Subject: Re: Rom 15:19

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 18:21:48 -7000

> At 05:29 PM 4/4/97 -0800, you wrote:
> >Jim West wrote:
> > 
> >> 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)".
> >
> >
> 
> No, I mean I opt for the oldest reading.

No you don't.  You redefine the "oldest reading" to mean "the 
reading found in the oldest manuscript(s)".  That's a very different 
definition of the "oldest reading" than is accepted by most textual 
critics.  As Bob Waltz pointed out, the oldest reading is not 
necessarily the one found in the oldest extant ms.  Let's keep in 
mind that the ages and geographical/chronological distributions of 
the mss we possess (at least before about the 10th century) are 
purely a matter of chance and the luck of the draw, in terms of what 
has been preserved and what we have been able to find.  That's why 
the age of the text contained in a ms. is more important than the age 
of the ms itself.  Nothing is resolved simply by arbitrarily 
redefining terms like this.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html
There will be times when we disagree, but that's
good because disagreement leads to thinking, and 
when you think you'll realize I'm right. ;-)

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 15:13:09 -0500 (EST)

On Fri, 4 Apr 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

> necessarily the one found in the oldest extant ms.  

And this is the same principle which is held by the Byzantine-priority
position also. But I am more impressed with Dave's closing comment, which
says precisely what I have been trying to say all along from within my
text-critical framework, viz., that the limited sample from pre-9th
century antiquity which we possess is _not_ necessarily representative of
the state of the text in those respective centuries, especially as the
copying dates become older and the MSS become fewer and more "localized"
-- extant pre-9th century MSS _do_ reflect the "luck of the draw" to a
degree which is _not_ present in the post-9th century era. 

> Let's keep in mind that the ages and geographical/chronological
> distributions of the mss we possess (at least before about the 10th
> century) are purely a matter of chance and the luck of the draw, in
> terms of what has been preserved and what we have been able to find. 
> That's why the age of the text contained in a ms. is more important than
> the age of the ms itself.  Nothing is resolved simply by arbitrarily

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~