Subject: James 2:18

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 10:02:41 -0500

It was stated earlier that James 2:18 reads, in the "Alexandrian" texts
"choris" while in the Maj. text "ek" is the reading.  And, if I understood
the comment correctly, "ek makes no sense here".

My question is- why doesn't it?  Dana and Mantey, in their Grammar, state
that "ek" can be translated "by means of", and they give Rom 1:17, Jas 2:18,
2:22, and I John 4:6 as examples.

"ek" and "choris" are synonymous and thus either one will fit here. 

The variant seems to have arisen because (back to Matthew Black!!!!- but I
don't think he would ever say this!!)  the original James was an Aramaic
document (written about 40 C.E.) and when translated into Greek the scribes
had several options- some chose "ek" while others chose "choris".

Jim West

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 11:01:39 -0500 (EST)

> "ek" and "choris" are synonymous and thus either one will fit here. 

EK can mean "by means of," as it does later in the same verse!  However, 
XWRIS means "apart from, without."  In the context of the argument, the 
author is challenging his hypothetical opponent to demonstrate his faith 
_without_ works, while he would demonstrate his _by_ his works.  So 
while either EK or XWRIS will fit at the phrase level, only XWRIS makes 
sense in the context of the whole argument.

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: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 19:06:51 -0500 (EST)

> sense in the context of the whole argument.

I would question this assertion, since from a rhetorical standpoint (if
the Byztxt is followed) XWRIS has NOT been used before verse 20, though
the use of XWRIS does become a dominant issue in verses 20-26.  Up until
that point, the discussion does not center on the issue of faith WITHOUT
or APART FROM works, but differs rhetorically and semantically, i.e., the
topic under discussion in 2:14-19 is "if someone should claim to have
faith, but does not have works" -- this is an entirely different matter,
and does not concern the XWRIS discussion of 2:20-26.

The likelihood of importing XWRIS from its first (Byztxt) appearance in 
2:20 to ease the interpretative difficulty in 2:18 a few lines above 
still seems to be the best explanation of how other readings all stem 
from the Byzantine variant.

=========================================================================
                       Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
            Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
              Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
                      Wake Forest, North Carolina
                   <[email-masked]>
=========================================================================

---

From: Klaus Wachtel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 14:23:54 +0000

Maurice Robinson wrote:

> ...(if the Byztxt is followed) XWRIS has NOT been used before verse 20, though

That's exactly how Byzantine scribes and readers may have tried to explain the 
opposition with double EK in 2,18. They seem to have separated v. 18 from 20-26 
as well as from 14-17. But in 14-17 the author points out that "faith by itself, 
if it has no works, is dead" (17). In 20-26 he shows that "faith apart from 
works is dead" (26). In my opinion the statements in 17 and 26 have the same 
meaning, though the author uses XWRIS only in 26. Thus it seems very unlikely to 
me that in v. 18 he might confront a challenge to show faith by means of works 
with his own promise to show his faith by means of his works. A competition of 
works showing faith doesn't make sense in a context which opposes the dead faith 
that bears no fruit to the faith that shows its being alive by works.
Thus I conclude that the first EK in the Byz. text of 2,18 is an error, 
presumably caused by parablepsis (EK before TWN ERGWN in the next sentence).

Klaus Wachtel, INTF Muenster

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 18:02:30 -0500 (EST)

On Fri, 15 Mar 1996, Klaus Wachtel wrote:

> In my opinion the statements in 17 and 26 have the same 
> meaning, though the author uses XWRIS only in 26. 

I see the non-use of XWRIS before verse 20 indicating a clearly different
angle.  "Faith _not having_ works" versus "faith _apart from_ works" --
both may be "dead", but for different reasons.  

James is speaking to and about believers in any case: the illustration
given in v.15 is of a believer seeing a brother or sister in need and
doing nothing but offering kind platitudes.  "Faith not having works"
appears to indicate doctrinal orthodoxy but no praxis when the proper
opportunity to demonstrate such arrives. Failure to produce good works in
such a circumstance entails NO risk to the one "having faith" but not
exercising it, nor does loss of life necessarily occur as a result. 

The illustration given of "faith without works" in vv.20-26 applies to a
time of severe testing where clear risk is involved to either the one
"having faith" or his or her intended recipients of the action in cases
where loss of life can result (Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac and Rahab's
protecting the spies from death at the risk of her own life).  

Rhetorically, I see two very distinct sequences here, each with a specific
guiding term ("faith not having works" versus "faith apart from works"),
and the terms need not overlap and, according to rhetorical structure, 
should not overlap.   

> it seems very unlikely to 
> me that in v. 18 he might confront a challenge to show faith by means of 
> works with his own promise to show his faith by means of his works. 

Again, this may be the objector making the challenge and not James.

> A competition of 
> works showing faith doesn't make sense in a context which opposes the dead 
> faith that bears no fruit to the faith that shows its being alive by works.

The issue in vv.14-19 is not competition, but the question of acting when
opportunity presents itself.  No matter how you read it, vv.14-17 clearly
show the need for active works to illustrate inward faith, and not the
mere proclamation of goodwill to those in need.  Why in light of vv.14-17
would either an objector or James (depending on where the quote ends) 
demand to be shown an opponent's faith _apart from_ works, when the 
illustration makes sense ONLY when faith HAVING works seems valid?  

It is far better to see v.18 as a continuation of the objector saying
"Let's both demonstrate our faith by our works, you to yours, and I to
mine"  The further issue of faith in God and the demons also believing
then would provoke the discussion of action or inaction in time of
personal testing and trial, as opposed to mere inaction when the
opportunity to do good arises. 

Rhetorically, there seems to be clear progress from vv.14-19 into 20-26, 
with the topic being developed on two fronts.  

> presumably caused by parablepsis (EK before TWN ERGWN in the next sentence).

And I conclude that parablepsis might produce error in a single MS and a 
few others copied therefrom, but I cannot see such error growing to a 
dominant position within transmissional history without a word of protest 
or numerous corrections by scribes.

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 10:10:27 -0500 (EST)

> and the terms need not overlap and, according to rhetorical structure, 

Despite my attempts to do so, I can still see no difference in emphasis 
between "faith not having works" and "faith without works."  Of course 
the examples are different, and the wording changes slightly, but the 
variation is just for rhetorical effect, it seems to me.

> Again, this may be the objector making the challenge and not James.

According to UBS4, the French version Traduction Oecumenique de la Bible 
treats Jas 2:18-19 as one quotation, although I don't know if it reads 
XWRIS or EK.  Maybe someone on the list knows.  I can see how these 
verses might be a single extended quotation, but I can't see how the 
hypothetical person can be considered an objector, regardless of how long 
the quote is.  The hypothetical person is claiming to have works, the 
_same_ position that James is taking.  Furthermore, if EK is read, the 
argument of this person, whether an opponent or not, seems to go 
nowhere.  I suppose it could be argued that James just didn't make his 
point very well, but I like to think that clarity rather than obfuscation 
was an important concern of the author.

> > (K.W.)

Now this is the classic majority text argument (in this form of the 
majority text theory, as Maurice has differentiated them): errors 
introduced in mss will tend to be corrected by the overall process of 
cross-checking with other mss, especially when the diorthotes is 
involved.  This view assumes a controlled ms copying process from almost 
the beginning of the period of ms transmission, and I don't think that 
this was the case.  It certainly does explain, however, why there is such 
agreement among later Byzantine mss.

I have asked before whether Maurice (or anyone) can give me some examples 
in which the majority text (in the 9th/10th centuries) does _not_ contain 
what he considers to be the "original" reading.  If there are no 
examples, it leads me to suspect that the real criterion is the authority 
of the Byzantine text-type.  Those who see the Alexandrian text-type as 
generally superior are often accused (and not entirely unjustly, in my 
opinion) of twisting their arguments to make the Alexandrian reading 
appear to be original.  The same charge can be made against the Byzantine 
priority approach, unless, as I say, examples of "original" non-Byzantine 
readings can be produced.

Jimmy Adair

---

From: Klaus Wachtel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 17:57:16 +0000

> or numerous corrections by scribes.

What about the Byzantine omissions in 1Jn 2,23 and 3,1, then?

K. Wachtel

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 20:23:04 -0500 (EST)

[Warning - long response! First half interpretative; second half 
text-critical]

> variation is just for rhetorical effect, it seems to me.

Again, I still see quite different angles of approach and emphasis in 
2:14-19 and 2:20-26 which would call for different terms.  Inaction when 
opportunity to do good arises reflects a dead (nonproductive) faith -- 
"faith not having works" -- but failure to act when in a time of severe 
testing is "faith apart from works".  Both are called "dead", but there 
are clearly two different types of faith-in-action which are being 
described, and rhetorically it seems quite clear that different terms are 
used to describe each situation.

> XWRIS or EK.  

Zane Hodges also takes 2:18-19 as a single quotation, and he does read EK 
in his commentary.

> I can see how these 
> the quote is.  

But why not? James rhetorically introduces him as an objector: "But someone 
will say...", and also refutes him in the strongest terms, basically "You 
blockhead!" (O empty man).  If this objector is merely saying the same 
thing as James, why such abuse?  (either XWRIS or EK would still bring 
down the same criticism from James).

> The hypothetical person is claiming to have works, the 
> nowhere.  

Not at all, if emphasis is understood in the context as I indicated: 
"Show me _your_ faith from _your_ works and I will show you _my_ faith
from _my_ works."  Is there not the possibility that the objector is
actually the one who is the _prime_ illustration of the failure to do good
to those needing clothing and food in vv.14ff ?  

He may well be arguing in vv.18-19 that his "other" works demonstrate his
faith quite sufficiently, so why pick on him for his inaction in that one
specific area (of course the point is clear: whoever knows what should be
done and fails to do it is guilty of sin; objections to the effect of
"Lord, Lord, didn't we do all these mighty works in your name" may still
result in "depart from me....I never knew you!"). James calls him 
foolish, and then intensifies the example by suggesting that inaction in 
times of charitable opportunity will similarly be followed by a greater 
inaction in times of testing or persecution -- unless faith is 
continually demonstrated by works in ALL situation, the faith remains dead.

> I suppose it could be argued that James just didn't make his 

And with this I also would agree.  Since the vast majority of (at 
least the minuscule) scribes read EK, they obviously did not have a great 
concern that the text was meaningless without XWRIS in the passage.  
Obfuscation should be reflected in comments or correction, which did not 
occur; rather, EK remained perpetuated in that context.  One might 
perhaps check various patristic exegesis here (if the passage is covered 
at all).

> agreement among later Byzantine mss.

I obviously concur with the first half of this comment.  Cross-comparison 
and correction is generally assumed among MSS.  However, the matter of 
"control" as expressed in the second sentence sounds more like some 
formal imposition rather than the common general practice found among 
scribes in any given situation.  As Colwell noted, "control" may be a 
proper term, but when and by whom such control was imposed remains 
questionable.  I suggest no formal control whatsoever, but merely the 
normal scribal practice of copying faithfully, reading over one's work, 
and having a brother monk or another reader compare your work with a 
separate MS.  The "control" is really found in the perpetuated TEXT 
itself, and not in the scribe or diorthotes.  

Viewed in this light, then, yes, there WAS "control" from the very
beginning of MS transmission, and the early papyri with their corrections
(often from an outside exemplar, as demonstrable in e.g., p66) reflect
such "control" from the earliest stages of transmission which are
evidenced. This control does NOT, however, explain the vast agreement
among Byzantine witnesses, since the early MSS themselves reflect a wide
deviation from the single autograph text of any book during the period of
the "uncontrolled popular nature" of the text.  

The church during this period was a persecuted minority, and the
opportunities for free exchange of documents and more formal methods of
reproduction were not common.  It thus should not surprise anyone to find
that during the period when the church was NOT state-sponsored, deviations
were common, and the text was altered in many ways, creating the early
Western variants, as well as other corruptions.  I suspect that even the
creation of the Alexandrian texttype reflects an Egyptian localized attempt
to purge out such corruptions, during the first third of the second
century, but even this attempt did not "restore" the autograph text, nor
end the uncontrolled corruption. 

Only after the legitimization of Christianity under Constantine would a 
new Pax Romana allow free communication and exchange of MSS between 
churches. Once this occurred, cross-comparison and correction would tend 
to weed out not only the corrupt elements of individual MSS, but also 
would slowly tend to eradicate the particular "local" nature of various 
texts, slowly but inexorably moving back toward the overarching common 
text from which all of the extant MSS had derived.  

Viewed in this light, the fact that the later Byzantine MSS (in the period
before the 11th century) tend toward one main textform is not surprising. 
The fact that the Byzantine MSS themselves are subdivided into what appear
to be localized or time-bound subgroups (e.g. K1, Ka, Kc, Kr etc.) without
ever coming to a full unity of text argues strongly that there were no
external controls imposed upon the scribes even during the later period of
transmissional history. 

As Hodges aptly stated regarding the supposed "process" view of Colwell,
which assumed that the Alexandrian text or something like it was original
(quoted in the introduction to my Greek NT edition): 

"No one has yet explained how a long, slow process spread out over many 
centuries as well as over a wide geographical area, and involving a 
multitude of copyists, who often knew nothing of the state of the text 
outside of their own monasteries or scriptoria, could achieve this 
widespread uniformity out of the diversity presented by the earlier 
[Western and Alexandrian] forms of text....An unguided process achieving 
relative stability and uniformity in the diversified textual, 
historical, and cultural circumstances in which the New Testament was 
copied, imposes impossible strains on our imagination."

I later commented in that same introduction: "Only a common, pre-existing
archetype will permit order ever to come out of chaos. Even that
possibility depends upon both the process of time and sufficient scribal
concern for the text being copied."  But if one begins with a presumption
of Byzantine originality, then the common archetype does exist and is
restorable.  Other models (including contemporary eclecticism) seek for a
different "autograph text", one which cannot satisfactorily explain its
virtual self-destruction and utter failure to resuscitate during the 1500
years of transmissional history. 

> of the Byzantine text-type.  

My theory is "Byzantine-priority", and it does assume that the majority 
text up to and including the 10th century will best reflect what is truly 
"Byzantine".  I have definite reasons for agreeing with Scrivener not to 
cut the time period any earlier, but that has to do with a paper I am 
preparing on the non-existence of early Byzantine MSS (and no, I do not 
agree with Burgon or Pickering that they were so heavily used that they 
simply "wore out," and that those early MSS which remain were the worst 
possible examples -- such absurdity I totally reject).  

However, for the sake of argument, I have no problem in cutting the time 
period to the sixth century, and still seeking out a "majority" consensus 
of Greek MSS and Greek fathers at the very least -- any text thus 
constructed will still approach more closely to the Byzantine Textform 
than any other texttype or sub-type.  

In fact, even for the sake of argument were only the five leading MSS of
the Alexandrian texttype utilized, their consensus "majority" reading
would still slowly move more to the Byzantine side than otherwise -- this
fact is what caused Kenneth Clark to suggest to me that the Byzantine
Textform indeed did have the potential to be the original source from
which all the other types derived. 

Of course, the standard eclectic explanation of this circumstance is that
slow "Byzantine" or "Byzantine-like" corruption was seeping into each and
every Alexandrian MS as time went on, but this is merely assuming the
point to be proven, viz., that the Byzantine Textform is "late" and
subsequent to the Alex and Western types.  From a Byzantine-priority
standpoint, the Alex and Western are merely small minority deviations from
the overarching Byzantine Textform, and most of their variants can be
explained as accidental corruption away from the Byzantine or deliberate
editorializing to smooth out or "correct" the Byzantine. The view is
dependent upon the presuppositional perspective of the observer, obviously.

> Those who see the Alexandrian text-type as 

Why should this be a requirement, if the hypothesis under consideration 
is the originality of the Byzantine Textform as a whole?  What you 
suggest is an alternative hypothesis which requires non-Byzantine 
readings to make up the final text, i.e., another form of eclectic 
methodology.  

Why cannot someone who favors the Alexandrian text argue the hypothesis of
a true "Alexandrian-priority" and build a hypothesis better than Hort's
arguing from the union of B and P75 (where extant) or of the union of B L
C and Aleph for the archetypical Alexandrian text, and follow the results
strictly?  Would you demand of such a person that his hypothesis must
include non-Alexandrian readings, or else it is invalid?  Of course not; 
and it is the same with a Byzantine-priority position -- the goal of this
hypothesis is to recreate the Byzantine Textform without extraneous
elements, in the hope that by doing so the autograph form of the text
might be recoverable.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 20:48:42 -0500 (EST)

> What about the Byzantine omissions in 1Jn 2,23 and 3,1, then?

This is of course one of the issues which I intend to deal with in my
paper on the non-existence of early Byzantine MSS.  Without going into a
very extended discussion here, I would suggest that at the time of the
switch from uncial to minuscule (9th-10th centuries) certain key MSS were
selected as archetypes for the primary minuscule copies. In the case of
1John, the key MS which was selected apparently had omitted the clauses in
question by homoioteleuton, and the later MSS which were copied therefrom 
followed suit in the omission.  

If the minuscule archetype were copied in sufficient quantity during the
very initial period of minuscule distribution, the _omission_ of those two
readings would dominate and (through the cross-correction process) would
eliminate whatever vestiges remained of the longer reading which had
previously dominated transmissional history before the radical change of
script.  

I.e., the cross-comparison and correction process would work normally, but
the minuscule would form a new "archetype" which would dominate the
tradition from that point, and consultation with earlier uncials would not
occur, primarily due to the change of script (within 50 years of the
change of script scribes were complaining that they could no longer read
the uncial texts). 

The true "Byzantine" Textform reading remains that which includes the
passages in question, even if the mass of minuscules from the beginning of
that era failed to perpetuate the autograph text accurately.  This does not
invalidate the former hypothesis, but in fact confirms it, given that a 
"new" archetype situation has come into existence.

That the minuscule-oriented scribes did not protest (at least as far as we
know) is probably indicative of the respect with which they held the
selected archetypical copies and the monastery or scriptorium which was
primarily responsible for beginning the minuscule revolution.  

Note that the original locus of my quoted statement above deals with the
possibility of a very EARLY error growing into a position of dominance,
without mass correction or words of protest.  This is NOT the case with
1Jn.2:23 or 3:1, since, except for sporadic cases of individual
homoioteleuton, the longer reading in both variant units was utterly
dominant from century II until century X.

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 00:57:25 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote (speaking of the first three 

> text from which all of the extant MSS had derived.  

Why would the text tend toward the archetype and not toward some other
heretofore (perhaps) unknown text?  We know that oral traditions change
over time (e.g., different forms of the Enuma Elish epic); why shouldn't
written traditions do the same?  For example, the stories in Chronicles
that parallel those in Samuel and Kings are quite similar, but not nearly
identical, even when the Chronicler was clearly using a written source. 
Changes from "Yahweh" to "Elohim" are numerous, for example, as are
substitutions of synonyms.  The later OT versions (e.g., V, P) tend to
reflect a Vorlage similar to the proto-MT, not because it was the
"original," but because it had become the standard text.  The Odes, which
circulated in the LXX but were culled from both OT and NT texts, are close
to, but not identical with, the Majority Text (as far as I can tell from a
brief perusal) in the NT portions.  

All these facts suggest to me that _unity_ of reading among a majority of
mss does not imply _originality_ of reading.  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, just as the Masoretic
Text is not identical (nor nearly identical) to the "original" OT text
(leaving aside questions of what "original" means when speaking of these
texts).  Maurice has mentioned a paper he is working on that explains the
disappearance of the earliest Byzantine witnesses.  I will definitely be
interested to read it. 

> readings to make up the final text, i.e., another form of eclectic 

This is precisely what I was trying to establish: that the position in 
question starts from the assumption, not of the general superiority of the 
Byzantine text, but of the _originality_ of that text-type.  This is 
different from an assumption of general Alexandrian superiority, which 
many (not all) eclectics make.  Arguments in favor of specific Byzantine 
readings, though often quite clever (and undoubtedly sometimes correct!), 
are not the bases for textual decisions, but are the consequences of 
readings predetermined by the external evidence.  Of course, it can be 
argued that the Byzantine tradition was chosen in the first place because 
it contained superior readings (as many argue of the Alexandrian text), 
but it does not follow that just because some, or many, Byzantine 
readings are judged to be original that _all_ are.

To look at another example, the ending of the Lord's Prayer in Mt 6:13 
("for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.  Amen.") 
is present in the Majority Text, including several uncials, and many 
early versions.  However, it definitely looks like an early addition, 
probably from a liturgical setting (thus the "amen").  How does the 
Byzantine priority view evaluate this reading?

Jimmy Adair

---

From: [email-masked] (Vincent Broman)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 96 10:15:01 PST

There was a question about how widespread and early the "EK" reading was
among the Byzantines.  Here is the complete data from Text und Textwert,
condensed only in omitting most of the Majority roster reading "EK"
(requiring the Subtraktionsprinzip).  I did retain most of the "EK" MSS
up to century XI, and all those with corrections and marginal readings.

Notice the changes:
	EK	XWRIS
	61txt	61mg
	450txt	450mg
	582*	582c
	1598c	1598*
	1611c	1611*

______________________________________________________________________
James 2:18

EK (451x)

p54	K	L	049	056c	0142	1	2	3	4
5	6	18	35	36	38	42	43	51	57
61txt	76	82	90	93	94	97	102	103	105
181	221	307	323	398	424	431	450txt	451	491
582*	623c1	919supp	945	1424	1448	1598c	1611c	1841	1845
1854	1875	1891	2147	2298	2464	...
omnes reliqui (395x) sine corr.

XWRIS (57x)

01	A	B	C	P	Psi	33	61mg	69	81
88	104	175	197	206	296	400	429	436	442
450mg	522	582c	614	630	876	915	1067	1175	1241
1243	1270	1297	1505	1595	1598*	1609	1611*	1735	1739
1744	1765	1832	1838	1842	1852	1885	1890	2138	2200
2243	2344	2412	2492	2495	2541	2805

omit EK/XWRIS TWN ERGWN (4x)

619	623*	1162	2776

omit EK/XWRIS TWN (2x)

056*	1066

unknown rdg (3x)

62	110	2716

lacuna (43x)

p9	p20	p23	p72	p74	p78	p81	048	093	0116
0156	0173	0206	0209	0232	0245	0246	0247	0251	0285
0296	356	368	498	506	517	602	612	640	712
743	919	1523	1724	1762	1836	1844	1846	1881	2441
2527	2731	2741
______________________________________________________________________

Vincent Broman             Email: [email-masked]                    =   o     
2224 33d St.               Phone: +1 619 284 3775                  =  _ /- _   
San Diego, CA  92104-5605  Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W     =  (_)> (_)  
___ PGP protected mail preferred.  For public key finger [email-masked] ___

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 00:06:19 -0500 (EST)

[Warning - another long one!]

> identical, even when the Chronicler was clearly using a written source.

There is a major difference between the transmissional history of a set
text and the development and (obvious) revision of a tradition or myth as
found in Enuma Elish.  Chronicles in no way claims to be a direct
perpetuation of the narrative in Samuel or Kings, and if it had attempted
to do so, many Jewish scribes would have objected strongly.  To put things
in proper perspective, one has to deal with the transmission of the books
of Samuel as their own proper entity, and look at that issue alone
text-critically (certainly there is plenty to work with, considering the
Massoretic Text vs the LXX vs the DSS etc.).  But the analogy offered
above does not hold in regard to textual transmission of a given canonical
OT or NT book, any more than suggestions that the gospel of John reflects 
the latest development of the Jesus story as altered from Mark.

But why would the text tend toward the archetype?  For the simple reason
that, regardless of texttype, the archetype IS preserved in over 90% of
the text of virtually all MSS.  Textual criticism is always recognized as
dealing with a minority of the textbase.  In the minority of text which
possesses variant readings the known practice of scribes WAS to compare
against both the exemplar and to have second readers and other exemplars
compared against the copy.  Only if a second textual tradition had as much
support as a first textual tradition would the likelihood of moving away
from the autograph be increased; so long as the main text dominated in the
proportion of ca.80% to 20%, the tendency through the very normal scribal
processes of cross-comparison and correction would be to move the minority
text inexorably toward the majority. 

Why was the textual divergence not greater (as with the various versions
of the Enuma Elish)?  Simply because, as opposed to a growing and
developing myth, the text of the NT or OT, once it had reached "canonical"
status, became basically fixed as an entity, and a specific religious
concern and scribal care was given to canonical texts to a degree
different from that of other literature (though obviously the presence of
variant readings does not eliminate the fact that perfect transmission of
the text did not occur under human fallible agency). 
 
> substitutions of synonyms.  

But in which texts? Not in the canonical Massoretic text of the individual
books.  Only in the clearly editorial differences in two entirely
different sets of canonical books (Samuel/Kings versus Chronicles), which
were authored at different times and for different theological/historical
purposes.  This argument is apples and oranges, and does not apply to the
normal textual criticism of any given OT or NT book. 

> The later OT versions (e.g., V, P) tend to

I suspect (with most scholars) that the Massoretic Text of the OT is much
closer to the original form than the LXX or Samaritan Pentateuch, DSS or
other versions, though it still has its interpretative and text-critical
problems; but this is another issue entirely and reflects a different text
critical genre than that of the NT where the divergence is not so much the
versions versus the Greek MSS, but the Greek MSS versus themselves in
varying texttypes (which does not occur to the same degree in the Hebrew
MSS). 

The Odes vary text-critically depending upon which LXX MSS possess them,
since we still have the same B-Aleph vs A and other MSS problem in the LXX
which seems to reflect Alexandrian vs Byzantine in the NT (the Greek
Orthodox church today seems to prefer to follow Alexandrinus and its
companions in the LXX rather than the B-Aleph text). 

> mss does not imply _originality_ of reading.  

By the OT analogy, unity of reading does at least reflect the Massoretic 
"originality" of the text, if not the autograph.  But the Massoretes are 
recognized as a dislocating factor in the history of transmission of the 
OT text, just as Jerome is a dislocating factor in the history of the 
Latin NT text.  Had there been a Byzantine recension as Hort postulated, 
the resultant dislocation in the history of transmission of the NT would 
call the Byzantine textual unity into question.  Without such a revision 
taking place, that same unity goes back instead to a presumption of 
autograph originality.  This is no more than Hort's initial presumption 
(which he spent most of his introduction attempting to refute, and that 
primarily by arguing for a formal Byzantine recension).  Hort stated in 
his Introduction, p.45:

"A theoretical presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant 
documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents 
at each stage of transmission than vice versa."

Barring a major dislocation in the history of transmission, Hort's
statement remains valid, and it is this Hortian principle upon which the
current Byzantine-priority position is anchored. 

> The fact that _none_ of the
> texts).  

I would question that assumption in regard to the Massoretic text, since 
the strong agreement of DSS Isaiah-A confirms that the same texttype was 
extant in at least the first century (along with other DSS Hebrew texts 
which followed more of a LXX type of text).  There is no prevailing 
reason why the Massoretic text might not more accurately reflect the 
original text of the canonical OT books than any other type; only 
speculative opinion can argue such is "not nearly identical" to whatever 
the original might be.  Given the historical scribal preservation of the 
Massoretic type of text and its scribal/theological connections to the 
successors of the Temple scribal fraternity, there is probably more 
likelihood that such a text indeed is closer to the original Vorlage than 
the versional or DSS alternatives.

I would ask what is a "distinctly Byzantine text", since the current
definitions of even "distinctive Byzantine readings" no longer match
Hort's classic definition.  If I were to claim like Colwell that a 70%
cutoff level of readings agreeing with the Byzantine Textform would
establish a MS as Byzantine, I would suggest that many of the early 
documents (papyri and non-Byzantine uncials) do come close to that 
threshhold, contrary to popular text-critical opinion.  

Assuming (for the sake of arguing the pro-Byzantine hypothesis) that
readings held in common by Byzantine and Alexandrian MSS are counted as
Byzantine, and also that readings held in common by Western and Byzantine
MSS are also considered as Byzantine, the percentage of "Byzantine-ness"
in the early MSS will generally hover between 55%-65%; they may not be
fully Byzantine, but they are not far from it, when viewed from the
standpoint of our hypothesis.  

The error of modern eclecticism is to consider a Byz+Alex reading as
basically Alexandrian and not Byzantine, merely due to the presupposition
of the "late" nature of the Byzantine MSS, which merely "adopted" the
Alexandrian reading.  Ditto with the Byz+Western readings, since the
Western text is presupposed to be "earlier" than the Byzantine.  Once the
presuppositions are altered, the greater will appear the "Byzantine" 
nature of even the strongest non-Byzantine MSS, versions and fathers 
(Burgon has been criticized for claiming the fathers supported Byzantine 
readings in the proportion of 2:1 (=66%), claiming that this was due to 
his use of uncritical editions.  But on the contrary, the real issue is 
how he tabulated a reading as Byzantine -- and that was to count the 
Alex+Byz and West+Byz as Byzantine, since from a pro-Byzantine 
presuppositional stance there is no other way to count such readings -- 
they are merely autograph readings from which the minority Alexandrian 
and/or Western witnesses happened NOT to depart. 

> Maurice has mentioned a paper he is working on that explains the

That paper will likely not be completed before sometime next year.  The
basic thesis and outline is completed and the writing has begun, but
ensuring accurate and sufficient documentation is quite time-consuming,
specifically because there is so little written material on this subject,
since the last century has been so convinced of the secondary nature of
the Byzantine Textform.  The data has to be extracted almost between the
lines.  However, I am hoping to read this paper before the ETS San
Francisco meeting in 1997, which allows plenty of time for research and
refinement. 

> Byzantine text, but of the _originality_ of that text-type.  

Indeed the presuppositional stance is tied to a belief that, unlike
eclecticism, wherein the original text lies scattered hither and yon among
the extant witnesses and must be painstakingly recovered piece by piece,
the original text is more likely to have perpetuated itself in a single
texttype, whether Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine, or Caesarean.  

The primary appeal in this type of approach is to external evidence first,
with sufficient testing by internal evidence principles.  Modern
eclecticism proceeds first from internal principles and secondarily from
an appeal to external evidence.  There are clearly two different
methodologies, and it is amusing to find that the external evidence
emphasis of the Byzantine-priority school differs little in method from
that of Hort (who favored the Alexandrian texttype on primarily external
grounds) or A.C.Clark (who favored the Western text primarily on external
grounds). As Hort strongly urged, "Knowledge of documents must precede 
final judgement upon readings"; modern eclecticism seems to have reversed 
this principle in theory, if not in practice.

> This is 
> many (not all) eclectics make.  

But on what basis?  The subjective judgment of which readings are 
superior, based upon what scribes are supposedly inclined to do?  Except 
when such principles contradict the favorite "older MSS" of the 
Alexandrian texttype, which still remains the strongest underlying 
principle of modern eclecticism (save for the rigorous eclectics such as 
Kilpatrick and Elliott).  

Should an eclectic scholar decide on primarily internal grounds to follow
the Byzantine text 80% of the time, I suspect the SBL text-critical
seminar would laugh that eclectic out of court, despite his ability to
explain and defend such readings; the pro-Alexandrian bias still reigns
supreme among modern eclectics, despite their acceptance of a handful of
Byzantine readings here and there (a collation of W-H's 1881 text and the
N27 text will reveal only about 600 differences, of which 300 involve the
presence or absence of brackets;  yet Hort's text was supposedly based
primarily on external evidence while modern eclecticism supposedly has
transcended that barrier). 

> Arguments in favor of specific Byzantine 
> readings predetermined by the external evidence.  

So we have to be merely "clever" to argue the pro-Byzantine text, and 
sometimes actually luck out?  I think not.  Certainly, the external data 
are the presuppositional basis for textual decisions, but the internal 
evidence, utilizing NORMAL text-critical principles, still needs to be 
used to validate and support those externally-based text-critical decisions.

It also must be remembered that the reason for going to external data as 
a primary resource, and for determining the Byzantine Textform as the 
best of the external evidence does NOT stem from decisions made about 
individual variant readings as an a priori, nor upon selecting the 
Byzantine text itself as an a priori, but first from attempting to 
construct a thoroughly reliable history of transmission, and seeing which 
pieces best fit into the reconstruction of that history.  As stated 
previously, "Textual criticism without a history of transmission is 
impossible" (H.H.Oliver).  The recent discussion has moved away from that 
underlying presuppositional position to such an extent that I think we 
are off on an false tangent which is coming around to a straw man issue 
that the Byzantine text is favored because of mere say-so; this most 
definitely is not the case.

> Of course, it can be 

Actually from a pro-Byzantine position, the truth is that we do NOT
proceed as did Hort, and do not look for any initial superiority of
readings within the Byzantine Textform.  The first and primary principle
is constructing a hypothesis for the history of transmission and then
testing that hypothesis against the known textual data.  Only after the
most suitable external candidate (on the texttype level) for autograph
originality is selected does an examination of its internal readings
begin. 

Then, just as Hort claimed with regard to the Alexandrian text, certain
Byzantine readings did NOT commend themselves at first, but upon closer
examination are seen to actually be superior and have indications of
originality based upon normal text-critical principles of internal
evidence.  Some Byzantine readings remain where internal defense leads to
no definite conclusion; these isolated instances, however, do not negate
the basic principles of transmissional history nor the general conclusion
regarding the superiority of the Byzantine Textform. 

> Byzantine priority view evaluate this reading?

This one was answered well by both Burgon and Scrivener in the last
century. In the liturgical practice of the early church the closing
doxology was liturgically stated by the priest alone, and not by the
laity.  It thus is not surprising to find that a minority of MSS leave out
the words which may have been thought by the scribe wrongly to have been
inserted into the exemplar he was copying to so as to liturgically "fill
out" the prayer. Since the scribe "knew" that the laity did not say the
closing doxology, it would not seem proper for these words to have
originally been included in the instructions to the disciples as to how
they (laity) ought to pray.  (I see no need to argue assimilation to the
Lukan form of the prayer, which does not have the doxology in any
texttype). 

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

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:43:38 -0500 (EST)

I'd like to break the discussion that began with Mt 6:13 into three 
separate topics.  In this post, I want to focus on the problem of the 
history of transmission of the text.

On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> ...

Checking mss against one another may very well lead to a text that 
approaches the original text in many ways, hence the 90% agreement 
between Byzantine & Alexandrian mss.  However, I don't see any good 
reason to suspect that anything approaching 100% agreement would result.  
Here's some of my reasoning.

(1) Maurice believes that one particular subset of the Byzantine mss has 
preserved the original text of the NT.  However, he looks at the 9th-10th 
century Majority text, not the 15th century MT.  As he has mentioned 
before, there are some readings which actually are the majority readings 
in the 15th century which were not a few centuries earlier.  Why is 
that?  Apparently because scribes didn't check the right mss when making 
their corrections, or maybe the mss weren't available to them, or maybe 
there were other factors (e.g., influence of the Vulgate) that led them 
to perpetuate certain secondary readings.  Since it is clearly 
demonstrable that this happened late in the transmission process, when 
Christianity was the dominant religion in most areas where the texts were 
copied, why shouldn't we believe that the same sort of thing happened in 
the first few centuries of transmission (1st-3rd centuries), when 
conditions weren't as favorable to cross-checking other mss?

(2) Mss cross-checking may indeed help weed out secondary readings (but 
might it not also introduce secondary readings in some cases?).  However, 
what evidence do we have that scribes in the earliest centuries of the 
transmission of the NT text checked other mss?  If some did, does that 
imply that the process was widespread?  It seems likely that the first 
several ms generations of most (or all) NT books were copied from a 
single exemplar, without cross-checking other mss.  This is part of the 
reason for the "wild" early mss described by the Alands and others.  Were 
multiple copies of the original documents made in all cases?  If so, did 
those copies contribute to the existing ms tradition?  This line of 
questioning raises the spectre of Westcott & Hort's "primitive 
corruptions."  Does the Byzantine priority theory rule out the 
possibility of such primitive corruptions, and if so, on what basis?

(3) That scribes were intent only in transmitting the received text, and 
not in amplifying, clarifying, or "correcting" it (from their own memory 
or doctrinal perspective, not from another ms) is a supposition that 
doesn't seem supported by the facts.  We know that some scribes did in 
fact supplement their texts (e.g., the addition in Mk 16:14 in W).  Bart 
Ehrman has given many examples of what he believes to be "orthodox 
corruptions."  It is also clear that some scribes harmonized one passage 
with another, especially in the gospels (or, from the Byzaninte priority 
perspective, scribes omitted material found in other gospels?).  When 
translations are considered alongside Greek mss, the evidence is 
increased that some scribes, especially (but not exclusively) early ones, 
altered their text as they transmitted it (this doesn't even consider 
accidental changes to the text).  While many of these changes would be 
eliminated by the cross-checking process, would all of them be?

(4) Finally, there is the issue of the "dislocating factor" in the 
history of transmission.  In the case of the Hebrew OT text, the 
desctruction of the temple was one important dislocating factor.  In the 
case of the LXX, the influence of Origen's Hexapla, which introduced a 
Greek text much closer to the MT, was a dislocating factor.  Maurice has 
noted that Jerome's Vulgate was a dislocating factor in the transmission 
of the Latin text (many OL mss contain numerous Vulgate readings).  Was 
there a dislocating factor in the history of the Greek NT text, one that 
would irrevocably alter the course of the transmission of the text?  I 
can think of several possibilities: (a) the persecutions of Decian and 
Diocletian, which destroyed numerous NT mss; (b) the Muslim revolution, 
which swept over Egypt and Palestine, virtually eliminating Egyptian 
texts, hence the Alexandrian text-type (of course, the Alexandrian text 
was already limited in influence, but why?--see c & d); (c) the shift in 
the seat of the Roman government from Rome to Constantinople (Byzantium), 
home of the Byzantine text--Rome did retain (or gain) religious 
ascendancy, but the text in Rome was transmitted in Latin, primarily in 
the form of the Vulgate, which, though close to the Byzantine text-type, 
is not by any means synonymous with it; (d) the ecumenical councils of 
Nicea and Chalcedon (among others) might have led to the suppression of 
questionable readings or to orthodox "improvements" to the text.  Any or 
all of these might have been dislocating factors in the history of the 
transmission of the NT text.

Jimmy Adair

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:08:01 -0500 (EST)

> the text did not occur under human fallible agency). 

When did the NT text become "canonical," and what exactly is a canonical 
text?  My view is that the first recipients of NT documents might have 
viewed them as having some authority (even 2-3 John?), but they were not 
viewed as "scripture," much less part of a fixed list of authoritative 
documents, for at least 300 years (longer in the case of Revelation).  
The whole issue of the canon can be deabted further if there is any 
interest in that thread, but my point here is that the earliest scribes 
didn't view the works they were copying as scripture.  Important, yes; 
authoritative, probably; scripture, not at first.  Thus, they might not 
have felt as much compunction as later scribes about "fixing" the text in 
front of them.

Next, is there such a thing as the "canonical" text?  I don't think so.  
The church determined the canon over a period of time, and they finally 
arrived at a fixed list of books that were generally accepted as the 
canon (there were some exceptions, e.g., among th Syriac, Ethiopic, and 
Armenian churches).  However, the same was not done for the text.  Only 
in the case of the Vulgate has a specific text-type ever been declared to 
be authoritative, as far as I know.  My point is that without the 
presumption of a "canonical" text, again scribes might not have felt bad 
about altering the text in front of them (not to degrade it, but to "fix" 
it).  The tradition that developed among the Masoretes that involved 
counting the very letters of the text never seems to have taken hold 
among Christian copyists.

Jimmy Adair

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:16:47 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> (Jimmy Adair wrote in an earlier post):

I agree that the Lukan form of the Lord's Prayer can be ignored for the 
purposes of this variant.  Burgon and Scrivener may have answered this 
question, but not well, in my opinion.  Scribes omitted the ending 
because the laity did not say it?   If this had been an Alexandrian 
reading and such an argument had been offered, would Byzantine priority 
folks have accepted it?  I don't think so (I hope no Alexandrian-leaning 
eclectics would have, either!).  If the presumption of Byzantine priority 
is laid aside, the doxology doesn't have any feet to walk on.  Can any 
other arguments be offered in favor of the doxology?

Jimmy Adair

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 19:56:14 -0500 (EST)

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

> text?  

I suspect we will have very divergent views on this question, so I will
not make it an issue.  As a conservative evangelical, I do suspect
canonicity to be far earlier than non-evangelicals. 

> My view is that the first recipients of NT documents might have 

I would see that time frame as far too long, even considering Eusebius' 
list of the "disputed" books written in the fourth century.  Most NT 
books would have already been recognized as "canonical" within the second 
century at the latest, and even the disputed books were held to be 
canonical by many if not most Christian communities long before Eusebius.

> have felt as much compunction as later scribes about "fixing" the text in 

I in contrast suspect a greater number of scribes did accept these texts 
as scripture from the earliest times; but their view of what the essence 
of "scripture" was likely did not include a sense of inviolability such 
as held for the Hebrew MT.

> Next, is there such a thing as the "canonical" text?  I don't think so.

None if such is the result of an officially-determined canon together 
with its text.  But I do not even think the canon was ever officially 
determined until after it was unofficially recognized in most communities.
As a Protestant, I would not accept the argument that "the church 
determined the canon", which you mention.

> My point is that without the 
> it).  

But matters do not change after the canon is established without 
question: there still is a non-uniform text and no official promulgation 
of any specific reading(s).  Yet the scribes in the later eras still had 
a theological view of canonicity and scriptural authority which in 
itself imposed _some_ controls on their copying habits.  I merely suggest 
that such controls in the minds of scribes existed from early times, 
beginning with the fourfold gospel and the Pauline corpus, both clearly 
recognized as canonical "scripture" by the mid-second century.

> The tradition that developed among the Masoretes that involved 

Agreed. We might have less to do in textual criticism had they done so.

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

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:34:40 -0500 (EST)

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

> because the laity did not say it?   

You will notice from the UBS apparatus (at least) that the Lectionaries in
the aggregate have the doxology present, yet the laity do not recite that
specific text in the liturgy.  When the lectionary passage is quoted, 
however, the lector could read what normally only the priest would say.

During the liturgical service, however, the laity (which would include
monks and catacheumens) would themselves leave off at precisely the point
of the doxology.  Why then should the suggestion that _some_ few scribes
might choose to omit the passage based on their known familiarity with the
text through repeated liturgical practice seem strange?  It seems far
stranger to me to think that the UBS editor's suggestion that the doxology
was added to harmonize with 1 Chr 29:11-13 is a likely explanation! 

To put it into perspective, in this variant unit we are not even talking
of the Alexandrian texttype as a whole here: UBS lists only _six_ Greek
MSS, of which the primary are Aleph B and D, followed by the later f1 and
the 5th/6th century 0170 plus a meaningless single lectionary of the 12th
century.  Based upon what I see frequently in Aleph, an omission of this
length is no more surprising than its original scribe's omission of
Mt.24:35 for no good reason, supported by no other MS whatever.  That B or
even D might follow suit in such an omission is similarly not surprising,
though it should be more surprising in D, which usually does not have the
shorter text. 

I do note that a LARGE contingent of the Old Latin MSS and Latin Fathers 
omit the doxology, which makes me suspect that the omission originated in 
the Western regions and not in the Greek-speaking regions.  Gregory of 
Nyssa also omits the reading, yet his Greek text is thoroughly Byzantine 
-- Gregory's omission here can only be liturgically-based, and not 
reflective of the Byzantine Textform.

> If this had been an Alexandrian 
> eclectics would have, either!).  

By reversing the situation of the external evidence, you are really 
asking me how I would defend the omission of the doxology had it been the 
Byzantine text which had the shorter reading.  My answer would probably 
be that it _was_ a liturgical insertion of some sort, but this would be 
arguing on the assumption that the monks and catacheumens actually KNEW 
what the priest may have been saying in a whisper, and so knowing, felt 
bound to add it to the text to round it out.  

But again, the issue is tied to the external evidence: I would no more 
accept the sole reading of Aleph B and D (f1 and 0170 and the single 
lectionary not being significant) as original in such a reversed case 
than I would as the case now stands.  Although "number" is not primary 
within a Byzantine-priority hypothesis, it still carries weight against a 
collection of non-representative (in the present case) Alexandrian MSS 
and a coalition of Old Latin sources, where such a reading had to have 
had its origin in order to spread precisely as it did.

On a similar basis I can immediately reject the united testimony of Aleph 
B C L 1010 in regard to the insertion at Mt.27:49 -- yet in that place 
the leading representatives of the Alexandrian text are _all_ united, 
though _all_ in utter error.  There the Byzantine "omission" is original, 
while the Alexandrian "addition" is false.  I think that should serve as 
a clear example of how to proceed with the evidence reversed, and that 
evidence being even stronger on the Alexandrian side in Mt.27:49.

> If the presumption of Byzantine priority 

I think the doxology is alive and well and walking. One of the STRONGEST 
reasons for accepting the doxology as original is one which you dismissed 
out of hand: the non-appearance of the doxology in the Lukan form of the 
Lord's prayer.  Yet, in that same Lukan version (assuming the Alexandrian 
critical text to the the original reading for the sake of argument), the 
Byzantine MSS there "harmonized" either to Matthew or to the liturgical 
use in the church by adding specifically the words and phrases (using the 
familiar English liturgical wording):

"Our"
"which art in heaven"
"thy will be done on earth as in heaven"
"but deliver us from evil"

--- and yet in such a supposedly "harmonizing" passage where the 
Byzantine "harmonizers" were working overtime, why did they _fail_ to 
finish the harmonization by adding in the doxology, especially if they 
were harmonizing to either Matthew (Byztxt) or liturgical practice?

Basically you can't have it both ways.  There is not one rule of
harmonization for Matthew and another for Luke to which scribes would be
expected to adhere.  I find the solution easier by far to presume 
Byzantine authenticity in both Matthew and Luke than to have the 
Byzantine scribes do such a poor job of harmonization when trying to 
conform the passages to each other.