Subject: Re: Antiquity

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 18:10:04 -0500 (EST)

>There´s at least _two_ kinds of evidence connected with the manuscripts:
>1) Manuscript copies give testimony to the earlier _existence_ of a 
>document.

Or- they give evidence of a newly composed document.  Or are you saying that
every manuscript has a predecessor?  If so, then this electronic manuscript
also has a predecessor.

>2) Manuscript copies give testimony to the _textform(s)_ in existence.
>The _latter_ point is where textual criticism deals.
>

No- TC deals with both.

>Within a certain frame of thought the oldest MSS may be _regarded_ as 
>"the most important witnesses", but again, this would not stand the test 
>of sound criticism and it gives all too much weight to only _one_ canon 
>of criticism.
>

And, as I have said, when manuscripts of similar age conflict, the other
criteria are brought to bear.  I did not say antiquity was the only
criteria- just that it is the most important.

>a) Even if we _had_ the autograph of any NT book, let´s say of the book 
>of Colossians, who would be the authority for determining if it really 
>_is_ the autograph?? Such a MS would have been dated as early as the 
>established date of this particular book. But is there anybody living 
>today who is able to recognize Paul´s handwriting? Most certainly, such a 
>claim _could_ not have been verified at all. If somebody claimed it, he 
>would very soon meet strong opposition from other scholars. 
>

Yet we can tell if a manuscript of Colossians was written in the 10th
century or the 2nd.

>b) As to the _existence_ of a certain document, the oldest MS copies may 
>be the "most important" witnesses, for they give testimony to that 
>document´s early existence. One example is the discovery of p52: while 
>not of great use in textual criticism because of its small size, it is a 
>strong defense against the supposed late date of John. The early 
>existence of a MS does not necessarily mean that its _textform_ is 
>earlier than that found in later MSS. This has been demonstrated. 
>

Quite true.

>c) But theoretically it can also be looked at in another way: p52 may not 
>be a fragment of an entire Gospel of John, but just a part of a document 
>which _later_ developed into the present Gospel of John.(Of course I do 
>not _believe_ this). Maybe the whole chapter 8 was there substantially as 
>we have it today in the later MSS. Following the "hard proof" theory, p52 
>is not a witness to the existence of the _whole_ Gospel of John as we 
>know it today, just that part which it contains (maybe most of ch.8 
>because of the verso-recto situation). You must seek in _later_ MSS to 
>find the whole Gospel of John attested. So when we talk about "hard 
>evidence" or "hard proof", it is far from always possible to draw 
>conclusions from such. We may _interpret_ the "hard evidence" in a 
>certain way, that´s ok, but "proof" and certainty? that´s another thing!!
>
>

Indeed!

>As I indicated, _existence_ and _textform_ are not the same!
> 

How can they be different?  Are you other than your existence?

>Many other sources other than pure NT MSS attest to both the _existence_ 
>and the _textform_ of the New Testament text.
>Even if we did not have a MS of Mark prior to the 8th century, hardly 
>anybody would argue that it did not _exist_ before that time! So far as I 
>can see, Jim, you seem to be quite alone in your theories, but that´s 
>alright, it´s your choice......and it sure is a _choice_.....
>

Its hard to be the only one right!  :)

>Helge

Jim

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

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 03:39:05 -0700

> every manuscript has a predecessor?  If so, then this electronic manuscript

Only if one cannot find a trace in history of a certain document, traces 
that predate the manuscript copy, can it rightly be asserted that the 
manuscript is "a newly composed document". And the NT certainly has left 
historical traces that predates most of its MSS!
It can hardly be compared to your electronic post. Besides, since MSS 
were frequently copied in antiquity, the chance for a discovered MS to be 
an autograph or a newly composed document must be very small.

> >The _latter_ point is where textual criticism deals.

Well, if you say so, it must be right.....
 
> criteria- just that it is the most important.

The result of your theory is that _whenever it is possible_, you will use 
the principle of antiquity as the final authority. Is that so?

Your theory still seems to place to much _weight_ (as I said) on only 
_one_ canon or criteria.
 
> Yet we can tell if a manuscript of Colossians was written in the 10th

True of course, but again, that does not say much of the _form_ or the 
_quality_ of text contained in the manuscript.

> How can they be different?  Are you other than your existence?

Let me qualify: the _existence_ of a *manuscript* is not the same as the 
_originality_ and _quality_ of its *textform*. For the existence of a NT 
manuscript is a _copy_ and we have not seen the autograph manuscripts.

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen