of
chapter 14; the epistle then properly (and rhetorically) ends with the
shorter doxology of 16.24 (which verse is omitted in the critical text due
to the obvious recensional activity which led to the relocation of the
doxology to that final location, Harry Gamble to the contrary). 

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back