Thu Jun 6 12:57:16 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu Jun  6 12:57:16 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id MAA09583; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 12:55:39 -0400
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 12:52:29 -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: 4730



On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Larry W. Hurtado wrote:

> Maurice (and others):  If you imagine that the only way "Byzantine 
> readings" can have made their way into mss is through the "influence" of 
> a "Byzantine text-type" (i.e., a relatively matured type of text such as 
> we have in the primary Byzantine mss reps.), then, yes, readings in early 
> mss would suggest that this text-form might be there.  

Which falls within the range of my own reconstructed transmissional
history.  Note, however, that I do not think this is the "only way" that
such could occur, but rather that it would be the "primary way", following
my theory of transmission.  Certainly, there is always room for the
independent scribal creation (or re-creation) of various Byzantine
readings without any necessary genealogical connection; but I would
suspect this type of instance to be in the minority. 

> But, if (as I see 
> it) "text-types" are basically the result of scribal copying/transmission 
> habits/tastes/objectives, etc. (shaped of course by ecclesiastical 
> concerns etc.), then what becomes the "Byzantine text-type" is basically 
> a matured form/degree (late, so the evidence) of scribal/editorial 
> tendencies observable quite early in their initial operation.  

> So, the 
> "Byzantine text" is basically an "ecclesiastical" text, that reflects a 
> few centuries of transmission with readability, inoffensiveness, 
> harmonization, etc. operational.  These tendencies began very early, so 
> they show up ad hoc in such early witnesses as P45, P46, etc.  But a more 
> programmatic operation of these tendencies gathers force over time.


As Fee has well noted, the Byzantine Textform, or any texttype, is really
comprised of a _pattern_ of readings, which pattern distinguishes it from
any other pattern, even if the patterns remain otherwise relatively
similar. What you state above reflects the opinion of most eclectic
scholars on this point, and supposes a "process" methodology whereby the
Byzantine Textform is slowly pieced together over a long period of time
into the basic "pattern" which it eventually assumes in the later uncials
or in most minuscules. 

But again, the problem with that "process" scenario goes back to the
statement made by Hodges (which basically reflects K.W.Clark's critique 
of Colwell on this point) that I quoted in the introduction to my Greek NT: 

   No one has yet explained how a long, slow process spread out over many
   centuries as well as over a wide geographical area, and involving a
   multitude of copyists, who often knew nothing of the state of the text
   outside of their own monasteries or scriptoria, could achieve this
   widespread uniformity out of the diversity presented by the 
   [supposedly] earlier [Western and Alexandrian] forms of text....An
   unguided process achieving relative stability and uniformity in the
   diversified textual, historical, and cultural circumstances in which the
   New Testament was copied, imposes impossible strains on our imagination.
      
  (Hodges, from Pickering, _Identity of the NT Text_, p.168; cited in my
   Greek NT introduction, p.xxv).

If modern eclecticism wishes to maintain a "process" view (which it
obviously prefers), then some serious grappling with this problem must
occur.  There is no difficulty in imagining that scribes might opt for
certain types of readings, but the truth is that virtually ALL scribes, of
ALL texttypes individually and sporadically opted for precisely the _same_
kind of readings which supposedly typify the Byzantine Textform (you admit
as much regarding certain of the early MSS); the only difference is that
they did not happen to recreate the "pattern" of that Textform as they
chose such readings. 

The mystery question par excellence is _how_ did the Byzantine-era scribes
consistently and harmoniously tend independently and sporadically to
choose "Byzantine-like readings" (to use Fee's term) and to do so in
precisely the _same_ pattern, without any collusion or certain knowledge
that other scribes were similarly selecting nearly-identical patterns? 

The Hodges/Clark critique of Colwell's process method really needs to be
addressed more seriously by the eclectic school before making a final
supposition as to how the Byzantine mindset supposedly functioned.  (I
will note once more that my own transmissional reconstruction does not
suffer from this particular problem). 

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

Back