Tue Dec 10 11:08:15 1996
From owner-tc-list Tue Dec 10 11:08:15 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id LAA24866; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:06:46 -0500
Message-Id: <199612101602.RAA77700@mail.uni-muenster.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 96 18:12:39 +0100
From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid)
Subject: Re: Aland's article
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961209194202.0069a3a4@mail.teleport.com>
X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 4120
On Mon, 9 Dec 1996, Dale M. Wheeler wrote:
>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.
1) As far as I can see there is at least a strong possibilty of reading Aland's
article in "Trinity Journal" with reference to Hodges' terminology and argument
concerning the "Egyptian text" (as Hodges puts it) that is clear and makes
sense. I simply wanted to emphasize that.
2) Surely, I concede that Aland's reasoning may be put to test by highlightening
its implications with respect to an overall textual theory. As far as I
understand Dale's various posts on this subject, this was at least partly his
intention. In so doing Dale sometimes added features of different theories to
Aland's reasoning which are not necessarily part of Aland's own theory. For
example, to my mind Dale's use of the geographic connotations of various texts
("Egyptian", "Western", "Byzantine") are not inherent to Aland's own theory. See
the following example on the so-called "Western" text:
>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.
a) Although Egypt is part of the continent of Africa, the supposed
*Latin-African* origin of D (cf. "Latin paleographers") does not imply any
connection whatsoever to Greek (and Coptic) speaking Egypt.
b) Again, Aland simply questions the Egyptian provenance of all the papyri
(BTW-- *papyri* is already plural) that had been found in Egypt. The simple fact
of having survived in Egypt due to favorable climatic conditions tells us not
whether the papyri and/or the text they display really originated in Egypt or
not.
c) Even if we assume the Egyptian origin of p38, p48, it is anachronistic to
establish the Egytian origin of the "Western" text to which Irenaeus (late
second century) partly testifies to by means of third century papyri and 4/5th
century Codex D. The usual reasoning goes exactly the other way. Because of the
late 2d and early 3rd century "Western" Church Fathers like Irenaeus (BTW--
Irenaeus was brought up in Asia minor) and Tertullian and late 2d/early 3rd
century versions (like the Vetus Latina) at least parts of the text of 4/5th
century Codex D and 3rd century papyri can be dated back to the late 2d or (cf.
Marcion) early 2d century. However, including Marcion in this list (one must add
the Old Syriac too) points to the conclusion that the "Western" text in fact
originated somewhere in the East.
To conclude therefrom: While it is very important to have our textual witnesses
(MSS and Fathers) dated and localized, we should not focus on the geographic
denomintations of various texts. As far as I can see nothing in this field is
beyond dispute. To add some fuel to the fire: There is no conclusive evidence
that connects even the "Alexandrian" text(-type) to Alexandria.
Any comments on that?
Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
Back