Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text

From: [email-masked] (Nichael Lynn Cramer)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 09:03:10 -0400

Maurice Robinson wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Nichael Cramer wrote:
>> But it seems to me that the flow of logic here is precisely backwards.
>It is backwards only if a presupposition regarding the "late" nature of
>the Byzantine Textform predominates.  From my perspective, there is no
>backward reasoning necessary.
> [...]

Ah, but be careful.  Here you've subtly --but critically-- shifted the
playing field.

Your argument --the argument to which I was responding-- was a
"consistency" arguement.  That is, you were insisting that the Eclectic
theory was flawed _internally_ because it did not provide a specific
mechanism which would account for the rise of the Byzantine text-type.  I,
in response, showed that this was not correct.

In turn, your response was that my arguments did not conform to (your)
model of the originality of the Byzantine text type.  This is a, actually,
wholly different point and quite off the track.

The fact that this does not fit a separate theoretical framework (in this
case yours) is irrelevant and says nothing about the consistency of the
theory, which is the question at hand.

>> As in these examples, there were certainly conventions and a certain
>> enviormental "ambience" (as it were) which would tend to reinforce certain
>> aspects and to drive out certain others.
>
>Even allowing your hypothesis, what were these factors?
>  [...]
>The question for eclectic theory is to account for precisely what caused
>that pattern of readings to be perpetuated to the point of dominance,
>while the vast bulk of other readings supposedly appropriate to the
>"Byzantine mindset" were not perpetuated. From my own perspective, I have
>no problem answering this point; I suspect modern eclectic theory will
>find this particular matter difficult if not insurmountable.

Well, one obvious force at work here --and moreover a force that we know to
have affected the text of the NT-- is that characterized in the title of
Bart Ehrman's book _The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_ (a book which,
BTW, I heartily recommend to one and all).

If we assume the existence of a Church in which the Byzantine text-type
developed over the centuries, the existence of that orthodoxy must have
been a compelling, an inexorable (if subtle) force for change in that
Church's text.

I don't recall now if the image is from Ehrman but, in short, the church
(and its scribes) already knew what the text "meant", they would simply
_tend_ --perhaps unconsciously-- to make sure that that's what it said.

Nichael
[email-masked]                                               __
http://www.sover.net/~nichael              Be as passersby   -- IC

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:40:40 -0400 (EDT)

(I had a nice response to this posting, but a blast of line noise totally 
obliterated it.  The current posting reflects an attempt to recreate it 
as best as possible).

> Ah, but be careful.  Here you've subtly --but critically-- shifted the

I think not; any theory has to be examined within the constraints of its 
own presuppositions.  I merely bring my own theory in as a point of 
contrast to indicate that it does not suffer from the same weaknesses as 
hitherto described.

> in response, showed that this was not correct.

I fail to see where this has been demonstrated.  So far every suggested 
explanation for the rise and dominance of the Byzantine Textform which 
comes from the varying quarters within modern eclecticism has had either 
inconsistencies or serious weaknesses, which I have noted in passing.  I 
still have not seen a reasonable theory of textual transmission which can 
account for all the extant data which comes from the modern eclectic 
fold, and in this case, I find the Westcott-Hort theory clearly superior 
to anything yet put forth favoring a non-Byzantine text since that time.
 
> theory, which is the question at hand.

Precisely.  I willingly would examine any transmissional theory from 
within the framework of the hypothesis being set forth; but I would 
reserve the right to play Devil's advocate in critiquing that same theory 
from within its theoretical framework, as well as suggesting alternative 
models which do not suffer from the same deficiency.  I would be quite 
pleased if modern eclectics would willingly suspend a priori judgments 
and evaluate the Byzantine-priority model from within its own framework 
as well, but to date this has not been done -- rather, everyone else 
continually chooses to shift the playing field back to their own ball 
park, and to view all pro-Byzantine claims from behind their own eclectic 
blinders (Colwell's term).

> >Even allowing your hypothesis, what were these factors?

I don't think I wrote the above statement, did I?  Perhaps I was 
quoting Waltz?  I would generally concur that the "ambience" would be 
basically the normal scribal duty and concern to copy the text as 
accurately as possible, but recognizing that certain non-autograph 
readings might predominate in any given area.

> BTW, I heartily recommend to one and all).

This would be one factor (though I will differ with Ehrman on his view of 
what consitutes "orthodoxy").  However, any claim to a scribal tendency 
toward readings which favor orthodoxy fails in so many places where in 
theory orthodoxy could have been strengthened, but was not, simply due to 
the fidelity of the scribes.  Ehrman is basically correct, in my view, 
when the "more orthodox" reading is found in a -minority- of MSS; I do 
not accept the same claim at a point where the majority of MSS might 
happen to preserve what subjectively appears to be a "more orthodox" 
reading, since in such a case it is very possible that the "more orthodox" 
reading is simply that of the autograph, created by a writer who himself 
WAS "orthodox".

> been a compelling, an inexorable (if subtle) force for change in that

If so, the Byzantine era scribes left far too many places unaffected.  If 
we were to accept the standard claims regarding the Byzantine tendency to 
expand sacred names, for instance, we should never find "Jesus" standing 
alone, but it would be expanded to "Jesus Christ", which in turn would be 
expanded to "the Lord Jesus Christ" and then to "our Lord Jesus Christ," 
etc.  This scribal expansion certainly was done, and it occurred 
frequently but sporadically, and can be seen in comprehensive apparatuses 
like Von Soden or Tischendorf; however, the expansions were nipped in the 
bud by watchdog scribes and/or their correctors, and never gained the 
ascendancy.  The same would apply to numerous other readings which 
somehow would supposedly be "more orthodox" than that which normally 
would be preserved by simple copying of the autograph text.
 
7��֤�K����>�T%ҵ���o�S (and its scribes) already knew what the text 
"meant", they would simply