Fri Jun 7 13:45:03 1996

From owner-tc-list  Fri Jun  7 13:45:03 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id NAA15558; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:43:50 -0400
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:40:40 -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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 6351


(I had a nice response to this posting, but a blast of line noise totally=
=20
obliterated it.  The current posting reflects an attempt to recreate it=20
as best as possible).

On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote:

> Maurice Robinson 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.
>=20
> Ah, but be careful.  Here you've subtly --but critically-- shifted the
> playing field.

I think not; any theory has to be examined within the constraints of its=20
own presuppositions.  I merely bring my own theory in as a point of=20
contrast to indicate that it does not suffer from the same weaknesses as=20
hitherto described.

> Your argument --the argument to which I was responding-- was a
> "consistency" arguement.  That is, you were insisting that the Eclectic
> theory was flawed _internally_ because it did not provide a specific
> mechanism which would account for the rise of the Byzantine text-type.  I=
,
> in response, showed that this was not correct.

I fail to see where this has been demonstrated.  So far every suggested=20
explanation for the rise and dominance of the Byzantine Textform which=20
comes from the varying quarters within modern eclecticism has had either=20
inconsistencies or serious weaknesses, which I have noted in passing.  I=20
still have not seen a reasonable theory of textual transmission which can=
=20
account for all the extant data which comes from the modern eclectic=20
fold, and in this case, I find the Westcott-Hort theory clearly superior=20
to anything yet put forth favoring a non-Byzantine text since that time.
=20
> The fact that this does not fit a separate theoretical framework (in this
> case yours) is irrelevant and says nothing about the consistency of the
> theory, which is the question at hand.

Precisely.  I willingly would examine any transmissional theory from=20
within the framework of the hypothesis being set forth; but I would=20
reserve the right to play Devil's advocate in critiquing that same theory=
=20
from within its theoretical framework, as well as suggesting alternative=20
models which do not suffer from the same deficiency.  I would be quite=20
pleased if modern eclectics would willingly suspend a priori judgments=20
and evaluate the Byzantine-priority model from within its own framework=20
as well, but to date this has not been done -- rather, everyone else=20
continually chooses to shift the playing field back to their own ball=20
park, and to view all pro-Byzantine claims from behind their own eclectic=
=20
blinders (Colwell's term).

> >> As in these examples, there were certainly conventions and a certain
> >> enviormental "ambience" (as it were) which would tend to reinforce cer=
tain
> >> aspects and to drive out certain others.
> >
> >Even allowing your hypothesis, what were these factors?

I don't think I wrote the above statement, did I?  Perhaps I was=20
quoting Waltz?  I would generally concur that the "ambience" would be=20
basically the normal scribal duty and concern to copy the text as=20
accurately as possible, but recognizing that certain non-autograph=20
readings might predominate in any given area.

> >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 hav=
e
> >no problem answering this point; I suspect modern eclectic theory will
> >find this particular matter difficult if not insurmountable.
>=20
> Well, one obvious force at work here --and moreover a force that we know =
to
> have affected the text of the NT-- is that characterized in the title of
> Bart Ehrman's book _The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_ (a book which,
> BTW, I heartily recommend to one and all).

This would be one factor (though I will differ with Ehrman on his view of=
=20
what consitutes "orthodoxy").  However, any claim to a scribal tendency=20
toward readings which favor orthodoxy fails in so many places where in=20
theory orthodoxy could have been strengthened, but was not, simply due to=
=20
the fidelity of the scribes.  Ehrman is basically correct, in my view,=20
when the "more orthodox" reading is found in a -minority- of MSS; I do=20
not accept the same claim at a point where the majority of MSS might=20
happen to preserve what subjectively appears to be a "more orthodox"=20
reading, since in such a case it is very possible that the "more orthodox"=
=20
reading is simply that of the autograph, created by a writer who himself=20
WAS "orthodox".

> If we assume the existence of a Church in which the Byzantine text-type
> developed over the centuries, the existence of that orthodoxy must have
> been a compelling, an inexorable (if subtle) force for change in that
> Church's text.

If so, the Byzantine era scribes left far too many places unaffected.  If=
=20
we were to accept the standard claims regarding the Byzantine tendency to=
=20
expand sacred names, for instance, we should never find "Jesus" standing=20
alone, but it would be expanded to "Jesus Christ", which in turn would be=
=20
expanded to "the Lord Jesus Christ" and then to "our Lord Jesus Christ,"=20
etc.  This scribal expansion certainly was done, and it occurred=20
frequently but sporadically, and can be seen in comprehensive apparatuses=
=20
like Von Soden or Tischendorf; however, the expansions were nipped in the=
=20
bud by watchdog scribes and/or their correctors, and never gained the=20
ascendancy.  The same would apply to numerous other readings which=20
somehow would supposedly be "more orthodox" than that which normally=20
would be preserved by simple copying of the autograph text.
=20
7=ED=DB=D6=A4=CFK=F0=D4=CD=D0>=B3T%=D2=B5=A2=DB=C6o=CBS (and its scribes) a=
lready knew what the text=20
"meant", they would simply
> _tend_ --perhaps unconsciously-- to make sure that that's what it said.
>=20
>=20
> Nichael
> nichael@sover.net                                               __
> http://www.sover.net/~nichael              Be as passersby   -- IC
>=20
>=20
>=20

Back