Subject: Re: Mt 6:13

From: "Dale M. Wheeler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 11:15:03 -0800

As a preface to the following comments, let me say to those reading this
list and who are tempted to use my comments out of context in another forum,
that it is not only proper "netiquette," but it would seem to me the
appropriate behaviour of a Christian gentleman/gentlewoman, to ask if it is
okay to quote someone else's comments in another context or forum.  Thank
you for your consideration.

Jimmy Adair wrote:

>The fact that _none_ of the
>earliest NT mss reflects a distinctly Byzantine text suggests to me that
>the later Byzantine consensus is lately arrived at, 

But Jimmy wouldn't you acknowledge that since we have no manuscripts from
the early period in the Byz area that any conclusion we draw about what
happened in that area is simply a theory and not a demonstrable fact of
history (I assume that you would believe that such mss did at one time
exist.).  The fact that none of the earliest NT mss reflect a distinctly Byz
text tells us nothing more than that, unless you want, in my opinion, to
fall into the fallacy of saying earlier is better, just because its earlier
(regardless of the character of the mss, their wide divergence from one
another, etc.)  But since we must try to reconstruct the history of the
text, we must posit and test various theories (which is what TC is engaged
in).  Thus, it seems to me, we are left with a couple of possible
conclusions from the Egyptian data in realtionship to the Byz:

(1) What we see going on in Egypt textually is exactly, or at least
reasonably close to what was going on throughout Christianity at the time
(and then we must demonstrate some mechanism for the emergence of the Byz
form which does not match the Alex; without a "Lucian-type" recension, can
we demonstrate a manuscript tradition that makes sense of the transition
form Alex -->> Byz ?).

(2) What we see going on in Egypt textually is totally different (for some
reason) from what was going in the Byz area, and the subsequent Byz text
which emerges reflects the Byz manuscript tradition.

Well, there are our two competing theories...and we are all trying to
reconstruct the lost history of the descent of the mss in the Byz region.
This is why I said we need more research on scribal practice, manuscript
relationships, etc., in the Byz area, and between those mss and others.  I
suggest that progress is being made and that more will be made soon...

***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Chair, Biblical Languages Dept                  Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street                               Portland, OR  97220
Voice: 503-251-6416    FAX:503-254-1268     E-Mail: [email-masked] 
***********************************************************************

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:41:01 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, Dale M. Wheeler wrote:

> another, etc.)

First I want to voice some concern about the phrase "demonstrable fact of 
history."   By its very nature, history is not composed of facts, but 
rather reports and interpretations of events.  This isn't the place to 
get into the philosophy of history, but we must remember that historical 
facts are different from scientific facts (i.e., historical facts are not 
repeatable), which are in turn different from mathematical facts (i.e., 
scientific facts can't be proven logically by either deduction or 
induction).  Keeping in mind these caveats, perhaps we're better off 
dispensing with talking about historical "facts" at all and admitting 
that we're all talking about theories.

Having said that, yes, of course all of our statments about the Byzantine 
text (and other forms of the text) are theories.  The fact that no early 
Byzantine mss are known to exist is a fact, but how we deal with this 
fact is a matter of looking at our options and choosing what we think is 
the best one.  It's true that earlier is not necessarily better when it 
comes to mss, but it is a factor in determining the preferred reading.  
Probably everyone would agree that a reading that first appears in 3rd 
century ms has a greater likelihood of originality that a reading that 
first appears in a 12th century ms.  It's possible that the original 
reading was preserved in a ms that served as the exemplar for the 12th 
century ms, but most would give the reading very careful scrutiny before 
allowing that it might be original.  In other words, date is not 
determinative, but it is a factor to be considered.

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:48:05 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, James R. Adair wrote:

> It's true that earlier is not necessarily better when it 

I am certain that we would concur on the example given or on other 
similar examples.  But what do you do when a 5th century MS differs from 
one of the 4th century, or a 3rd century MS from one of the 2nd century.  
The wider the gap before the first appearance of a reading, certainly the 
less likely a reading to be original in the later MS; but when a short 
time period separates widely divergent MSS (e.g. A and B in the gospels), 
why is there so much stronger a presumption in favor of the earlier?

Scrivener wrote in the last century that it was paradoxical that the 
worst corruptions to which the text ever had been subjected occurred in 
the earliest centuries, and that the text after the fourth century 
offered a far greater chance to determine the original (Scrivener of 
course did not have the early papyri, but only patristic and versional 
testimony to make his statement; the papyri only serve to confirm the 
truth of Scrivener's assessment).  

So in such a case, there still remains a limit as to when "earlier" might 
necessarily equal "better".  

Bringing it down to the 2nd century alone, which of the three, P45, 
P66 or P75 is the "better" MS?  Only those who automatically confer a 
higher regard to B will immediately choose P75; but there is no inherent 
reason for such preference within the second century MSS themselves.  So 
even equally early does not confer anything as regards originality, any 
more than the quite Alexandrian MS L of the 9th century is of any less 
weight than Aleph of the fourth.  We are back to the original contention 
that age of a MS says little or nothing about the purity or originality 
of its text.

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