Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 18:46:41 -0500 (EST)

At 02:58 PM 4/18/97 -0700, you wrote:

>I have heard this one before.  If this were so, there would be glaring
>differences between the text of the NT as quoted in early Nicene
>Patristics and in the Syro-Byzantine tex-type.  But I will go out on a
>limb and say there are NONE. 

None!?

>
>Now I am sure that with this bold statement I will have awakened the
>skeptic's response in many of you.  So I put forth a challenge: show me
>even ONE passage in St. Basil's letters, Ad Amphilochium, or Contra
>Celsum, in which substitution of the Alexandrian for the Syro-Byzantine
>reading breaks the argument.  I have never found one. 
>

Rather, since you make the assertion, you show one place where the wording
of the Fathers is exactly, word for word similar to any of the NT texts,
either in the Byzantine or Alexandrian text types.
You will of course find one or two.  And now you must assure us that the
date of the father you quote is early and that the quotation has not been
tampered with by theological harmonizers along the way.

>> After all, just
>> imagine the pressure placed on scribes to provide doctrinally correct texts
>> after the council of Nicea!
>[snip]
>> If you were a scribe, would you want someone exiling you because you
>> provided a "heretical" text- even if you had no exemplar for your
>> "theologically purified" text?  The "pre-conciliar" scribes were under no
>
>But this is the wild imagination of a late 20th century man imposing his
>prejudices on the Ancient World. 

Not prejudices; on the contrary- realism, not predetermined by a dogmatic
substructure.
Wild- not hardly.  Reasoned and reasonable.

> Again, I ask the members of this list to
>show me even ONE case of scribe who was exiled for following an older text
>type because it was only (or best) exemplar he had.  For example, Codex
>Bezae was copied in this period. 
>

Perhaps you have never heard of what happened to Jerome when Jonah was read
in his new translation?  If this happened to Jerome you can rest assured
that many a disgruntled Abbot would scourge, exile or exterminate an
obdurate scribe.

>Codex W and Theta were based (at least in part) on exemplars that very
>likely were of this period too (although we may never know for sure). 

And they demonstrate the very tampering I have suggested.

>
>Matthew Johnson
>Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our 
>great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).

Your signature, by the way, demonstrates your theological axe.

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 97 11:22:52 +0100

On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote:

[quoting Matthew Johnson:]

>tampered with by theological harmonizers along the way.

Jim, you have been asked to give examples of how early Nicean (or to put it my 
way: ante Nicean) fathers display different readings when compared to post 
Nicean fathers that have to be judged as theologicaly motivated with respect to 
the decision of Nicea. Remember this is YOUR bold statement (c.f. the next 
quote). 

[West:]
>>> "theologically purified" text?  The "pre-conciliar" scribes were under no
[Johnson:]
>>prejudices on the Ancient World. 

[West:]
>Wild- not hardly.  Reasoned and reasonable.

Unsubstantiated, to say the least, up to now.

>that many a disgruntled Abbot would scourge, exile or exterminate an

The example of Jerome is way off the mark in my view. A new _translation_ is 
totally different from simply copying texts. Jerome's translation was known to 
be _new_ and recently worked out, whereas the newness of recently copied MSS 
usually was not subjected to any suspicion.
Without any evidence "that many (!) a disgruntle Abbot would scourge, exile or 
exterminate (!) an obdurate scribe" I have to agree with Matthew's charge: This 
is indeed "wild speculation".

>And they demonstrate the very tampering I have suggested.

Matthew's argument, as far as I can see, rests on the post Nicean date of D, W, 
and Theta. Please note, that you are in danger of getting self-contradictory 
with respect to your initial thesis (ante Nicean versus post Nicean attitudes of 
scribes).

>Your signature, by the way, demonstrates your theological axe.

Jim, I don't care of your own theological axe, but, please, stop using this type 
of hermenteutical suspicion. This is exactly the Martin Bernal way of reasoning. 
However, rhetorics cannot entirely compensate the lack or misuse of evidence. 
Get back to scholarly discussion, i.e. presenting evidence instead of rhetorics, 
 performing carefully reasoned inferrences from the evidence instead of wild 
speculations. 
Note, I do not think that your case (ante versus post Nicean attitudes of 
scribes) may not be pursued. However, the way you presented it so far is simply 
untenable with respect to scholarly standards (IMHO).

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster