Subject: Re: Athanasius and the Text of the NT

From: Michael Holmes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 16:24:19 -0500 (CDT)

Both Brogan and Hurtado have commented on the question of "textual fluidity"
and the later date (than traditionally accepted) to which it continued.  In
this context, the recent work of Klaus Wachtel is worth noting and adding to
the discussion:

DER BYZANTINISCHE TEXT DER KATHOLISCHEN BRIEFE: EINE UNTERSUCHUNG ZUR
ENTSTEHUNG DER KOINE DES NEUEN TESTAMENTS. By Klaus Wachtel. Arbeiten zur
Neutestamentlichen Textforschung 24.  Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1995.
Pp. viii + 463; 1 folding chart, 4 inserted tables.  Cloth, DM 248, ISBN
3-11-014691-6.

His investigation of the origin and spread of the Byzantine text of the
Catholic epistles leads him to conclude: it is the result of a long process
(traces of which are evident already in the earliest period) of smoothing
and standardization, and reached its definitive form in the ninth century.
It is very unlikely that its origin is the result of a formal recension of
the fourth century; instead, one must reckon with a series of editorial
revisions (i.e., diorthosis) in every epoch. Such findings, he argues,
substantially relativize the idea of "text types," to the extent that they
are associated with recensional theories.

Mike Holmes
Bethel College

At 01:07 PM 4/23/97 +000, Hurtado wrote:
>Dr. Brogan wrote:
>
>> By "fluidity" I was hoping to challenge the commonly accepted
>> text-critical notion that *all* sensible variants in the NT text
>> were introduced in the 2nd-to-3rd centuries.  I want to push this
>> date into the late-4th or 5th centuries at least.  Significant
>> (theological) changes were still being made to the NT text during
>> this time.  I think the fluidity of canon and theology in the 4th
>> century contributed to this.  
>> 
>> Of course, there is always an element of "fluidity" in the
>> transmission of any text.  As both you and Maurice Robinson have
>> correctly pointed out, even the Byzantine text-type is never fully
>> fixed.  
>
>I'm interested to find you supporting a notion I have held for a 
>number of years (and recently mooted briefly in my Birmingham TC 
>conf. paper)--that textual variation continues robustly beyond the 
>2nd & 3rd cents.  Likewise, as I tend to see "text-types" as textual 
>traditions, having much to do with scribal tendencies, etc., and and 
>the evidence I'm acquainted with agrees, I'm inclined also to agree 
>that the Byzantine text-type is not "fully fixed", at least in the 
>Byzantine/early medieval period.
> 
>L. W. Hurtado