Thu Jun 6 20:45:59 1996
From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 20:45:59 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id UAA11564; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 20:43:58 -0400
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 20:40:49 -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: 5527
On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Nichael Cramer wrote:
> But it seems to me that the flow of logic here is precisely backwards.
It is backwards only if a presupposition regarding the "late" nature of
the Byzantine Textform predominates. From my perspective, there is no
backward reasoning necessary.
> We now have a Byzantine text-type which evolved over several centuries,
> which we now see has features which we characterize as "Byzantine" but
> acknowledging this is certainly not the same as insisting that those who
> created those peculiar variations were governed by some "hidden hand".
My own transmissional history of course begins with a presumption of
Byzantine originality, from which individual and independent variations can
readily be distinguished. Over 90% of the text of all MSS basically
remains identical at all times, regardless of texttype, and this 90% most
certainly stems from the autograph. My own theory merely applies the same
logic to the remaining 10% of the text. There is no need to read this as a
retrogressive superimposition of later characteristics upon pre-existing
documents, nor is there any need to postulate any "hidden hand" governing
the process (which in my reconstruction follows quite natural means). The
final resultant text still has to come from somewhere, and if a Byzantine
originality is not presumed, the question of -how- the result ended up in
precisely that form still remains unanswered.
> Rather the logic here, it seems to me, would be the same as asking how
> could Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn and all the rest, working independently,
> have come up with a style of music which we (now) call "Classical"?
This analogy fails, since it does not deal with the same thing. Rather,
allow a given of the hymn tune "Amazing Grace" and note that in virtually
all hymnbooks of all denominations, the rendition remains basically
identical, and usually even the key in which it is written remains
unchanged. Various classical composers, with styles as diverse as Bach,
Beethoven, and Ives might deal in a quite different manner with that hymn
tune, but the "original essence" of it (which preceded any of the
classical variations) would still remain, even though altered by those
composers, sometimes in a dramatic manner.
The text of the NT first has to be postulated from the point of the
autograph, and it is the essence of the autograph which permeates all
MSS, versions, and patristic quotations. That essence may be altered to
varying degrees, but it cannot be destroyed, else the result will no
longer be the NT text per se.
> Or
> how, separated by vast geographical areas and long stretches of time, our
> ancestors could have come up with our present English language?
Again, this is a supposition without presupposing an autograph. Putting
it in a proper analogy, is there not a close connection between the Middle
English of Chaucer and a modern prose or verse rendition of his Canterbury
Tales? Or biblically, cannot Tyndale's English have a recognizable and
readily traceable connection to its later English descendants, whether in
the form of the Geneva Bible, the Bishop's Bible, or the King James Bible?
Any analogy presented -must- be one which postulates an autograph which
undergoes certain alteration, but without removing or destroying the
-essence- of that autograph.
> As in these examples, there were certainly conventions and a certain
> enviormental "ambience" (as it were) which would tend to reinforce certain
> aspects and to drive out certain others.
Even allowing your hypothesis, what were these factors? Every item
generally cited by eclectic scholars (a preference for easier readings,
longer or fuller readings, substitution of synonyms, harmonizing readings,
etc.) can be shown to have occurred repeatedly and on numerous occasions,
even among MSS which are not of the Byzantine type. However, the vast
bulk of such "secondary" readings -- probably 99% of such -- even though
clearly reflecting the supposed "Byzantine mindset", were either NOT
perpetuated or tended to have a very short span of perpetuation. Yet
those particular readings which just "happened" to have the Byzantine
"pattern" -were- perpetuated on a continually widening basis. Why should
this be so, save for the overarching influence of the autograph?
The question for eclectic theory is to account for precisely what caused
that pattern of readings to be perpetuated to the point of dominance,
while the vast bulk of other readings supposedly appropriate to the
"Byzantine mindset" were not perpetuated. From my own perspective, I have
no problem answering this point; I suspect modern eclectic theory will
find this particular matter difficult if not insurmountable.
> But to insist that there must have been a
> central guiding force is to look through the wrong end of the telescope.
If the autograph text itself is not considered a significant "guiding
force," I do not know what else remains. Do note that I am not claiming
anything more than normal transmissional practices in regard to a
pre-existing autograph text; such is perfectly adequate to account for
the data we possess in our extant MSS, versions and Fathers.
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back