Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 08:34:26 -0500 (EST)

At 09:23 AM 4/16/97 -0700, you wrote:

>I'm curious, based on what you said, as to how you would respond to (not
>necessarily related exclusively to the Rom question): 
>
>(1) the idea held by many TC'ers that virtually all the changes in the text
>took place before about the third/forth century (I realize the
>"growth-theory"'ers don't hold this anymore, but rather seem to see the
>process as ongoing...I get the impression that you think the same
>thing...but how do you argue against the other position ?)?

I do think that texts were esentially "fixed" into types by the 300's.
Variations that are found after this time are simply mistakes or, on the
part of some scribes, intentional theological changes.  Further, I would
suggest that these theological changes came about in an effort to harmonize
the text with the councils of the Church.

>
>(2) the work of Colwell, Zuntz, and Aland's "Wild texts" in characterizing
>the early papyri scribes as copyists who made accidental errors mainly of
>ommission rather than being "editors" of the texts who added, clarified,
>harmonized, etc.
>
I think this too is correct.  The early scribes were not poisoned by
"doctrine" to the extent that the later scribes were..  After all, just
imagine the pressure placed on scribes to provide doctrinally correct texts
after the council of Nicea!
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
such "theologizing" pressure.  This seems to me to be a very important
concept in discussions of the "growth" of the text (and believe me, it did
grow!).

>It seems to me (a TC agnostic !) that 1 and 2 taken together partially
>underlie (though rarely if ever made explicit) the Byzantine priority
>position...I'm sure if I'm wrong here Maurice will tell me, but at least
>that has been my impression.
>

I think just the opposite is the case.  The Byzantine texts are not early;
and they are clearly dominated by theological "purity".

>Also, given your preference for the earliest reading, what's your reaction
>to the work of Comfort ??
>

I have not read his stuff.  Its on my to do list- but I simply, regrettably,
have not done so yet.
Why do you ask?  Does he say something similar to what I have been saying?

Jim

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

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

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 08:04:02 -0700

On Thu, 17 Apr 1997, Jim West <[email-masked]> wrote, in part:

[ ... ]

>From an outsider's viewpoint, Comfort's views are very similar to yours.
I've said before that he worships the papyri. It doesn't even matter
which papyrus -- it can be something as good as p75 or as bad as p45.

Frankly, I find Comfort difficult to read. His analysis of readings
seems always to come down to, "This is found in (some papyrus); it
should be considered original."

Your views seem to be a little more reasonable; at least you look at
other evidence. But there is a similarity, in that the date of the
witness seems to affect the assessment of its quality.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 14:58:36 -0700 (PDT)

> At 09:23 AM 4/16/97 -0700, you wrote:
[snip]
> the text with the councils of the Church.

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. 

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. 

> After all, just
[snip]
> "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.  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. 

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). 

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

---

From: Alan Repurk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 15:21:42 -0700

> Matthew Johnson

I remembered this archive from last year on the quotes from the Fathers who
said that  "One is good, the/my Father in the heavens."

<http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/archives/tc-list/tc-list.9606/100.html>

-lars

---

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 01:59:38 -0700 (PDT)

> <http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/archives/tc-list/tc-list.9606/100.html>

To which I reply:

Thank you, lars, for the very interesting information.  That archive IS 
enlightening.

But I noticed that all the Fathers mentioned by name in that posting are 
Ante-Nicene, whereas I asked specifically about early Nicene Fathers.  I 
also asked specifically about a difference in that text that spoils the
argument in which the text is cited.  The post in the archive lists none.

I will admit that the term I used in the post, "glaring 
differences between the text of the NT as quoted" may have mislead people
into thinking that my question was answered by the post you cite from the 
archive.  But the difference discussed, "there is none good but God", 
though a little embarassing for Nicene Christology, does not break any of 
the arguments of St. Basil, not even in the 'Western' versions advocated 
in that post.

Matthew Johnson

PS: as for the alleged "theological axe" in my sig file, please note that 
NA lists no significant variants for Ti 2:13, and "Saviour" is never 
anarthrous in that position  (i.e., between 'and' followed by the 
article and the posessive pronoun) in Paul's epistles.