Thu Jun 6 13:56:46 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu Jun  6 13:56:46 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id NAA09902; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:55:21 -0400
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:52:04 -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: 2470



On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Nichael Cramer wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> I don't think anyone has seriously argued that Byzantine scribes developed
> identical harmonizations independently or without collusion -- or at least
> certainly not in a way that is implicit in this characterization. 

On the contrary, this is precisely the assumption of the "process" model, 
that Byzantine-like changes were being made and almost without question 
being adopted by later scribes, and henceforth perpetuated into future 
generations, thus producing the final stages of the Byzantine Textform in 
the period from the 9th century onward.  If the choice of these readings 
was _not_ made independently and haphazardly, evidence of serious collusion 
needs to be forthcoming (W-H recognized this and were compelled to 
postulate a formal revision process whereby the Byzantine Textform was 
created and officially promulgated).  Most eclectic scholars today have 
moved away from the formal recension theory, as well as official 
promulgation of certain readings (especially in a particular pattern), so 
what remains as an option beyond the haphazard and independently-created 
model which I critiqued?
 
> Certainly various harmonizations (etc) occurred independently, finally
> resulting in the "final" Byzantine text as it evolved over six or so
> centuries.  But it is also likely that many "Byzantine-like" variations
> came and fell by the wayside, losing out to those emendations that
> finally congealed into "standard form" of the text-style as we have it
> now. 

The problem with the first sentence above is precisely what I was
addressing by citing the Hodges quote.  Independent creation of
"Byzantine-like" readings certainly can and did occur.  I previously noted
that many of those same type of readings _did_ fall by the wayside during
the "process".  However, the question of precisely -how- the specific
pattern of readings which characterizes the Byzantine Textform tended to
come about by such a method, without collusion or imposition of specific
textual authority still remains a mystery which process theorists seem
unable to resolve. 

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

Back