Subject: Re: the new TR

From: "David Large" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 00:40:58 -0400

>My point is that *the most influential factor* is the age of MSS! And that
leads to an 
>Alexandrian text priority theory (not the acceptance of *all* Alexandrian
readings or a 
>complete embracement of *all* the oldest MSS´ readings!).

Just a few comments regarding the above......

1) The age of mss. is an important factor, yes- but I would qualify that
statement. Most modern eclectic tcers have come to value, in general, older
mss. as over against newer mss. *not* simply because of their age, but
primarily because they contain readings, and patterns of readings, that
coincide with the older patristic manuscripts, and the older versional
evidence. Though comparing ante-nicene versional, patristic and manuscript
evidence does not automatically point to the text in any one particular
manuscript as necessarily original, such comparison does, at least to most
modern eclectics, tend to rule out the existence of the Byzantine text
(especially in its mature form as found in most 9th century, and later,
manuscripts) *as a texttype*. Most modern eclectic tcers hold our earliest
extant mss. in such high esteem because it is assumed that, 
	a) In general, older mss. are to be valued higher than newer because they
contain a text that has had less exposure to the corrupting influence of
time;
	b) They, as a generality, present types of text that, when compared to
ancient patristic and versional evidence, are significant and consistent
enough to be grouped and traced back to decades preceding those of our
oldest mss. In other words, our oldest mss. *also* preserve our earliest
texttypes;
	c) Generally speaking, they preserve distinct readings, and patterns of
readings, that are considered original (as compared to those same
variation-units as found in newer mss.), in the autograph sense, when
internal criteria are applied. In fact, special attention should be paid
regarding the critical fact that Hort came to value the Neutral texttype
primarily as a result of internal analysis, *not* the age of mss. It just
happens that his contention, for example, that B preserved an ancient type
of text has been confirmed by the discovery of p75. Some would call this
coincidence, others a remarkable judgement (Fee), but it should be
remembered that, since it is impossible at this time to reconstruct the
history of the text on the sole basis of the extant mss., internal criteria
must be applied, and- more often than not- when such criteria are applied,
the readings which are preferred by such analysis are found in the oldest
mss. in our possession; such is not true regarding the Byzantine text
(again, *as a texttype*).
To apply the above observations to your original statement- I would suggest
that the age of mss., by itself, would mean much less were it not for the
value placed upon the peculiar readings that are to be found exclusively in
them.

2) A high regard for our most ancient mss. does not *lead* to an
Alexandrian-priority hypothesis, per se. Such an hypothesis is merely
possible, and it is one among several. The modern (post-Hort) value
assigned to the Alexandrian text came as a result of its alleged superior
internal excellence. Ms. age, as a criterium, would naturally be
strengthened as a principal as more ancient mss. are found to contain a
similar text.

Well, that's my two cents anyway..... any corrections or clarifications are
welcome. 

David Large
[email-masked]

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 01:04:42 -0700

David Large wrote (in part):

> >My point is that *the most influential factor* is the age of MSS! 

*By itself* the age of MSS would clearly have been a somewhat weaker factor. But 
often MSS are valued after their age, and the readings they contain are *more 
easily* favored by TCers compared with readings in later MSS. I´m talking about the 
*tendency* in TC, not that the age factor is a hard and fast rule. For it isn´t.

> Ms. age, as a criterium, would naturally be

Your statement here seems to strenghten my point concerning the age factor.

> Well, that's my two cents anyway..... any corrections or clarifications are

David, thanks for your comments (also for those not quoted in this post). 

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen