Tue Jun 11 18:19:27 1996

From owner-tc-list  Tue Jun 11 18:19:27 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id SAA02315; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 18:16:29 -0400
Message-Id: <199606112213.SAA25554@r02n05.cac.psu.edu>
X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 18:13:15 -0400
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen)
Subject: Theories of textual transmission / Alexandrian text / etc.
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1053

As I have watched the various posts on these two subjects float by over the
last week or so, I have been struck by one point.  It leads me to ask the
following question:

Why, in all these discussions, have NONE of the earliest witnesses to the NT
text been mentioned?  Are they without relevance to the issue of how the
text originated and was then transmitted?  Are they of no significance when
discussing the "Alexandrian" or "Byzantine" or other families?

By "earliest witnesses" I mean, of course, the extensive second-century
citations which we possess:  Justin, Tertullian, Ignatius, the Didache, etc.
Even the early third century citations in Clement of Alexandria, Origen,
etc., are very important for the light they shed on both the text itself and
how early "academic" Christians handled it.

Quite frankly, I don't understand why one would choose to busy one's self
with 4th cent. through 12th cent. evidence, while at the same time totally
ignoring the 2nd through 3rd. cent. evidence.  Please enlighten me.

--Petersen, Penn State Univ.

Back