Thu Jun 6 16:26:55 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu Jun  6 16:26:55 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA10719; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 16:25:49 -0400
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 96 15:22 CDT
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz)
Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2690

On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, "Stephen C Carlson"  wrote,
in part:

>
>I understand that Diocletian's persecution had targetted and destroyed
>many Christian manuscripts, and shortly thereafter Constantine legitimized
>Christianity.  Obviously, more Bibles had to be produced at an increased
>pace, and the local text around Constantinople would be the most prestigious
>base.  This bottleneck can adequately account for the rise and dominance
>of the Byzantine text-form, in a way that the sporadic process model can't.
>Its corollary implies that a Byzantine-type text existed in the third century
>(or was created rapidly in early fourth).
>
>Is this reasonable or mad speculation?

A couple of observations, based mostly in history.

It is my opinion that the effect of Diocletian's persecution have been
overrated. The Christian church had been subjected to repeated
persecutions before this (Domitian, Marcus Aurelius, Decius, etc.).
Nobody ever talks about *their* effects on scripture.

I've seen it claimed that Diocletian's was the longest and most
extreme of the persecutions. This is not really true. It was one
of the longer ones, but hardly universal.

We should remember that Diocletian was not really the Roman Emperor.
He was, by his own choice, the senior of four Emperors. Of these
four, it was Galerius (Diocletian's understudy) who was most ardent
against Christians. Diocletian, who approved the policy, was also
anti-Christian, but really didn't do much to enforce it; he was
well on his way to retirement by then.

In the western Roman Empire, Maximian was anti-Christian, but that
wasn't really at the top of his priority list. And Constantius
(the father of Constantine) took no action at all against Christians.
Thus, it was only in Galerius's fiefdom (roughly the Balkans) that
Christians were really persecuted.

I'm not saying that Diocletian's persecution was insignificant; it
was long and nasty. But that is simply not unique.

As for the coming of Constantine -- this too can be overrated.
Constantine legalized Christianity, and encouraged it, but did
not require it. Chances are that more manuscripts were copied in
Constantine's time, but not massively more; there just weren't
that many qualified scribes.

For that matter, the only Bibles we know Constantine to have ordered
were the fifty copies he received from Eusebius. But the text of
Eusebius, although it has many Byzantine readings, is *not* purely,
or even particularly strongly, Byzantine.

I'm not saying that Stephen Carlson's conclusions are wrong. I think
history can help elucidate textual problems. But it is a tool to be
used carefully.

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back