Subject: Re: Ro 1:16

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 13:05:42 -0400 (EDT)

At 11:38 AM 10/1/97 -0500, you wrote:

>"Overwhelming" external evidence? I can't agree. The word is found
>in Aleph A C D K L 33 81 1175 1739 1881 Byz a b d bo, but omitted by
>B G g Marcion Tertullian Ephraim. In other words, two text-types

Yes- two text types- one which tends to theological "purification" or to use
Bart's word, "corruption"; and another which seems to attend fairly
faithfully to the text received by the scribe.

>(the Alexandrian and the 1739 group) include it, one (Zuntz's proto-
>Alexandrian, witnessed by B sa) omits, and the "Western" type is
>split (D a b d vs. G g Tertullian). I'd say external evidence favours
>the word, but only very slightly.
>

I would agree with this, if only the last phrase (but only very slightly)
were omitted.

>I would agree that internal evidence probably favours it, but how
>does one decide what is "overwhelming" internal evidence?
>

The "tone" of the author in his writings.  (This, I suppose, is where TC
becomes more art than science).

>I personally consider this one a close call. I think the word
>belongs in the text, but I would be tempted to bracket it.
>

I would include it sans brackets.

>(BTW -- we're trusting Tertullian's text of Marcion here.
>We might want to think about *that* for a bit.)
>

True!

>>My question- does B follow Marcion regularly, or is this simply an anomaly?
>
>Regularly? No. (Remember, Marcion has many readings not found anywhere
>else.) But B has a very ancient text (not Alexandrian-mixed-with-"Western,"
>as too many handbooks still say, but independent and perhaps
>pre-Alexandrian). So, obviously, does Marcion -- at least at the points
>where he preserves that ancient text. The two therefore agree
>frequently -- though hardly constantly. I think, too, that serious
>consideration should be given to places where they agree. After all,
>Marcion has a text which is influenced by Roman and Asian types, and
>B is from Egypt. Agreements between the two are rarely the result
>of mixture.
>

Thanks for this.

>-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>                        Robert B. Waltz

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West

Adjunct Professor of Bible,
Quartz Hill School of Theology

[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:37:55 -0500 (CDT)

On Wed, 01 Oct 1997, Jim West <[email-masked]> wrote, quoting me:

I'm not sure this discussion is worth continuing, but since Jim West
is interpreting my words in ways I did not intend, I want to make *my*
views clear.

(BTW -- I'm not accusing him of twisting my words -- just treating
them in the light of out-of-date theory.)

>faithfully to the text received by the scribe.

I think we're referring to two different text-types here. You, as
best I can tell, are referring to the Alexandrian and "Western." I
am *not*; the two which unequivocally include PRWTON are the
Alexandrian text (Aleph A C 81 bo; 33 is Byzantine in Romans) and
the Family 1739 text (1739 6 630 1881). 

I did make one mis-statement; I should have said two *early* text-types
support the word. It has, of course, the support of a third text-type,
the Byzantine.

As for the "Western" type, please do not confuse the nature of the
"Western" type in Paul with that of Codex Bezae. Even among
so-called "Western" witnesses, Bezae is extreme. Whereas the "Western"
text of Paul, although clearly poorer than the other types, is
relatively close to the original text. 

>I would agree with this, if only the last phrase (but only very slightly)

I can't omit that. It's two good text-types (Alexandrian and 1739) against
one good text-type (B-sa), with the fourth text-type uncertain.

Most people, of course, consider 1739 to be Alexandrian. Zuntz placed
it with p46 and B. If either are right, though, the reading becomes
even *more* muddied -- one good text-type against another, with the
"Western" text split, or one good text-type and the others split.

I'll stand by my statement that the external evidence is not
strongly decisive.

>becomes more art than science).

That last parenthesis shows why I so dislike relying on internal
evidence.... :-)

I'll also mention a psychological point. I don't know about anyone
else, but I'm used to this phrase with PRWTON in place. "To the Jew
first and also to the Greek" is one of those phrases I remember
very well. I think we all have a tendency to "protect" readings
we are used to, and to interpret the internal evidence in their
favour. (I offer as evidence 1 Corinthians 13:3.) Something to
think about in assessing internal evidence....

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

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