Subject: Re: professional scribes

From: [email-masked] (Dr. E. Habas)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 07:36:32 +0200

>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.
>

>cheers,
>Andrew

I confess to knowing very little about the practices of NT scribes. Is
there much "hard evidence" for the practices described above? In any case,
the Jewish *attitude* is completely different. The written text itself is
considered to be holy to a certain degree, and there are therefore rather
rigid rules to be followed. As noted by a list-member, such rules still
apply, and have done so for millenea. As for the period I understand most
of us are concerned with, there is quite a lot evidence. Just to give two
examples: Prof. Emmanuel Tov has been studying scribal practices in Qumran
with interesting results. Also, there is much information in the Talmudic
literature about practices of Rabbi Meir, who was a professional scribe
(actually, this could be of interest to NT scholars, since it is said that
in his scrolls a couple of changes were found, which happen to agree with
Christian interpretations of a couple of places in the OT).

Effie

---

From: "Dale M. Wheeler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:05:19 -0800

Lewis Reich wrote:

>On 12 Feb 97 at 10:31, James R. Adair wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Lewis Reich wrote:
>
>> > 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?
>
>> 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. 
>
>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?

I've wondered the same thing; let me ask the list in a different
way...should we assume that the textual situation at Qumran represents the
textual situation universally for the Hebrew text and its transmission? 

You know, that sort of sounds like the same question I asked about whether
we should assume that the state of the text in Egypt represents the state
of the text everywhere for the NT ?!  I'd like to second Larry Hurtado's
suggestion that some of the experts on this list read and then interact
onlist with Gamble's book...we could certainly add Tov's book to that
discussion as well.

***********************************************************************
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: "Dale M. Wheeler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:26:20 -0800

Michael Holmes wrote:

>At 09:05 AM 2/13/97 -0800, Dale Wheeler wrote:
>
>>of the text everywhere for the NT ?! 
>
>The question of whether the extant textual data from Egypt is representative
>of circumstances elsewhere has been explored by E. J. Epp: "The Significance
>of the Papyri for Determining the Nature of the New Testament Text in the
>Second Century: A Dynamic View of Textual Transmission," in William L.
>Petersen, ed., _Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins,
>Recensions, Text, and Transmission_ (Notre Dame and London: University of
>Notre Dame Press, 1989)71-103.
>
>Based on his investigation of the movement and transmission of secular
>documents (including the documented rapid movement of literary documents
>between Alexandria and Oxyrhynchus), he concludes:
>"The dynamism of life in the Greco-Roman world--even in the outlying areas
>of Egypt (where most of the New Testament papyri were discovered)--permitted
>relatively easy travel and rather free transmission of letters and
>documents, so that the earliest New Testament papyri--though they have
>survived accidentally and randomly--are generally representative of the
>earliest New Testament texts used by the Christianity of the time in all
>parts of the Greco-Roman world." (p. 101)

I have to admit that I've always felt that Epp was stretching the evidence
a bit to cover territory for which we have no apparent evidence. I'm
wondering if anyone has done any further studies on this topic, responded
to Epp, etc. For, with one stroke of the pen, Epp has thrown out the
long-standing idea that there was a certain geographically-based isolation
and inbred development in the "text-types". This, of course, lies at the
heart of the current "Egyptian priority" vs "Byz priority" debate currently
going on...was it all the same in the first couple of centuries througout
Christianity or not ?!

But even if we assume that Epp is correct, I've often wondered if
"christians" living in Asia Minor would have accepted texts done by
"professional" scribes (though Comfort seems to paint a picture of devout
Christians copying their own texts in early Egypt) from an area known to
contain pockets of heresy ? Or did the text only/primarily flow in the
opposite direction, from Byz to Egypt ? For if there was no ebb and flow of
the text to provide a basis of comparison and thus generate some
consistency, then are we not back at geographically-isolated inbred
development? 

Just musing out loud (sort to speak)...

XAIREIN...