Thu Jun 6 21:51:14 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu Jun  6 21:51:14 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA11806; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 21:50:12 -0400
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 21:47:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text
In-Reply-To: <9606061958.AA18351@osf1.gmu.edu>
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: 4901



On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Stephen C Carlson wrote:

> It seems to me that once there exists a certain mass of documents, it
> should be very difficult for once scribe's deviation from his exemplar
> to be adopted by a large number of texts.  If there is no cross-checking,
> then the unique reading would only descend to those MSS copied from it.
> If there is cross-checking, then the probability that the variant would
> continue to exist seems diminished.

I would note that Carlson is in perfect agreement with my own views on
this point (though we differ slightly near the end of the message).  He
asks later whether his view is "reasonable or mad speculation," and I
would insist that it is eminently reasonable within a normal
transmissional model, as even Hort noted (W-H, Introduction, p.45) with
his "theoretical presumption" that a majority of existing documents should
reflect a majority of pre-existing documents at any stage of transmission
-unless- some dramatic event or occurrence would render the "normal"
transmissional model null and void.  W-H of course proposed the hypothesis
of formal Byzantine revision and official promulgation of the
formally-revised text to eliminate this problem.  Remove this possibility
and substitute Colwell's or Aland's "process" model, and the eclectic
hypothesis does not function properly. 

> The analogy to biological genetics seems apt.  The main way for a large
> number of variants that constitute a text-type to be adopted is for the
> transmission process to go through a bottleneck (i.e., reproductive
> isolation).  Apparently the Lucian recension that had been proposed but
> now largely abandoned as one such bottleneck, and I think the
> conversion from uncial to minuscule is another.  Although, there could
> be a textual analog to "genetic drift," it seems quite unlikely that a
> majority text-type can coalesce at a late stage without going through a
> transmissional bottleneck.

I see three main "bottlenecks" which influence textual transmission: 
(1) the legitimization of Christianity under Constantine;  (2) the change 
of writing material from fragile papyrus to long-lasting vellum; (3) the
change of script from uncial to minuscule.  None of these, however, can 
account satisfactorily for an alteration of a non-Byzantine autograph 
into the later dominant Byzantine Textform; all of these, however, can 
fit in readily with an assumption of an autograph which resembles the 
Byzantine Textform to a high degree.
 
> I understand that Diocletian's persecution had targetted and destroyed
> many Christian manuscripts, and shortly thereafter Constantine legitimized
> Christianity.  

I could have added the Diocletian persecution as a fourth bottleneck, but 
in the absence of data to the contrary, I would consider that, all things 
being equal, MSS of any and all texttypes would be seized and destroyed 
in approximately the same percentage as their pre-persecution numbers 
would reflect. The end result of such would be a new beginning from MSS 
in the same texttype proportions (unless someone would want to argue that 
only or primarily non-Byzantine MSS were targeted for seizure, which 
would be purely an argument ex silentio).

> Obviously, more Bibles had to be produced at an increased
> pace, and the local text around Constantinople would be the most prestigious
> base.  

The problem here is that MSS were not exactly dispatched Empire-wide from
Constantinople to replace those which previously existed in various
churches and monasteries.  The evidence mentioned from Lake, Blake and New
regarding MSS possessing a nearly identical Byzantine Textform yet without
evidence of genealogical connection in locales as diverse as Patmos,
Jerusalem and Sinai illustrates this point quite well.  Personally, I 
have no problem in assuming a "local text" of Constantinople, as well as 
of Caesarea, Alexandria, Carthage, or Rome; however, I would suspect 
that the Ka or perhaps the K1 sub-group of the Byzantine Textform would 
reflect that local text of Constantinople, and would have little or no 
bearing upon the otherwise predominant Kx text throughout the Empire.

> Its corollary implies that a Byzantine-type text existed in the third century
> (or was created rapidly in early fourth).

Since the likelihood of rapid creation in the fourth or any century would 
be weakened by its growth to dominance without official recognition or 
promulgation, the implication of this statement would be that the 
Byzantine Textform actually has roots which reach much further back, 
perhaps even to the autograph. *;-)

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

Back