Subject: Re: Aland's article

From: "Dale M. Wheeler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 11:42:02 -0800

I really don't have the time to continue this discussion--though it
raises some very interesting issues for TC. Let me say as my last post
on this topic that I've appreciated Ulrich's input and insight into
Aland's statments--which for me left something to be desired in their
clarity.

On some specific points:

Ulrich said:

>Well, as far as I recall Aland introduced his statistics by pointing out that 
>they refer to the *GNT (4th ed) apparatus*. Everyone familiar with the GNT
knows 
>that the presence of singular readings therein is very limited (at least
within 
>the Church Father testimonies). 

Here is Aland's statement (I've abbreviated some names): "At the Institute for 
NTTR in Muenster we have been working for several years on the proparation of 
a fully revised Fourth Edition of The GNT with special concern for the patristic
citations in its critical apparatus....This critical apparatus admittedly
represents only some 1,200 passages, but these are important and sufficient to
provide some significant conclusions. The results for the "early times" are as 
follows:..."

In the following statistics Aland then uses the term "Egyptian text". Now if 
he had used the term NA27 or critical text or anything that connected with the
intro paragraph, I would have understood what he was talking about. But 
"Egyptian text"??; in what sense does the NA text represent the "Egyptian
text". And saying that he's simply using the term Hodges used, for me at least,
does not solve the dilemma, since by adopting Hodges term he confused the 
issue for me by intimating that he was using all the various Egyptian mss as
his comparison base, not the NA text. If no one else was confused by this...
fine; but I certainly was (this was not the first time in this article that
Aland used confusing terminology--his equation of the Majority text and the
TR is, as Dan Wallace puts it: "...either a lack of knowledge of the 
differences between the two editions or an intentional guilt by association."
[in reference to the similar equation of the MT and TR in _Text of NT_;
Wallace, "Second Thoughts," BS 146 (1989): 275, n. 22; cf., idem, JETS 37/2
(1994): 194, n. 60]). I'm not saying that I think Aland was deliberately 
trying to mislead the readers, just that his use of terminology was not
precise enough for the type of article he was writing and the complexity
of the information he was introducing; any other reader of the article may
certainly feel free to disagree...

Ulrich asked:

>Where does Aland "assert" the Egyptian origin of the "Western text
(-type)"? In 
>the above given quote Aland speaks of the 3rd century witnesses p38, p48 as 
>anticipating the "Western" text. 

The quote was as follows:

>>>>But in the very next
>>>>paragraph, it seems to me, he undermines that 
>>>>argument by pointing out: "...p38 and p48 at least
>>>>anticipate the so-called 'Western text' (its
>>>>chief representative, Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis
>>>>[D], is now believed by Latin paleographers to
>>>>have come from Africa. And both these papyri are 
>>>>from the 3rd century!"

"...D [came] from Africa...!"  (cf., _Text of NT_, pp. 109ff). Thus the papyrii
simply strengthen the case for the Egyptian origin of the "Western" text-type.
Thus my point again is that you can't refer to Fathers who follow a "Western"
text and who lived in the West as necessarily independent witnesses to the
"early times" text (as Aland puts it); they may or may not be--it depends on
whether they follow other "Western" texts which are clearly independent of 
the p38-p48-D stream.

Ulrich asked:

>Sorry, if insisting on a possible slip, but to avoid misunderstandings: Who 
>would be a candidate of being a "Byz Father" (geographically speaking) in the 
>second and third centuries?

I probably should have been clearer...  I'm not aware of any Byz Fathers (is
anyone else ??). Thus the point is that, as with the Byz text itself, we are
left with a "black hole" of data in the area where the bulk of the NT writings
were penned and sent. Thus we are left with the necessity of constructing a
theory to explain the rise of the Byz text and its differences with the Egyptian
text--and at present there are primarily two competing theories (1. the earlier
Egyptian mss best represent the autographs; 2. the later Byz mss best represent
the autographs).

Two final observations: 

(1) As I said in my original post on this topic, I still find it interesting
(regardless of what we do with Aland's "missing percentages"--I'm willing to
grant that they are Western) that, for example, Irenaeus agrees on singular
readings with the Egyptian text 24% and with the Byz text 16.5%; or if you
count all agreeing readings, with the E-txt 40.5% and with the B-txt 33%.
Now I know that wasn't Aland's point, but I still find it intriguing !

(2) Aland raised herein (as well as elsewhere) that Aleph and B are not of
Egyptian origin...and Ulrich added that he also didn't believe that the
papyrii were necessarily of Egyptian origin either. Is anyone aware of 
any paleograpic studies which defend or refute such ideas ??

One final question to the list members...

What has been your response to the publications of Comfort on the idea
that the autographs are best represented by the earliest Egyptian mss 
at each point ??

Sorry for the length...

XAIREIN...

***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Research Professor in Biblical Languages        Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street                               Portland, OR  97220
Voice: 503-251-6416    FAX:503-254-1268     E-Mail: [email-masked] 
***********************************************************************

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 14:17:57 -0700

On Mon, 09 Dec 1996, "Dale M. Wheeler" <[email-masked]> wrote, in

>that the autographs are best represented by the earliest Egyptian mss 

I found both of Comfort's books to be utterly irritating. A case can be
made for using "the best manuscript," but does the mere fact that a
manuscript is early make it good? Take a manuscript like p52, or one
of the equally fragmentary papyri. It might prove, if we had the
whole thing, that it is incredibly corrupt. We can only work with
manuscripts that are substantial enough that we can assess their
texts.

That does not mean that the papyri are intrinsically bad; quite the
contrary. P75 is, to my mind, the best manuscript of the gospels,
and p46 and p72 are, in their respective areas, among the three or
four most important documents. But I say that based on knowing their
texts, not their ages!

Comfort's papyriolatreia (if I dare coin such a dreadful term) is
one of the most stupid ideas I've seen in recent years.

In my humble opinion, of course. :-)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Ulrich Schmid)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 96 18:12:39 +0100

>Aland's statments--which for me left something to be desired in their

1) As far as I can see there is at least a strong possibilty of reading Aland's 
article in "Trinity Journal" with reference to Hodges' terminology and argument 
concerning the "Egyptian text" (as Hodges puts it) that is clear and makes 
sense. I simply wanted to emphasize that. 
2) Surely, I concede that Aland's reasoning may be put to test by highlightening 
its implications with respect to an overall textual theory. As far as I 
understand Dale's various posts on this subject, this was at least partly his 
intention. In so doing Dale sometimes added features of different theories to 
Aland's reasoning which are not necessarily part of Aland's own theory. For 
example, to my mind Dale's use of the geographic connotations of various texts 
("Egyptian", "Western", "Byzantine") are not inherent to Aland's own theory. See 

>whether they follow other "Western" texts which are clearly independent of 

a) Although Egypt is part of the continent of Africa, the supposed 
*Latin-African* origin of D (cf. "Latin paleographers") does not imply any 
connection whatsoever to Greek (and Coptic) speaking Egypt.  
b) Again, Aland simply questions the Egyptian provenance of all the papyri 
(BTW-- *papyri* is already plural) that had been found in Egypt. The simple fact 
of having survived in Egypt due to favorable climatic conditions tells us not 
whether the papyri and/or the text they display really originated in Egypt or 
not.
c) Even if we assume the Egyptian origin of p38, p48, it is anachronistic to 
establish the Egytian origin of the "Western" text to which Irenaeus (late 
second century) partly testifies to by means of third century papyri and 4/5th 
century Codex D. The usual reasoning goes exactly the other way. Because of the 
late 2d and early 3rd century "Western" Church Fathers like Irenaeus (BTW-- 
Irenaeus was brought up in Asia minor) and Tertullian and late 2d/early 3rd 
century versions (like the Vetus Latina) at least parts of the text of 4/5th 
century Codex D and 3rd century papyri can be dated back to the late 2d or (cf. 
Marcion) early 2d century. However, including Marcion in this list (one must add 
the Old Syriac too) points to the conclusion that the "Western" text in fact 
originated somewhere in the East.

To conclude therefrom: While it is very important to have our textual witnesses 
(MSS and Fathers) dated and localized, we should not focus on the geographic 
denomintations of various texts. As far as I can see nothing in this field is 
beyond dispute. To add some fuel to the fire: There is no conclusive evidence 
that connects even the "Alexandrian" text(-type) to Alexandria.

Any comments on that? 

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster