Subject: Re: professional scribes

From: "Dale M. Wheeler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 10:19:18 -0800

Andrew Kulikovsky wrote:

>I believe there were a lot of differences between NT scribes and OT scribes.
>Initially they were copied in scriptoriums by paid scribes and many
manuscripts
>were most probably copied in a hurry to get them circulating.

This statement raises a question for me, which I poses to the members of
the list:

I wonder if we can really say that "NT scribes...copied in scriptoriums"
and that they were "...paid scribes" and that certain Jewish scruples and
practices concerning the copying of the text did not become part of the NT
transmission method (by Jewish converts to Christianity). We can evidently
say these things of the early Alexandrian scribes, but since we possess no
early Byz mss, can we really demonstrate that what was occurring in the
Egyptian church was happening universally. 

I don't know if we've ever had a discussion of this on list, but I'd be
very interested in hearing if any research has gone on/is going on related
to this issue.

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: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 12:58:35 +000

Once again, recent discussions here lead me to point the listmembers 
to an important recent book I've mentioned before here:
Harry W. Gamble, _Books & Readers in the Early Church:  A History of 
Early Christian Texts_ (Yale Univ. Press, 1995).  
It might be a *very* useful exercise to have a number of scholars 
study the book and then engage one another on this list on the 
relevant topics:  such as the use of scriptoria, scribal 
training/abilities, etc.
On the question of NT vs. Jewish scribal practices, it is just a bit 
anachronistic to compare Massoretic scribal discipline with what 
might have been going on in the first two centuries CE.  Here E. 
Tov's work (e.g., _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_) is useful, 
in drawing upon early evidence (esp. Qumran) about the relatively 
greater fluidity/variety of the text of the OT in this early period.
L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]

---

From: "Lewis Reich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:57:27 -500

> greater fluidity/variety of the text of the OT in this early period.

Isn't the question of the variety of versions of the the text at that 
point a different question from whether the different versions were 
being accurately reproduced and transmitted?

Lewis Reich
[email-masked]

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:31:20 -0500 (EST)

> being accurately reproduced and transmitted?

One question that Tov's analysis of the Qumran material raises is, When
did the meticulous attention to detail that characterized the Masoretes'
work with the text begin?  Since there are so many different forms of the
Hebrew text present at Qumran, I think we can at least say that extreme
attention to detail did not characterize the transmission of the entirety
of the Hebrew ms tradition during or slightly before the first century
C.E.  An interesting question to ask concerning scribes transmitting both
the Hebrew Bible and the Greek NT is, What factors influenced scribes to
begin to regard attention to even the minutia of the text (e.g., spelling)
as an essential part of their jobs?  Some possibilities spring to mind: an
increased regard for the importance of the biblical text, the increasingly
important role of the text in the social or religious fabric of the
community, doctrinal controversies with rival groups, growth of mystical
traditions, rivalries among scribal groups.

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

---

From: "Lewis Reich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 23:38:23 -500

> C.E. 

I'm not convinced that a variety of forms necessarily means that 
transmission was inaccurate at that time.  It could mean that 
different versions had been accurately transmitted, could it not?

Lewis Reich
[email-masked]

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:07:24 -0500 (EST)

> different versions had been accurately transmitted, could it not?

It is certainly conceivable that a variety of versions of the Hebrew text
were being transmitted with extreme (i.e., Masoretic) accuracy in the
first century and that all of the variants arose before that time.  If it
were the case that only two or three different forms of the text had been
found at Qumran and that numerous almost identical examples of each of
these forms were extant, I would think that you could argue that each of
the variant forms was being transmitted with extreme accuracy at that
time.  However, Tov identifies five different text-types (my term, not
his), including a proto-Masoretic text-type, but I don't think that the
manuscripts within any single text-type agree with one another--or with
the medieval MT--to the same degree that Masoretic manuscripts tend to
agree with one another.  This evidence suggests (to me at least) that
concern with extremely accurate transmission of the text began somewhat
later than the time that the Qumran scrolls were written.

Jimmy Adair