Tue Oct 22 19:59:20 1996

From owner-tc-list  Tue Oct 22 19:59:20 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id TAA07863; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 19:57:55 -0400
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 19:02:40 +0400
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton L. Winbery)
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2112

Jeremy Duff wrote in answer to Kevin;
>>Part of the difficulty of the task is that we do not understand with
>>certainty how we ended up with the texts that we have. Most agree that the
>>majority of variants probably occurred prior to 325 CE., certainly before 500
>>(?) CE. During this time, people did not understand the writings as scripture
>>and there was little opportunity for comparison of MSS.
>
>I find this a little hard to believe. Church writers from the end of the
>second century onwards at least see to have a definite conception of certain
>texts being scripture. I would have thought it natural, given no evidence to
>the contrary, that scribes would have also thought this. OK, there may not
>be a fixed definitive canon, but that does not mean that the scribe who
>copied say p46 did not think this was scripture. Indeed, various features
>might point to the conclusion that he did - e.g. use of the codex form
>(which seems more common for Christian scriptures than for the writings of
>the church fathers, I think) and the use of the nomina sacra (can anyone
>tell me if these are used in copies of the writings of church fathers? I
>guess they probably are). Anyway, even without definite evidence that the
>scribes did see the texts as scripture, I would have thought that their
>status generally as evidenced by other writers would be enough to suggest
>that scribes from the second century onwards did understand the writings as
>scripture.
>
The statement by Kevin is probably an overstatement, for different writers
seem to have had differing opinions about some to the later books.
However, that was not the only factor that caused early variants.  No doubt
the edict of toleration in 311 helped give the Christians more time to
think about mss.  I don't think the fact that scribes used the codex form
is significant.  Many others did that.  The great disparity between the
ability of scribes is also evident.


Carlton L. Winbery
Fogleman Professor of Religion
Louisiana College
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
Fax (318) 442-4996
Phone (318) 487-7241

Back