Wed Oct 23 14:50:56 1996

From owner-tc-list  Wed Oct 23 14:50:56 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id OAA15971; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:49:33 -0400
From: KHGrenier@aol.com
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:45:27 -0400
Message-ID: <961023144527_339471873@emout07.mail.aol.com>
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
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: 1372

In a message dated 96-10-23 12:06:37 EDT, Maurice Robinson writes:

 
> [quoting Grenier]
> 
> >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 would take exception to this categorization, since there is little
> question regarding the fourfold gospel as scripture before AD 200, as well
> as most of the undisputed books before or around that date (which Colwell
> considered the point by which most sensible variant readings had been
> created).  AD 500 would be far too late to postulate the writings as
> non-scripture.  Also, I do not think there was "little opportunity for
> comparison of MSS" when even our earliest papyri show evidence of
> cross-comparison and correction, not to mention the uncial fragments from
> the 3rd and 4th century.  

Thank you for your comments, Maurice. 

I'm wondering if you could give a short paragraph of your understanding of
the time period I was trying to write about. I am happy to have my
paragraph's weaknesses pointed out, but what I need is someone replace my
paragraph with a better one. That way, I have something true to put in my
head and not just know that what I have written is incorrect.

Thanks,


Kevin Grenier

Back