Subject: Thiede's redating, James Adair's discussion points

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 19:42:46 -0500 (EST)

[ Also part 1 of 2 ]

Timothy John Finney wrote on Tue, 26 Mar 1996:

Concerning Thiede and P64/67:

>> Dr Wachtel of the INTF at Muenster wrote an article (which appeared in
>> one of last year's issues of ZPE) replying to Carsten Thiede's redating
>> of P64/67.

I would agree with Wachtel here.  Thiede goes too far in his dating of
P64/67, just as O'Callaghan went too far in his claims regarding the 7Q4
fragments.  I have more sympathy with the recent attempt to declare P46
earlier on palaeographic grounds, though even then I would not attempt to
push P46 into the first century.

On Vinton Dearing:

I too agree with G. P. Farthing that "Dearing's method does not work."  I
have doubts about computer modeling of stemmas within NT textual criticism.
My own opinion is that we can speak of "near-neighbor clusters" (John G.
Griffith, JTS 1969) and apply the results within the Claremont Profile
Method (Wisse), but I do not think that valid stemmas can be established by
either Dearing's method or any other, since the computer model is not
seeking for the _real_ stemmatic data, which is shared agreement among MSS
in plain and clear error -- NOT in commonly-shared sensible readings.

>> Dr Farthing's own research includes a thesis 'Numerical Methods of
>> Demonstrating the Relationships of Greek New Testament Manuscripts',
>> Birmingham, England, 1990. Now he is working on a program which applies his
>> probabilistic approach to discovering stemmata. He uses a quite simple
>> model which gives some surprising results.

If Dr Farthing should get on the internet, I for one would be interested in
corresponding with him.  My own research for my Th.M. thesis concerned
"Textual Interrelationships among Selected Ancient Witnesses to the Book of
Acts," and used a variation on Griffith's near-neighbor cluster approach
which was able to delineate texttype and family relationships among MSS
somewhat more precisely (in my opinion) than the Claremont Profile Method.
Nevertheless, I did not attempt to create stemmas from the data attained.

On textual criticism in general:

>> Now to my final point. There is, and always has been, plenty of speculation
>> about what might have happened to give us the text we now have. What I
>> would like to know is how much do we really know. We seem to say and think
>> the same things over and over again without really being sure of the
>> assumptions made by those who first said them.

Certainly much is continually repeated and urged as method within NT
textual criticism.  If we "knew" more, our theories and speculations would
of necessity be quite different.  It is because we know so little that we
have such variance in viewpoints, theory, and method.  This is of course a
healthy situation under the circumstances, and not a detriment.

Various questions:

>> What evidence is there that NT MSS were checked?

The MSS themselves provide ample evidence of this fact.  Most were at least
checked and corrected against their original exemplar; many were compared
against a plainly different exemplar, as shown by the type of variant in
the correction.

>> What evidence is there that they were produced in Scriptoria?

After the fourth century, under the rise of formal monasticism, I think 
there is no doubt that monastery-related scriptoria were common.  Some NT 
MSS, such as the 50 made under edict from Constantine, may have been 
produced by commercial scriptoria, but most Greek MSS were likely prepared 
within Greek-speaking monastic settings.  Before the fourth century, 
scriptoria-produced MSS were likely very rare (which provides another 
reason for the rise of the "uncontrolled popular text" of that era).  In 
desert monastic communities, such as those in Egypt (where all extant 
papyri have been found), scriptoria of a sort may have existed; those
desert regions were somewhat more isolated from Imperial disfavor and
persecution, and more leisure to copy, compare and correct MSS may have
been available (as evidenced by the corrections found in many early papyri
which reflect a different exemplar).

>> What evidence is there that they were produced by dictation?

Others in the list may differ, but I see very few MSS which suggest 
dictation-production.  This was more the bailiwick of the formal secular 
scriptoria, and not the general pattern in the monasteries.  The image of 
the solitary scribe in his cell diligently copying a MS from an exemplar 
before him appears correct.  This is evidenced by the types of error
produced by scribes as seen in the MSS themselves.  Had the texts been
produced by dictation, there would have been many more readings reflecting
errors of hearing than happens to be the case (e.g., we should expect to
see a nearly equal division among the MSS regarding EXOMEN/EXWMEN in
Rom.5:1; also with most cases where itacistic confusion by hearing would
tend to create differences).  The relatively small number of cases where
hearing might be a factor simply illustrate well Metzger's description of
the process of copying by reading the text of the exemplar (aloud), holding
that phonetic pattern in the mind, putting pen to paper, and echoing out
the same phonetic pattern as the copy is actually produced.

Further, the relatively frequent occurrence of nonsense readings produced 
by homoioteleuton which are NOT shared by multiple MSS clearly indicates a 
non-dictation model.  Had an oral reader accidentally skipped a line or two
so as to produce a nonsense reading, either he or a scribe might have been
likely to catch the blunder and correct it, or, if left uncorrected, such
blunder should have found its way into 20 or so MSS at once, and from their
multiplied descendants into the mainstream of transmission, waiting to be
corrected by the cross-comparison process.  Since these cases are mostly
isolated, the implication is clearly against the dictation model.

>> A comment appended to one MS saying that it was compared with an ancient
>> one at Caesarea only applies to that MS, not all.

Certainly so.  Of course some MSS which bear such statements are known to
have simply incorporated their colophons from their preceding exemplar, so
nothing certain can be established in this regard either, save that at
least one MS in the chain was compared with a MS at Caesarea.  Most
colophons, however, say nothing about their provenance or date, but usually
only some pious remarks thanking God for enabling the scribe to finish his
task.

>> Therefore, I would like New Testament textual criticism to take stock of
>> the evidence which it has and to launch into speculation from there,
>> rather than speculating from speculation.

I trust that is indeed what we do, following the scientific method, so long
as purely conjectural readings are ruled out.  As James Adair pointed out
regarding historical "fact", we by and large in the main are having to
"speculate from speculation" since the unquestioned data are not there to
provide the definitive answer.  Textual hypotheses, like any other
hypotheses, must be tested against the extant data at all times.  The
hypothesis which results in the fewest unresolved problems is that which
should be preferred.

>> The evidence we have is, in the
>> main, the MSS themselves.

As well as the versional and patristic data.

>> There are also the findings that might come from
>> research in areas such as history, statistics and psychology that would
>> enable us to answer some key questions to help model the development of
>> the text:

History and various mentions of variant readings within history may offer
some assistance (e.g. Metzger's "Explicit Reference to Variant Readings"
articles on Jerome and Origen.  I doubt whether there would be sufficient
statistical data to settle the questions involved.  The psychology of the
scribe may be of help, but that comes more from a study of an individual
scribe's habits as demonstrated in the MSS he or she produced than from
application of psychological principles.

>> Please, if your answer to these questions are speculative, make that
>> clear.

All answers to the following questions are speculative, some in a higher
degree than others. Had there been a clear-cut pattern of copying which was
universally enforced, the task of textual criticism would be greatly
simplified.  As it is, speculation and testing of competing hypotheses is
what we must do in order to arrive at the most satisfactory solution.

I will offer my opinions regarding the following questions, based upon what
I see in the manuscript data.  Others may draw different conclusions.

>> How often was a copy made and why?

This is probably indeterminate.  Because of the labor involved, copies were 
generally made as need required them.  The monks and monasteries would make 
copies to either replace copies which had become worn and tattered in their 
own library or to supply outside church or (wealthy) individual needs.
Also, monks and other literate individuals might also make copies for their
own personal use; however, this would be limited in scope due to the cost
of vellum, but might explain some of the post-4th century papyri we
currently possess.

>> How long was it likely to last?

Papyrus outside of a dry climate would have a relatively short life, 
perhaps only 20-30 years.  Wear and tear based upon usage would also play a 
part. Thus the limited number of papyri now preserved.  Vellum MSS on the 
other hand, though more expensive to produce, could easily be expected to 
last for a hundred or more years, even with heavy use.  Properly cared for, 
a vellum MS might even have five or six hundred years of unbroken use.  
Sinaiticus clearly was used and corrected over a lengthy period of time, as
shown by the different correctors and paleographic dates of the various
hands which made corrections to that MS.

[ continued in part 2 ]

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