Sun Apr 7 00:21:36 1996
From majordom Sun Apr 7 00:21:36 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA06142; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 00:21:36 +0500
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 00:18:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: autographs and archetypes
In-Reply-To: <9604061137.AA23944@mail.uni-muenster.de>
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 8863
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
On Sat, 6 Apr 1996 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Arr 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:
>>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.
> May be I should have stated the parallel more clearly. In New
> Testament textual transmission there is only one manuscript which
> is near the mark "40 to 70 years after the date of composition" of
> the New Testament writing that it testifies to, the famous P52.
> This manuscript consists in its actual state of less then a quarter
> of a single papyrus sheet.
This in itself is irrelevant, since classical literature, with far fewer
MSS is considered to have a basically secure text even though the oldest
copies we possess are hundreds of years removed from the originals. Few
if any classical works are considered to all stem from a corrupted
archetype, and the same applies to the books of the NT. (P52 also is
text-critically insignificant in proving or suggesting any early
"corruption").
> On the other hand, the textual
> transmission of the dialogue, allthough going back to 40 to 70
> years after the date of composition, already contained a fair
> number of textual corruptions.
This fact is certainly of significance when attempting to restore the
text of that Dialogue. It clearly indicates that there was no great
scribal concern for the text of that work in its earliest stages, but one
cannot carry this over to the NT MSS themselves, since, even without
bringing in issues of inspiration and canonicity, I think a very strong
case can be made for a greater scribal concern with the NT documents than
with minor theological treatises.
But even so, the parallel exists: the second century MSS are far more
"corrupt" than is the case with later MSS, and the whole concept of the
"uncontrolled popular text" and Colwell's suggestion that all significant
variants were created before AD 200 reflects a similar situation.
However, the parallel breaks down as soon as it is presumed that all NT
books somehow devolved into a "corrupt archetype" which then became the
mother of all subsequent copies, as was clearly the case in regard to the
anonymous Dialogue.
> I mentioned this example only to illustrate the possibility of
> scribal error creeping in textual transmissions at a very early
> stage, and _not_ being removable within the textual transmission
> itself.
But if this were the case in regard to the transmission of the NT, one
would have to show numerous or repeated instances of plain and clear
error which permeated all MSS of all texttypes. In the case of the NT
MSS, this simply cannot be done.
> Personally, I can not see what the constant appeal to the "wealth
> of support" really meens, if _only_ to indicate that the sheer
> amount of data involved can be seen as the greatest challange to
> editorial enterprise ever to be found on this planet.
The challenge _is_ massive if the intended goal is to present an absolutely
complete text + apparatus. However, if the goal is only to establish the
original text of the NT documents, the amount of evidence we possess is
more than adequate to the task. Any appeal to the "wealth of support" is
with the latter goal in mind.
> But, looking from a theoretical perspective on the amount of data,
> there is nothing within this situation that can completely rule out
> conjectural emendation.
But within the "wealth of support" concept, the need for such is reduced
to how many thousandths of a percent or less? All critics agree that the
amount is so minimal as to be almost non-extant (as noted Ac.16.12 is the
first and only conjecture ever to have made it into the pages of a
critical NT Greek text). So why is it an absolute necessity to continue
to postulate a presumption of primitive error which transcends all known
MSS? This sounds like the old physics claim that if all electrons of a
brick should suddenly align in the same direction, the brick would shoot
through the roof -- nice in theory, but in practice such simply does not
occur.
> To assess the "wealth of support" notion from a slightly different
> angle I may refer to what Maurice Robinson wrote on Wed, 20 Mar
> 1996:
>> 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....
>> 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.
> A "'new' archetype situation" in fact makes our work much
> easier. Because, once an archetype, or hyparchetype situation is
> settled the whole bulk of MSS belonging to that part of the
> transmission can be subsumed under one, or at least very few MS(S).
The problem in regard to my own hypothesis applied to 1Jn.2.23 and 3.1 is
that there is no evidence which strongly supports such a scenario. I
maintain the hypothesis primarily on the basis of the strong internal
considerations (homoioteleuton and Johannine style) which apply to the
longer readings in those situations. If the internal grounds are indeed
sufficiently strong, then the "new archetype(s)" situation, created in the
initial stages of the minuscule era, might apply.
Of course, if my hypothesis is wrong here (and my co-editor will be the
first to declare such), then the shorter reading would remain defensible,
but so also would the non-existence of a new archetype hypothesis.
Keep in mind, however, that my "new archetype" suggestion is not made with
the intention that a _single_ new archetype was ever created, but that
during the conversion to minuscule form, the MS(S) which got the earliest
start would have a _tendency_ to slowly overwhelm the upcoming tradition.
A key problem with this hypothesis is that the change apparently did not
happen "slowly," and this implies either that all minuscules descended
from a single archetype (which seems unlikely in the extreme) or that a
large number of early minuscules coincidentally omitted just those
passages by homoioteleuton (which is possible, but still problematic).
These considerations remain a primary reason for placing those longer
readings in brackets, even if my hypothesis were to be implemented in our
printed Greek text. That the longer readings do not now appear there
(even in brackets) is due to the insistence of my co-editor at that point,
who was working on textual matters before I was born, and to whose
preference I deferred in the initial publication of our text.
> a) In 1John 2,23 a total of 402 MSS give the homoioteleuton
> corruption (= h.c.), whereas a total of 115 MSS lack the h.c.
> b) In 1John 3,1 a total of 426 MSS give the h.c., whereas a total
> of 78 MSS lack the h.c.
This proportion of support to me seems sufficient on its face to include the
longer reading within brackets. Had the shorter reading support been in
an 8:1 or greater proportion, I would not be suggesting the same
possibilities.
> To conclude from these data I may state that around 75 per cent of
> the MSS can be subsumed under just one, or only very few leading
> MS(S).
I would not claim that the "hyperarchetype" scenario would continue
beyond the Johannine Epistles, or even beyond 1 Jn. Among the Gospels
and Praxapostoloi there does not seem to be evidence tending in that same
direction. The General Epistles as a whole have a different textual
history, and it is likely that the Johannine Epistles within that group
have their own peculiar history.
> This reduces the amount of data tremendously, and we are
> left with around 25 per cent of the MSS which is still a lot but
> not threatening at all.
My own suggestion of following Scrivener and eliminating all MSS beyond
the tenth century would similarly reduce the amount of evidence to
manageable proportions, and would not be dependent upon any secondary
archetype hypothesis. I would prefer to go that route first.
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back