Subject: On "examples" and "proof"...

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 16:23:48 -0400

I agree with Waltz's comment totally.  If he reads the portion of my post
which he himself quotes, he will see why.

He draws this quote from my post:

>>To my way of thinking, an example "proves" a lot more than rhetoric.

He then takes me to task for failing to note that "examples can be used to
prove anything."  That is not what I am saying, and Waltz must know from
statistics (which he praises in his post) that an absolute claim needs only
ONE exception to be invalidated.

In the case at issue here, I have seen lots of RHETORIC (which is, after
all, what I contrast "example" with;  I did not contrast it with statistics,
as Waltz's post would lead one to think...) being used to make all sorts of
claims.  We all recall examples from the list's short history:  the fathers
cite inaccurately;  the fathers' MS tradition has been corrupted in the
history of their transmission;  the Byzantine (or Alexandrian) text MUST
have been the earliest text;  discussion of the history of the text (in most
posts on TC) commences in the fourth century, ignoring the second and third.

The question in my original post was:  Why are we talking this way when the
empirical evidence from the second, third and fourth cents. either
invalidates or "brackets" (i.e., severely restricts and limits) the claims
being made?

I have capitalized my reservations about the fathers/versions/AND NT MSS
throughout my posts.  I make no absolue claims as to what I "know" we will
find--for I do not.  All I have said--and I have presented the TEXTUAL
evidence for it--is that we CANNOT presume that the fathers cite carelessly
ALL THE TIME, or that their MS tradition has been corrupted ALL THE TIME,
for the EVIDENCE EMPIRICALLY DOES NOT SUPPORT THESE DOGMATIC, ABSOLUTE
ASSERTIONS.  And only ONE example is necessary to falsify these claims.  If
those statements are modified to reflect the empirical facts (e.g., that
Justin's text has many "Western" elements in it, and few [if any?]
Byzantine elements;  see M. Mees' conclusions on a book-by-book basis for
Clement of Al's text;  etc.), then I have no objection.

Like anyone, I can produce examples where the patristic citations DO appear
"loose" and where the MS tradition probably HAS been corrupted.  But--as I
have--I can ALSO produce instances where it does NOT appear the citation is
loose or the transmission has been corrupted.  All I ask is that the same,
empirical textual evidence be presented to back up the claims, statements,
and assertions often being made solely on the basis of rhetoric.

Indeed, that is the "scientific" way, isn't it?  Rhetoric and pet
theories--whether ecclesiastically espoused, or propounded on the basis of
personal convictions--just don't make it.  Evidence does.  And when absolute
claims are made, only ONE example is needed to falsify it.

I am more than happy to use statistics, which I often do in my work.  By the
way, how many Byzantine or Alexandrian readings are there in Justin, or
Tertullian, or the Didache???  Statistics anyone???  Indeed, let's use
examples and statistics, for then, at least, we will all be speaking the
same language, examining the same evidence.

Cheers!  --Petersen, Penn State Univ.

PS:  Two more examples from Justin:

Justin (Apol. 15.16) substitutes "nous" for "kardia" when citing Matt
6.21/Luke 12.34.  The identical substitution is found in Clem. Al. Strom.
7.12.77, QDS 17.1, and in Macarius, Hom. 43.3.  The QDS passage, like
Justin, contains an interpolation tacked on as well:  it is the "nous tou
anthropou" in both.  (Macarius is fourth cent., Syria/Mesopotamia, but Greek
appears to have been the Homilies' original language).  (These readings are,
incidentally, absent from the apparatus of the IGNT Luke, and demonstrate
how careful one has to be when using it:  one STILL needs to manually check
EVERYTHING via the "Biblia Patristica" volumes...)  Seems to me that this is
a rather precise textual tradition, which circulated in the very early
church, and was quoted identically by two of the earliest fathers....

At Matt 5.16, where the critical text now reads "lampsato to fos humon,"
Justin reads (at Apol. 16.2) "lampsato de humon ta kala erga" ("pur" has
been cited earlier in Justin's text;  he has no "fos").  The "erga/opera
[Lat.]" reading shows up in the following:

A) Clem. Al., Strom. 3.4.36
B) Clem. Al., Strom. 4.26.171
        (gee, at least Clement is consistent....)
C) Eusebius, Comm. in Ps., 28
D) Tertullian, De cultu fem. 13
E) Tertullian, De idolatria
        (gee, at least Tertullian is consistent...)
F) Origen, Ex. ad martyr. 18
G) Origen, In ev. Ioan. 2.1.5
        (hmmm...  Origen is consistent in his citation as well...)

Eusebius (c. 300) is the latest of these sources;  Justin is the earliest
(c. 150).  That means this variant had a lifespan of at least a century and
a half, flourishing BEFORE the oldest of our uncials, and its genesis
antedates ANY of the papyri (save P-52) by AT LEAST 25-75 years.  Only
G)-Origen, In ev. Ioan., has a "fos" cognate ("fotos") in his citation...
Again, an early variant, widespread (Latin, Greek;  Rome, Alexandria,
Caesarea, Carthage), which is cited either verbatim or in a very similar
form by all of the above.  Strikes me like a legitimate variant, the
earliest version of the text we have, right?  (If anyone has an earlier
citation/MS, please inform us....)

Lest I be credited with these findings, they are from A.J. Bellinzoni's
30-year-old monograph (well, almost:  it appeared in 1967):  "The Sayings of
Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr" (Brill, Supp.NT 17), originally a
dissertation he did under Koester's direction at Harvard.  The first is from
pp. 90-92, and the second is from pp. 92-94.  Those who have German would do
well to look at Koester's own "Synoptische Ueberlieferung bei den
Apolstolischen Vaetern" (Berlin, 1957).  A. Resch's century-old stuff
("Aussercanonische Paralleltexte" and also his "Agrapha") is still
invaluable as a rich mine of parallels from the apostolic period.  These old
codgers were no fools, and frequently had a broader grasp of the textual
tradition of the NT than is commonly in evidence today.

Ciao!

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 15:46:30 -0400 (EDT)

> same language, examining the same evidence.

Since I too am equally willing to use statistics, I would only ask that
statistical data be properly utilized.  E.g., once someone cites how many
"Alexandrian" readings there are in Justin or Tertullian, I want to know
how many of those same readings are simultaneously "Byzantine"; similarly
with any "Western" or "Caesarean" readings also found in early fathers.

>From within a Byzantine-priority perspective, readings which are
dually-shared by both the Byzantine and any other texttype are simply
Byzantine readings from which the other texttype(s) happened not to
depart.  Once this point is granted, and once patristic idiosyncracies are
discounted, I have little doubt that one will find the non-Egyptian
fathers preceding the fourth century to be far more "Byzantine" in overall
character than otherwise has traditionally been claimed.

Note that this point has nothing to do with the supposed "distinctive"
Byzantine readings which Hort and others have attempted to use to "prove"
non-existence of the Byzantine Textform in the pre-fourth century era, but
rather involves ALL the extant variants known in the patristic writings.

Bring on the statistics, gentlemen.....

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