Fri Oct 25 15:02:06 1996

From owner-tc-list  Fri Oct 25 15:02:06 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id PAA06757; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:00:41 -0400
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:56:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Textual Criticism Theories 
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: 2748



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 that many if not most of the books of the NT were
regarded (at least in some localities) as "scripture" by that time. 
Considering what occurred in regard to variant readings _after_ canonicity
was recognized, I am not swayed much by any claim that variation in the
pre-canonical period was that much more severe, save for the creation of
new variants as opposed to the perpetuation of existing variants.

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

Back