Subject: Rom 15:19

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 16:06:30 -0500 (EST)

At 10:23 PM 4/3/97 +0200, you wrote:
>Jim, as I see you are an unconditional Alexandrian!
>
Perhaps unconditioned- as my wife is constantly urgiing me to get in shape!
(or is it, to shape up?)  :)

>>Because of antiquity, scribal practice (which was far more developed in
>>Egypt than anywhere else), and reliability (internally and externally).
>
>So, to you and all the list participants, a few questions (that probably 
>will betray my bias in favor of the versions, but...)
>
>First a question about antiquity : some "western" witnesses seem to be as 
>old as the "alexandrian" ones.  Sometimes both agree against the other 
>text-types, but when the B-type and the D-type disagree what will you do?
>

If there is a conflict that is unresolvable- I opt for the oldest reading.
When all else fails, antiquity counts the most (but only when all else fails).

>And, corollary to that question, what would you answer to those people 
>who say that in the IInd century, the Alexandrian text-type was a local 
>text-type found only in Egypt, while the D-type was found everywhere in 
>the world, and that this shows it is probably closer to the original ? 

How does it show this?  What it shows is that it is widely disseminated; and
this has nothing to do with originality.  The Byzantine type is perhaps the
most disseminated but I would hardly argue that it is original.

>(just like when you throw stones in water, the wider circle comes from a 
>stone that was thrown in the water long ago...).
>

Unless it was a bigger stone.

>Generally speaking, what do you make of geographical dispersion of the 
>readings? How would you consider readings that are attested, for example, 
>in an Arabic manuscript of the Xth century, and in the georgian version 
>and some western versions (whether it be old latin or middle dutch for 
>example) with or without a few isolated greek manuscripts?
>

I regret that I am not as impressed (yet) with the versional evidence as I
am with the Greek manuscript tradition.

>Personnally, I have the impression that geographical criteria are not 
>enough considered when discussing variants - whether it be in the IInd 
>century context (D against B) or later (versions).

You may be right in this.  But again, does dispersion = authenticity?

 > Do you think there is 
>something correct in my impression and why? And if you answer yes, why is 
>it so?
>

I have a little trouble with the notion that just because a manuscript is
widely attested that it is thereby authentic.  This will degrade into
counting manuscripts; it seems to me.

>To a certain extend, the same remarks would apply to the Byzantine 
>readings. Maurice, what would you do of variants of Byz as against more 
>geographically spread variants? Do you accept that older variants may 
>survive far from the geographical "centers" of text-production?
>
>I see that some of you seem to have time these days: it's Easter vacation 
>for the people working in teaching institutions, not for me! But I profit 
>of the occasion in the hope to have some well-thought feedback. Sorry if 
>those questions seem repetitive compared to earlier postings from me, but 
>my work on the versions makes me sensitive to this problem. :-)
>

Thats good- input from many sources makes us all better.

>
>
>________________________________________________________________
>Jean Valentin 

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology
[email-masked]

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 17:29:57 -0800

> If there is a conflict that is unresolvable- I opt for the oldest reading.

You of course mean: "I opt for the reading found in the oldest MS(S)".

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen