Fri May 3 19:02:49 1996

From majordom  Fri May  3 19:02:49 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA29603; Fri, 3 May 1996 19:02:49 +0500
Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 18:06:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Textual Theory
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 3788
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu



On Fri, 3 May 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

[Re: the doxology in Romans]

[Schmid:]

>>I
>>also did not opt for absolute "Byzantine priority", but only for the relative
>>priority of the reading that is most homogeniously attested by the Byzantine
>>text, when compared to most of the older witnesses. Nevertheless, I do not
>>consider the Byz. reading in this peculiar instance as the original reading. 

[Waltz:]

> That follows from my approach to the witnesses, but you've certainly offered
> some interesting arguments. I'm surprised we haven't heard from Maurice
> Robinson. Unlike most other proponents of the Byzantine text, he clearly
> *knows* the evidence, and has a developed theory of the text. I wish I
> knew more about it.

[Robinson:]

I wrote to Ulrich privately and said I would gladly bow out of this
discussion, since he was _de facto_ defending the Byzantine placement of
the doxology as (at least) the source which underlies all extant MSS.  In
that regard I agree fully, though of course I still will maintain that the
Byzantine reading does _not_ imply a 14-chapter version of Romans which
somehow preceded what we have; rather I think that Romans reads quite well
with the Byzantine doxology at 14:23 and the inclusion of 16:24 as the
"real" end of Romans.  

My suspicions are that Paul was intending to end his epistle at chapter
14, but then added chs. 15 and 16 as an afterthought (one still has to
deal with the peculiar placement of the doxology in P46 at the end of
ch.15 as a clear early deviation from whatever else must have been the
original form, since no good reason would, as Ulrich noted, ever have
existed for the re-location of the doxology to the end of ch.14 had it not
been there originally).  I personally see no reason to argue for a 
shorter original form of Romans in the utter absence of MS evidence.  

I would suggest that, for the Pauline Epistles at least, the matter of the
Romans doxology is a very significant matter.  If indeed the Byzantine
Textform is correct here, in regard to the placement of a significant
block of text, and if no other extant form among our existing witnesses
could easily be acknowledged as the source of all the other variants (I
did say "existing" and not hypothetical speculations regarding what might
have been), then a presumptive case remains for the possible autograph 
originality of the Byzantine Textform in at least the remainder of 
Romans, and as likely within the entire Pauline Corpus.  So long as a 
definite transmissional history is attempted, and not a mere disjointed 
eclectic procedure in which the doxology is just one other unrelated 
variant unit, there seems to be little relief from the implication of the 
Byzantine placement of the doxology.  

Of course, if one wishes to speculate concerning non-existent "partial" 
or "short" copies of Romans, or creatively speculate concerning an
original doxology at either the end of ch.15 or at its current location at
the end of ch.16, I will definitely listen to the hypotheses, but I will
be most interested in learning how, after the doxology or the other
chapters are inserted in different places, the Byzantine scribes all
decided to include both the doxology at the end of ch.14 as well as
include all of chs.15 and 16 without relocation of the doxology to the end
of ch.16 as the supposedly "earlier" or "original" (as per UBS4/N27)
Alexandrian scribes seem to have done (if earlier, why would anyone
relocate it to ch.14?). 

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

Back