Subject: Re: Antiquity

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 08:42:53 -0500 (EST)

The simplest answer to the various queries is as follows:

First, we have no autographs of any Biblical documents.
Second, we have thousands of copies.
Third, we have no hard proof that any of these documents existed until the
oldest manuscript of them which we possess.
Fourth, these oldest manuscripts are the earliest evidence of these documents.
Therefore, these oldest manuscripts are the most important witnesses to
these documents.

How does this work itself out?  In the Gospels, for instance, we have much
debate about the origin of Mark.  Was it written in 60 or 70 or 80 CE?  The
simple truth is, we have no proof that it existed prior to the oldest
manuscript we have of it.  This oldest manuscript must receive special
attention as it is the oldest evidence for the existence of this document.

That is why the antiquity of a manuscript is so important.  If we have no
manuscript of Mark prior to the 8th century then we have no proof that Mark
existed before the 8th century- pure and simple.

Jim

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

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 15:29:06 -0500 (EST)

> existed before the 8th century- pure and simple.

Whoa!......Now if this were applied to the OT Books prior to the discovery
of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then we would have no proof that much of anything
in the Hebrew Bible existed before the 9th century AD.  

Similarly, as of 150 years ago, we apparently had no certain "proof" than
any NT book was older than the 4th century AD.... 

Where then is the logic behind your assumption? 

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

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 01:13:49 -0800

> Therefore, these oldest manuscripts are the most important witnesses to

There´s at least _two_ kinds of evidence connected with the manuscripts:
1) Manuscript copies give testimony to the earlier _existence_ of a 
document.
2) Manuscript copies give testimony to the _textform(s)_ in existence.
The _latter_ point is where textual criticism deals.

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.

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. 

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. 

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!!

> attention as it is the oldest evidence for the existence of this document.

As I indicated, _existence_ and _textform_ are not the same!
 
> existed before the 8th century- pure and simple.

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_.....

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:37:59 -0500 (EST)

On Sun, 6 Apr 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:

> 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. 
>

I group the above together since I must discuss my definition and use of
the word "Textform" as opposed to any other definitions which might be
otherwise utilized. 

As stated in the introduction to my edition of the Gk NT, I consider the
Byzantine to be the "Textform", i.e. the overarching autograph text, from
which all other "texttypes" are derived (e.g., Alexandrian, Western,
Caesarean).  So I make a very clear distinction between "Textform" (which
I _always_ capitalize) and "texttype" (which I _never_ capitalize).

Others on this list generally have not used the term "Textform"/"textform"
in a manner which differed from my own usage, so I did not mention the
point previously.  Mr Evensen in the above passages appears to use
"textform" as synonymous with "texttype", so this is why I offer the
clarification from my perspective. Of course anyone can define any term to
mean what they desire, but I wish it to be known that I _am_ making a
distinction in my use of the terms.

> we have it today in the later MSS. 

If I recall correctly, by extrapolation of estimated line length, number
of lines per page and other factors which can be calculated from the four
or so verse portions in that small fragment (Jn.18:31-33, 37-38), I
believe that someone calculated that P52 would not have contained the
woman in adultery passage, presuming that the gospel began at a proper
line 1 of page 1. I forget the source however; can anyone clarify?

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 22:27:11 -0700

> distinction in my use of the terms.

Yes, I used "textform" as synonymous with "texttype". This may be wrong 
and your definition of the terms may be completely justifiable. Thanks 
for the clarification!

> line 1 of page 1. I forget the source however; can anyone clarify?

My fault. I confused chapter 18 with chapter 8. Sorry. 
My point was that the fragment may have _at least_ contained the whole 
chapter of that part in which it is extant in that fragment, but that 
according to the "hard proof" theory the document (of which p52 is a 
fragment) did not necessarily contain much more than this one chapter, 
and therefore can´t be _proved_ to be (following Jim West´s "hard 
evidence" theory) a fragment originally belonging to a copy of the 
*complete* Gospel of John. This may, however, not be justifiable logic on 
my part.

> 
> _________________________________________________________________________> Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen