Fri Oct 25 14:58:32 1996

From owner-tc-list  Fri Oct 25 14:58:32 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id OAA06681; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:57:29 -0400
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:52:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories
In-Reply-To: <961023144527_339471873@emout07.mail.aol.com>
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: 2050


On Wed, 23 Oct 1996 KHGrenier@aol.com wrote:

> 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.

[quoting Robinson]
 
> > 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.  

> 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.

I suspect this ovIerlaps into the matter of the history of the canon,
which could become quite complicated.  I will basically stick with what
was stated above, assuming canonicity or some authoritative status for the
fourfold gospel certainly before the mid-2nd century.  Ulrich Schmid (who
has just spent a wonderful week visting with me) maintains for the Pauline
corpus a ten-letter canon selected by Paul himself for the Pauline
Epistles, which thus elevates those ten into canonical status within the
first century, etc. (your mileage may vary).  I simply would agree with
Colwell that most sensible variants appeared before AD 200, and also
thTdkat

Back