Mon Dec 9 14:49:01 1996
From owner-tc-list Mon Dec 9 14:49:01 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id OAA17718; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 14:47:46 -0500
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961209194202.0069a3a4@mail.teleport.com>
X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 11:42:02 -0800
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Dale M. Wheeler"
Subject: Re: Aland's article
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 5737
I really don't have the time to continue this discussion--though it
raises some very interesting issues for TC. Let me say as my last post
on this topic that I've appreciated Ulrich's input and insight into
Aland's statments--which for me left something to be desired in their
clarity.
On some specific points:
Ulrich said:
>Well, as far as I recall Aland introduced his statistics by pointing out that
>they refer to the *GNT (4th ed) apparatus*. Everyone familiar with the GNT
knows
>that the presence of singular readings therein is very limited (at least
within
>the Church Father testimonies).
Here is Aland's statement (I've abbreviated some names): "At the Institute for
NTTR in Muenster we have been working for several years on the proparation of
a fully revised Fourth Edition of The GNT with special concern for the patristic
citations in its critical apparatus....This critical apparatus admittedly
represents only some 1,200 passages, but these are important and sufficient to
provide some significant conclusions. The results for the "early times" are as
follows:..."
In the following statistics Aland then uses the term "Egyptian text". Now if
he had used the term NA27 or critical text or anything that connected with the
intro paragraph, I would have understood what he was talking about. But
"Egyptian text"??; in what sense does the NA text represent the "Egyptian
text". And saying that he's simply using the term Hodges used, for me at least,
does not solve the dilemma, since by adopting Hodges term he confused the
issue for me by intimating that he was using all the various Egyptian mss as
his comparison base, not the NA text. If no one else was confused by this...
fine; but I certainly was (this was not the first time in this article that
Aland used confusing terminology--his equation of the Majority text and the
TR is, as Dan Wallace puts it: "...either a lack of knowledge of the
differences between the two editions or an intentional guilt by association."
[in reference to the similar equation of the MT and TR in _Text of NT_;
Wallace, "Second Thoughts," BS 146 (1989): 275, n. 22; cf., idem, JETS 37/2
(1994): 194, n. 60]). I'm not saying that I think Aland was deliberately
trying to mislead the readers, just that his use of terminology was not
precise enough for the type of article he was writing and the complexity
of the information he was introducing; any other reader of the article may
certainly feel free to disagree...
Ulrich asked:
>Where does Aland "assert" the Egyptian origin of the "Western text
(-type)"? In
>the above given quote Aland speaks of the 3rd century witnesses p38, p48 as
>anticipating the "Western" text.
The quote was as follows:
>>>>But in the very next
>>>>paragraph, it seems to me, he undermines that
>>>>argument by pointing out: "...p38 and p48 at least
>>>>anticipate the so-called 'Western text' (its
>>>>chief representative, Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis
>>>>[D], is now believed by Latin paleographers to
>>>>have come from Africa. And both these papyri are
>>>>from the 3rd century!"
"...D [came] from Africa...!" (cf., _Text of NT_, pp. 109ff). Thus the papyrii
simply strengthen the case for the Egyptian origin of the "Western" text-type.
Thus my point again is that you can't refer to Fathers who follow a "Western"
text and who lived in the West as necessarily independent witnesses to the
"early times" text (as Aland puts it); they may or may not be--it depends on
whether they follow other "Western" texts which are clearly independent of
the p38-p48-D stream.
Ulrich asked:
>Sorry, if insisting on a possible slip, but to avoid misunderstandings: Who
>would be a candidate of being a "Byz Father" (geographically speaking) in the
>second and third centuries?
I probably should have been clearer... I'm not aware of any Byz Fathers (is
anyone else ??). Thus the point is that, as with the Byz text itself, we are
left with a "black hole" of data in the area where the bulk of the NT writings
were penned and sent. Thus we are left with the necessity of constructing a
theory to explain the rise of the Byz text and its differences with the Egyptian
text--and at present there are primarily two competing theories (1. the earlier
Egyptian mss best represent the autographs; 2. the later Byz mss best represent
the autographs).
Two final observations:
(1) As I said in my original post on this topic, I still find it interesting
(regardless of what we do with Aland's "missing percentages"--I'm willing to
grant that they are Western) that, for example, Irenaeus agrees on singular
readings with the Egyptian text 24% and with the Byz text 16.5%; or if you
count all agreeing readings, with the E-txt 40.5% and with the B-txt 33%.
Now I know that wasn't Aland's point, but I still find it intriguing !
(2) Aland raised herein (as well as elsewhere) that Aleph and B are not of
Egyptian origin...and Ulrich added that he also didn't believe that the
papyrii were necessarily of Egyptian origin either. Is anyone aware of
any paleograpic studies which defend or refute such ideas ??
One final question to the list members...
What has been your response to the publications of Comfort on the idea
that the autographs are best represented by the earliest Egyptian mss
at each point ??
Sorry for the length...
XAIREIN...
***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com
***********************************************************************
Back