Mon Oct 28 07:07:02 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Oct 28 07:07:02 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id HAA23593; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 07:05:34 -0500
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 07:01:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: a presentation of Amphoux's work
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: 3145



On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Jean Valentin wrote:

> >Assuming all events occurred precisely as Amphoux wishes to claim, the
> >question then must be asked as to why there is not a shred of historical
> >or MS evidence to support his contentions, even granting (as I do) that
> 
> Not a shred? You're quite affirmative here! 

Readers of this list will not be surprised at that. *;-)  Certainly I do
not mean that Codex Bezae does not exist, but the archetype of such as
Amphoux would reconstruct it is purely hypothetical, and even if supposed
readings of that archetype are gleaned from patristic quotations or
readings in other Western sources such as the Old Latin, any
reconstruction of a Bezan archetype is purely hypothetical and based on
guesswork; scholarly guesswork, but still with no hard evidence.

I do appreciate that Amphoux ends up by default in much the same boat as
myself, tilting against the majority of eclectic windmills.  For this he
is to be commended, even though I consider his thesis incorrect.

> codex Bezae is the only NT text-type where the text can be seen
> as a global literary project. The proof will be done when Amphoux will have
> given us a global interpretation of codex Bezae - say, something like a
> commentary showing us the structure and intertextuality of its text. Do you
> see what I mean? 

I see and understand the point, but I still do not accept it, nor do I see
any historical validity for viewing the remainder of the history of the
text, including the development of the remaining texttypes, as necessarily
following from such a hypothesis.

> understand Amphoux's points. He sees the "history of the text" (an
> important notion in his vocabulary) as a long process, involving both
> redaction and transmission, without such a clear distinction between both.
> I do not think Westcott and Hort would have presented things in such a
> nuanced manner.

Westcott and Hort were quite nuanced in their own theory.  However, for
Amphoux' theory to possess validity, one almost has to assume a far longer
time for these events to occur transmissionally, as well as a Pax
Christiana for the first three centuries which parallels the situation
later occurring under Constantine.  Without sufficient protection and
freedom to engage in calm revision processes, I cannot see how the Bezan
archetype could possibly undergo so much as Amphoux claims for it.

> I understand. For this matter you need to read another article. What caused
> the almost total loss of this text was its role in the priscillian
> controversy.

Quite seriously, you will have to pardon me if I cannot accept this any
more than I can the KJV defenders who maintain that the Comma Johannaeum
was deliberately omitted from Greek MSS during the Trinitarian
controversy, lest the heretics somehow misuse it for their own purposes.
*;-)


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

Back