Subject: Textual Criticism Theories

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:56:44 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 23 Oct 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> In a message dated 96-10-23 12:06:37 EDT, Maurice Robinson writes:

[quoting Grenier] 
>>Most agree that the majority of variants probably occurred prior to 325
>>CE., certainly before 500 (?) CE. During this time, people did not
>>understand the writings as scripture and there was little opportunity
>>for comparison of MSS.

[quoting Robinson]
 
> > I would take exception to this categorization, since there is little
> > question regarding the fourfold gospel as scripture before AD 200, as well
> > as most of the undisputed books before or around that date (which Colwell
> > considered the point by which most sensible variant readings had been
> > created).  AD 500 would be far too late to postulate the writings as
> > non-scripture.  Also, I do not think there was "little opportunity for
> > comparison of MSS" when even our earliest papyri show evidence of
> > cross-comparison and correction, not to mention the uncial fragments from
> > the 3rd and 4th century.  

> I'm wondering if you could give a short paragraph of your understanding of
> the time period I was trying to write about. I am happy to have my
> paragraph's weaknesses pointed out, but what I need is someone replace my
> paragraph with a better one. That way, I have something true to put in my
> head and not just know that what I have written is incorrect.

I suspect this ovIerlaps into the matter of the history of the canon,
which could become quite complicated.  I will basically stick with what
was stated above, assuming canonicity or some authoritative status for the
fourfold gospel certainly before the mid-2nd century.  Ulrich Schmid (who
has just spent a wonderful week visting with me) maintains for the Pauline
corpus a ten-letter canon selected by Paul himself for the Pauline
Epistles, which thus elevates those ten into canonical status within the
first century, etc. (your mileage may vary).  

I simply would agree with Colwell that most sensible variants appeared
before AD 200, and also that many if not most of the books of the NT were
regarded (at least in some localities) as "scripture" by that time. 
Considering what occurred in regard to variant readings _after_ canonicity
was recognized, I am not swayed much by any claim that variation in the
pre-canonical period was that much more severe, save for the creation of
new variants as opposed to the perpetuation of existing variants.

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

---

From: [email-masked] ((Dennis De Jarnette))
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 20:41:01 -0600

<<The French school probably stands quite
alone in defending a primarily Western text as original, and I do not know
any US scholars who would follow Amphoux in this regard.>>

Anything in English on this? I tend toward this myself, especially in Acts.
But frankly I probably know only enough about Textual criticism to be
dangerous.

Positive Dennis

I now return control of your computer to you.