Mon Oct 28 18:48:36 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Oct 28 18:48:36 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id SAA00092; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 18:46:31 -0500
X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.4b9
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 00:45:26 +0100
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin)
Subject: Re: a presentation of Amphoux's work
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2771

Maurice Robinson wrote:


>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.
>

Yes of course, but this is in the nature of our discipline. We are _all_
postulating an archetype that we try to reconstruct. If what you say is
true, then ANY textual criticism is impossible. Hypothese always plays a
role in our discipline, and any printed text (except for the diplomatic
edition of a manuscript) is in fact a reconstructed text... a text that
probably never existed. The same can be said of the NA27 text, the
Tischendorf text, even the Majority text or the TR. ANY archetype is
hypothetical, and specially those who assign to TC the task to reconstruct
an hypothetic "original" text, an archetype of all our manuscripts would,
if you're right, be building hypotheses with no hard evidence. Even texts
so widely diffused as the byzantine text (by the way, why not call it
antiochene?) or the latin vulgate.


>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.
>
Not sure. There's been much scholarly work done by christians before
Constantine. persecution didn't prevent Tatian, Origen, and many others
from producing biblical editions and commentaries. This argument seems to
me quite overstated... and "hypothetical" :-)


>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.
>*;-)
Ne melangeons pas les torchons et les serviettes (juicy french expression
meaning, according to my dictionary: "you have to know what's what". See
what I mean? :-))).


shlomo w-shayno!

Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium

Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable.
What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable.

Back