Wed Jun 5 17:29:58 1996

From owner-tc-list  Wed Jun  5 17:29:58 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id RAA05363; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 17:27:44 -0400
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 17:24:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 4881



On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> Despite our disagreements on results, it should be noted that Maurice
> Robinson and I agree on at least one fundamental point: that current
> eclectic methodology is theoretically bankrupt. We differ in how
> serious we think that problem is (I think the UBS/GNT text only
> mildly defective; he would find it thoroughly bad), but clearly
> agree on the nature of the problem.

I think you will find that, though I consider modern eclectic theory
basically defective (not necessarily "bankrupt") at its presuppositional
core, I do not really think the resultant text is "thoroughly bad", since
over 90% of it would agree with the Byzantine Textform or any other
texttype in the first place.  I would consider the UBS/Nestle text and
even the W-H text as "adequate" for virtually all purposes.  The fact 
that I do not consider "adequate" to mean equivalent to the autograph text 
does not prevent the profitable use of that text or of tools based upon 
it; I simply propose a different model which (in my own opinion) 
transcends the concept of mere adequacy.

> Question: Why "must [local texts] have come about as a deviation from
> the autograph"? Conceded, where they differ, no more than one of the
> local readings can be original. But surely we would all agree that
> all texts -- even the "Western" -- are *generally* correct.

This is the point raised above under "adequate".  I would ask in return, 
from where do the local texts derive if NOT as deviations from the 
autograph?  If they derive from another existing text which today no 
longer exists (which puts us into the realm of pure speculation), that 
text had to originally be created or come into being as a deviation from 
the autograph, else there would not be the ca.80-90% identity with the 
autograph text within any MS of any texttype.  I thus see no problem in 
explaining local texts as deviations from the autograph; the real 
question is whether one chooses to treat the Byzantine Textform as a mere 
"local text" (Constantinople or Antioch or otherwise), or as the 
overarching archetype from which all other texttypes and sub-types have 
derived.

> Agreed. All I am saying is that we don't *know* much about local
> texts, since almost all known manuscripts are, or could be, derived
> from Byzantium and the patriarchy of Constantinople.

I would concur this point with regard to the minuscules.  I cannot concur 
the same in regard to the uncials (even the Byzantine-text uncials).  
However, the problem in this regard is the almost total lack of 
genealogical connection between the MSS which were copied in the region 
from the Greek monasteries spanning the geographical gamut from Meteora 
through Sinai, most of which present a near-identical Byzantine-type of 
text, yet without collusion or even significant cross-comparison between 
those monasteries in the post-9th century era. The lack of genealogical 
connection (noted by Lake, Blake and New, HTR 1928) becomes a very 
significant factor in evaluating those MSS, and tends to rule out any 
mere "local text" aspect regarding them.

> Though I must concede that the one other local text we know something
> about (that of Egypt) *did* gradually grow closer to the Byzantine
> text -- and that, interestingly, most of the change took place
> *after* the Islamic conquest cut Egypt off from Constantinople. It's
> a small point, but it argues in your favour.

I take this as a mixed blessing: in Egypt itself, following the Islamic
conquest, the Coptic versions continued to be reproduced and disseminated,
and they remained (and remain today) highly Alexandrian in character.  
The Greek MSS of the Alexandrian local text certainly decline in number 
following the Islamic conquest, but they were already in decline from 
century IV through VI anyhow, as part of the increased communication 
between diverse parts of the Empire after Constantine, and the inevitable 
consequences of cross-comparison and correction which ensued.

> And since I'm apologising, I should apologise again for not knowing
> more about your theory. My (sort of) local seminary doesn't seem
> to have any of your writings. So I'm learning as I go along.

Neither do many others, save those who receive papers distributed at ETS 
meetings.  Other than that, only my Greek NT edition introduction is 
available.
 
> I still (dirty confession) haven't learned to read most minuscule
> scripts, though I'm pretty good at reading uncials by now....

Get Van Gronigen as a tool -- minuscule is not that hard to read.


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

Back