Subject: Re: Rom 15:19

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 10:40:59 -0500 (EST)

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.

>-- 
>- Mr. Helge Evensen

Jim

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

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

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 11:15:21 -0700

>Jim

I want to get this straight. Let's take an example: The Doxology
of Romans. p46 (only) places it after chapter 15. Is that where you
would put it?

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 21:10:36 -0800

> No, I mean I opt for the oldest reading.

I now reply:

So you just _know_ that the oldest _reading_ is found in the oldest _MS_!? A good faith statement!

Then you mean to tell me that the oldest _reading_ is always found in the  oldest _MSS_ (if the reading is not 
_clearly_ in error, of course), that is, oldest MS = oldest reading???? If that´s so, your method seems to be 
the most simple method ever. It is _easy_ to be _assured_ of the original readings by this method: You just 
gather all the oldest MSS and wherever the NT text is covered in them (even in the places where there is only 
one "oldest" MS supporting a reading, after all, the MS is _oldest_) you pick the oldest MS (or fragment) in 
each instance, and presto! there is the autograph reading! (Of course you still have to choose between _some_ 
competing readings). That´s a convenient methodology. Had only W & H thought of that!

One of the obvious problems is this: You _have_ to rely on _"later"_ MSS in most cases, since there is no such 
thing as "_the_ oldest NT MS". You begin at the fragment p52 and work your way down through the comparatively 
"later" fragments/papyri/MSS. Maybe some day the remaining part of p52 will be discovered. But its text may 
_not_ agree with any of the other "oldest" papyri known today!! It may even introduce "new" variants.

Can you please tell me *why* an _obvious false_ reading (a scribal slip or something....) can have entered the 
*oldest* _extant_ MSS/fragments, and a _real_ error (that is, a deviation from the autograph text) cannot 
have?? Maybe you believe in the providential preservation of the scriptures by archeological discoveries. There 
may still be some even _older_ MSS hiding in the sand or in some cave. It´s good that the MSS which is _found_ 
can be of some help in the assurance of the autograph reading.

The whole theory of "oldest is best" is very false indeed. We cannot even always know for sure that the datings 
placed on the MSS is 100% accurate. If one papyri has been dated 200 A.D. and another 180 A.D., would you 
automatically accept the reading of the one dated 180 A.D.??

(I now go underground....I´m not sure I dare to open my mailbox next time.....I don´t even know if there is a 
computer available down there.....)

I appologize ahead for any "faulty logic" on my part in the above......If it´s too bad, please just regard it 
as another humoristic contribution to this list. As you can see, I´m not a scholar, nor a specialist in text 
criticism. You should have noticed that by now!

- Mr. Helge Evensen