Mon Oct 28 22:20:43 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Oct 28 22:20:43 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id WAA01752; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 22:19:40 -0500
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 22:15:49 -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: 3231



On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Jean Valentin wrote:

[Robinson]
> >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. 

This is not really what I am saying.  I appealed to the principle of
Occam's razor previously, and restate it here: that theory is preferable
which requires the least number of steps and intermediate hypotheses to be
true in its promulgation.  I consider Amphoux' theory to require an
inordinate number of such steps and intermediate hypotheses; therefore I
consider it less valid than, e.g., even the reasoned eclectic method, even
though I am more in support of a theory which would point to a single
texttype (even the Western or Bezan exemplar), should such a theory
commend itself by its simplicity rather than its complexity.

> 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. 

Most will agree that the Byzantine Textform in its aggregate is almost
totally reconstructable and did have a valid existence for a definite
period of time. Differences over when such occurred are another matter,
however.  The fact that no two MSS agree 100% on all particulars does not
negate the reconstruction of the archetype of the Byzantine Textform.

> so widely diffused as the byzantine text (by the way, why not call it
> antiochene?) 

I personally prefer Byzantine, since I see no evidence that such a text
was peculiar to Antioch as opposed to extending over the entire
geographical scope of the Byzantine Empire.  I do realize that the term
Byzantine might appear to make the Textform time-bound, but this is not
my intention.  I could be happy with Kenyon's a-text designation, but few
seem inclined to follow that model.

> 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" :-)

Origen's work on the Hexapla is certainly well know. Also that early
fathers did from time to time comment regarding variant readings known to
them.  However it is a far leap from these incontrovertible facts into the
multiple-revision hypothesis which Amphoux must postulate in order to both
eliminate the Bezan archetype from further distribution and also to
establish the Alexandrian, Caesarean and Byzantine texts as official or
semi-official replacements which were swiftly adopted to the exclusion of
the Bezan archetype.  I fail to see anything being "overstated" in this
regard.


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

Back