tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post4539558090771221113..comments2024-03-28T00:45:18.442+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Ulrich Schmid's questionP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-63051560952748022582007-08-23T14:59:00.000+01:002007-08-23T14:59:00.000+01:00pmh: Is 48 comments a record on ETC?Yours made it ...pmh: Is 48 comments a record on ETC?<BR/><BR/>Yours made it 49... :-) Now we have 50. Time to call a halt to this thread, methinks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-54186499839936508612007-08-23T13:20:00.000+01:002007-08-23T13:20:00.000+01:00Is 48 comments a record on ETC?Is 48 comments a record on ETC?Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-67376269829812433922007-08-22T16:22:00.000+01:002007-08-22T16:22:00.000+01:00jcb: I thought Jn 7:53-8:11 presented the most maj...jcb: I thought Jn 7:53-8:11 presented the most major Byzantine divisions within so short an amount of text that if the RP2005 text was not eclectic there, it certainly would not be anywhere else. Am I wrong in this assumption?<BR/><BR/>Not wrong, but I didn't want to leave the impression that a substantial Byzantine manuscript underpinning in the remainder of the NT somehow might be absent outside of that pericope.<BR/><BR/>As for all the questions regarding the textual streams and individual variants within the <I>Pericope Adultera,</I> I will abstain, since these clearly go beyond the intent of this thread (and besides, classes have resumed over here, so time for detailed discussion is at a premium).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-58368593662345165572007-08-22T08:37:00.000+01:002007-08-22T08:37:00.000+01:00Professor Robinson,I thought Jn 7:53-8:11 presente...Professor Robinson,<BR/><BR/>I thought Jn 7:53-8:11 presented the most major Byzantine divisions within so short an amount of text that if the RP2005 text was not eclectic there, it certainly would not be anywhere else. Am I wrong in this assumption?<BR/><BR/>I would also ask if you have presented evidence against the conclusions of Hodges and Farstad that m5, the group RP2005 seems to follow exclusively in the Pericope Adulterae, over against m6, "shows marks of revision," (HF1985, Intro, p. xxvi). One slight probability favoring m6 and the PA in general, according to the HF1985 editors, is the vocative GUNAI (Jn 8:10), which is absent from the m5 group and thus RP2005.<BR/><BR/>The HF1985 editors also remark concerning EPOREUQH (Jn 7:53) of m5 (and thus RP2005), "It is an obvious contextual harmonization with the same verb in 8:2 and was probably thought to improve the style" (xxvi).<BR/><BR/>Regarding EIPON (HF1985) and LEGOUSIN (RP2005) in Jn 8:4, the HF1985 editors state, "The present tense is then a contextual harmonization with the same tense of AGOUSI in the preceding verse, since AGOUSI and LEGOUSIN belong to the same sentence" (xxvii).<BR/><BR/>They further say that TAUTHN hEUROMEN (HF1985) in Jn 8:4 "has an overwhelming claim to originality," for the "scornful use of the demonstrative pronoun is a clear Johannine trait . . .," and that hAUTH hH GUNH KATELHFQH (RP2005) merely changed to an aorist the hAUTH hH GUNH KATEILHPTAI reading which "would easily be worked up from the GUNAIKA . . . KATEILHMMENHN of verse 3" (xxvii-xxviii).<BR/><BR/>There are 15 other places where they argue against the m5 (or RP2005) reading in the PA. Of course they did not have the advantage of your exhaustive collations, either.<BR/><BR/>It's been a long time since I read your "Preliminary Observations" paper, but I can't remember if you presented your intrinsic and transcriptional arguments for the readings of m5 (or its connected streams) in that paper. I'm currently overseas and don't have access to the paper, unfortunately.<BR/><BR/>Jonathan C. Borlandjonathanclarkborlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18431934145706816380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-49490878656901822762007-08-22T08:32:00.000+01:002007-08-22T08:32:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.jonathanclarkborlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18431934145706816380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-87169617573097782532007-08-22T04:48:00.000+01:002007-08-22T04:48:00.000+01:00jcb: Probably any reconstruction of the original t...jcb: Probably any reconstruction of the original text will not be present in the extant MS tradition, and thus the need for textual criticism in the first place.<BR/><BR/>While true, this once more strays from my main point regarding short-sequence portions of text with zero support and moves back into the somewhat fruitless discussion of the more extensive segments of text that (admittedly) will slowly lose support as individual MSS here and there happen to err or otherwise deviate.<BR/><BR/>jcb: I've looked at his text of Jn 7:53-8:11, and to my knowledge, he never departs from the K5 group of 250 or so MSS. I was actually seeking to show a place where even his text was not in any number of extant MSS over a few short verses.<BR/><BR/>Please extend the "experiment" to any portion of the R-P NT text, even where <I>Byz</I> is divided severely. The R-P text <I>as published</I> for any single verse throughout the NT, or even multiple verses in sequence in most of the NT will <I>always</I> have existing MS support behind such (reflecting quite naturally <I>some</I> sort of "Byzantine consensus", with varying levels of MS support). <BR/><BR/>>Is "transmissional" even a word? <BR/><BR/>I have used it continually. It had best be a "real" word. :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-51200994399093842952007-08-22T02:36:00.000+01:002007-08-22T02:36:00.000+01:00Probably any reconstruction of the original text w...Probably any reconstruction of the original text will not be present in the extant MS tradition, and thus the need for textual criticism in the first place.<BR/><BR/>Professor Robinson should be commended at least as being faithful to his own position. I've looked at his text of Jn 7:53-8:11, and to my knowledge, he never departs from the K5 group of 250 or so MSS. I was actually seeking to show a place where even his text was not in any number of extant MSS over a few short verses.<BR/><BR/>I think he should receive some commendation for being consistent in his own pessimistic view about the eclectic text, that it does not have a sound footing, as he puts it, in transmissional history. Is "transmissional" even a word? His text has the advantage of being very present in the MS tradition, even if its archetype was only created between ca. 250-350, although of course his position is that it goes back much further, even to the original text archetype itself.<BR/><BR/>Jonathan C. Borlandjonathanclarkborlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18431934145706816380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-54361898123283170382007-08-21T18:55:00.000+01:002007-08-21T18:55:00.000+01:00Ulrich: That's what it is about, and not about Wes...Ulrich: That's what it is about, and not about Western text or whether or not modern texts are artificial (re Epp) etc. <BR/><BR/>Obviously we see matters differently, Ulrich, and the situation thereby reduces down to a strightforward methodology within the framework of a given theory. What might not seem clear from your perspective might shine brightly from mine, and <I>vice versa.</I> <BR/><BR/>Rather than continue to spin wheels over what seems more a matter of semantics, I note what I also quoted in my preface from Parker (here abridged), from which anyone can draw their own proper conclusions:<BR/><BR/>"Textual critics, under the guise of reconstructing original texts, are really creating new ones....I do not mean that the texts we are creating are necessarily superior to earlier creations. It is more significant that they are the texts we <I>need</I> to create." (emphasis added).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-35217307101532416932007-08-21T17:27:00.000+01:002007-08-21T17:27:00.000+01:00Maurice Robinson:"Ulrich: But, if you cite with ap...Maurice Robinson:<BR/>"Ulrich: But, if you cite with approval (or without qualification), you run the risk of being associated with such positions.<BR/><BR/>Seriously, Ulrich....do you think anyone in the world (Heimerdinger included) would think that by my citation of her statement that somehow I agree with or am associated with her position regarding the Western text?"<BR/><BR/>Come on, Maurice, you divert. Nowhere in the context of your citation of Read-Heimerdinger nor in the point I was making concerning your citation, there is anything remotely connected to Jenny's "position redarding the Western text". Therefore, anyone associating you with this position would be way off the mark. <BR/><BR/>In the context you set up and the selection of text from Read-Heimerdinger you've presented, it's all and only about a "printed edition whose text does not esist in any extant manuscript and which is reconstituted by textual critics" (her words as cited in you edition). In this unnuanced version, the statement fires against all modern editions including The Byzantine Textform 2005, I'm afraid. You cannot have her sweeping and strong claim without it backfireing on you too. <BR/><BR/>That's what it is about, and not about Western text or whether or not modern texts are artificial (re Epp) etc. <BR/><BR/>Ulrich SchmidUlrich Schmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04599151189851613469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-34276721697067020732007-08-21T14:40:00.000+01:002007-08-21T14:40:00.000+01:00Ulrich: But, if you cite with approval (or without...Ulrich: But, if you cite with approval (or without qualification), you run the risk of being associated with such positions.<BR/><BR/>Seriously, Ulrich....do you think <I>anyone</I> in the world (Heimerdinger included) would think that by my citation of her statement that somehow I agree with or am associated with her position regarding the Western text? She simply reflects an illustration of the basic point I was making, and whether or not she deals with a text as a whole (which in fact I think she does -- with justification -- in relation to Acts), this does not change my stated position which reduces the focus to the short-sequence stretches in the current critical text that have <I>zero </I>support among the witness base.<BR/><BR/>Within this discussion I also cited Clark, "Today's Problems with the Critical Text," which basically makes the same claim as Heimerdinger some 40 years earlier. So also did I cite Epp, "The Eclectic Method -- Symptom or Solution," in which Epp comes down firmly on the "symptom" side, and raises the same point regarding artificiality of the current critical texts as something <I>not</I> optimal or even "good" in and of itself.<BR/><BR/>My position simply happens to agree in relation to their basic point, even though none of them might share my position or <I>vice versa</I>. Citation in this case is merely to demonstrate that others have seen similar problems in regard to the manner of construction and resultant text of NA27. <BR/><BR/>Either way, I hardly think anyone is going to assume that I happen to share the views of those I cite, or that those cited would at all accept my position. This is no different from what is done in any scholarly publication, as can easily be demonstrated.<BR/><BR/>Ulrich: Given the rhetorical context of your presentation how should readers come to think that you would not exempt your own product from Read-Heimerdinger's verdict?<BR/><BR/>I would hope by carefully reading the remainder of my Preface and Appendix....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-42209085317641528712007-08-21T09:56:00.000+01:002007-08-21T09:56:00.000+01:00Maurice Robinson:"I cite Heimerdinger on one side ...Maurice Robinson:<BR/>"I cite Heimerdinger on one side as well as David Parker on the other (not to mention numerous others, some in regard to their statements which could be used in support of my position, others to the contrary).<BR/><BR/>Obviously my textual position does not line up with either party, and it would be quite difficult to restrict my citations only to those who might concur with my position without exception."<BR/><BR/>You are, of course, free to cite whoever you want. But, if you cite with approval (or without qualification), you run the risk of being associated with such positions. Allow me to cite from the Preface to your "Byzantine Textform 2005" (v, note 7):<BR/><BR/>"Jenny Read Heimerdinger, The Bezan Text of Acts... states, 'The current editions of the Greek New Testament...[present] a hypothetical text that has been reconstructed by selecting variant readings from different MSS... There is no evidence whatsoever that the current text ever existed in the form in which it is edited' (51); thus, researches and search programs 'rely for their text on a printed edition whose text doe not exist in any extant manuscript and which is reconstructed by textual critics' (64n7)."<BR/><BR/>You delivered this as a blow against "modern eclectic patchworks", whereas in this sweeping and unconditioned way Read-Heimerdinger speaks out against every modern edition that does "not exist in any extant manuscript and which is reconstructed by textual critics", thus including your own RECONSTRUCTED Byzantine Textform that does not exist in any EXTANT manuscript (at least for the Catholic Epistles).<BR/><BR/>Given the rhetorical context of your presentation how should readers come to think that you would not exempt your own product from Read-Heimerdinger's verdict?<BR/><BR/>Ulrich SchmidUlrich Schmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04599151189851613469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-48679011936680695362007-08-21T03:20:00.000+01:002007-08-21T03:20:00.000+01:00Anonymous, I never claimed to know of anyone "who ...Anonymous, I never claimed to know of anyone "who support the claim with evidence (against Colwell) that p75 is not a strict copy of its exemplar."<BR/>I'm also certain that of all the people who have posted their thoughts here, mine are the thoughts in which any reader should be the least interested. But, for those who want to see what I did and did not say, my comments are still here to be checked. Reading what I wrote will be as enlightening as any repetition of it that I could make at this stage.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559055709208918638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-49628310393891195542007-08-21T03:14:00.000+01:002007-08-21T03:14:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559055709208918638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-20144935364743176552007-08-21T01:44:00.000+01:002007-08-21T01:44:00.000+01:00For the benefit of this list, perhaps Eric Rowe wi...For the benefit of this list, perhaps Eric Rowe will be kind enough to mention the "important published works of several important figures in NT TC" who support the claim with evidence (against Colwell) that p75 is not a strict copy of its exemplar.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-30247624938403026592007-08-20T18:16:00.000+01:002007-08-20T18:16:00.000+01:00Ulrich: my reading of Jenny Read-Reimerdinger's 20...Ulrich: my reading of Jenny Read-Reimerdinger's 2002 book on 'The Bezan Text od Acts' very much points in that direction too. The fact that you cited her in that respect with approval (I would guess so) in your edition made me wonder as to what your position actually is.<BR/><BR/>I cite Heimerdinger on one side as well as David Parker on the other (not to mention numerous others, some in regard to their statements which could be used in support of my position, others to the contrary). <BR/><BR/>Obviously my textual position does not line up with either party, and it would be quite difficult to restrict my citations only to those who might concur with my position without exception.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-79534645291865113582007-08-20T18:05:00.000+01:002007-08-20T18:05:00.000+01:00Regarding Rowe's proffered "theory of transmission...Regarding Rowe's proffered "theory of transmission history that could explain that", I believe the proffered theory has some severe flaws. <BR/><BR/>rowe: 1) Every extant MS has its own transmission history of multiple generations<BR/><BR/>Granted.<BR/><BR/>rowe: ...going back to the autograph.<BR/><BR/>Well, "ultimately" going back to the autograph; but that would hold for <I>all</I> MSS within <I>all </I> texttypes. But this claim does not appear to recognize recensional or other deliberate alteration as a source of non-autographic corruption, which I think is a very different matter than readings caused by scribal error (you do, however, include the <I>caveat</I> regarding the "intrusion into the tradition of major changes").<BR/><BR/>rowe: 2) Each time a book was copied a certain percentage of the characters in the exemplar differed from what was written in the new MS.<BR/><BR/>Certainly some errors would occur in the normal process of copying. But are you asserting that, once an error is made in one MS, that such would likely <I>never</I> be corrected? Your further <I>caveat</I> obviously recognizes such normally would <I>not</I> be the case. I previously have suggested that proofreading and correction <I>do</I> appear to represent a stabilizing factor in the general transmission of the NT text. <BR/><BR/>rowe: 3) In every instance of copying this mix of changes was totally unique and distributed across the MS in an essentially random way.<BR/><BR/>Again, this seems to claim too much: namely, that once the "mix" exists, recovery and restoration becomes impossible. The manuscript record does not appear to support such a hypothesis.<BR/><BR/>Even if (in your hypothetical example) there might occur some 5% level of change between copy and exemplar (which I think high in relation to any particular archetype, absent deliberate recensional or "editorial" alteration) -- on what <I>transmissional</I> grounds would such a MS then become likely to serve as the mother of all other descendants within that family or texttype, assuming such change to have occurred <I>subsequent</I> to the intial archetype? <BR/><BR/>Again, scribal familiarity with a given text, spurred on by at least semi-regular comparison and correction, would seem to preclude most later corruptions or alterations ever from gaining the ascendancy within the process of "normal" transmission. <BR/><BR/>rowe: comparing strings of 100 characters in a row for exact representation of the autograph (instead of a single character as above) <BR/><BR/>The analogy is incorrect, primarily because "the autograph" is the X-factor -- being unknown except by working with the existing manuscript, versional, and patristic data. TC has to work <I>backward</I> toward the autograph, and simply <I>cannot</I> work <I>forward</I> from that which remains to be established on text-critical grounds.<BR/><BR/>If instead one were "comparing strings of 100 characters in a row" with the intent of finding an "exact representation" of a likely <I>familial</I> or <I>texttypical</I> archetype, then the analogy would hold (and that is my point).<BR/><BR/>rowe: out of the entire 400,000 letters of the NT, even such unlikely 100-letter strings may well occur 100 times or so.<BR/><BR/>On the contrary, should one attempt to determine a <I>familial</I> or <I>texttypical</I> archetype on the basis of various 100-letter strings, it would be the rare case indeed where, e.g., a basic Alexandrian archetype would be <I>utterly indeterminable</I>, thereby forcing conjecture -- and of course the situation would be even less so as regards the Byzantine. <BR/><BR/>Again, the problem involves NA27 in its main text departing <I>totally</I> in such short segments of text from <I>all</I> actual MS continuity (regardless of single MS, texttype, family, or archetype), in favor of a putative "autograph" or "Ausgangstext" reading from which all other readings are then claimed to derive -- thereby asserting as a main text reading something that <I>cannot</I> be demonstrated ever to have existed within transmissional history. <BR/><BR/>It would seem that the best term for this phenomenon would be "sequential conjecture". <BR/><BR/>rowe: ...the first century or so of NT transmission was very fluid, with hardly any MS copies being made by scribes who even cared to produce something exactly like their exemplars.<BR/><BR/>I would suggest that this claim fails in part because it assumes (in opposition to Hort, who considered the scribes mostly "angels") that the first-century scribes were all or mostly "devils" -- bent on changing that which they were copying into something significantly different; remoulding the text into their own image, as it were. <BR/><BR/>I would rather suggest (and our earliest papyri tend to support such, as per Royse and others) that in general, most of these scribes were far more careful in their task than has been alleged -- even while some individual scribes in various locations may have been more or less "editorial" in their alterations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-29383176989916476822007-08-20T17:31:00.000+01:002007-08-20T17:31:00.000+01:00Anonymous. If Barbara Aland were in this discussio...Anonymous. If Barbara Aland were in this discussion I would ask her. But I asked you, since you had made the claim, and indicated that you had specific evidence (not just a reference to another expert). I have made no claims about my level of familiarity with the literature. Nor is it necessary. Nor did I present the view I was reciting as though it were my own--in fact I already said that it wasn't. But, since you are so familiar with the literature, you are well aware that I was presenting a concept that has been advocated in important published works of several important figures in NT TC, whose own familiarity with the status quaestionis need not be questioned.<BR/><BR/>All I was doing was presenting a theory of transmission that would account for an eclectic text containing verse-length text strings without any MS support, and that for no purpose other than to point out that such theories are fathomable.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559055709208918638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-9302565394893844132007-08-20T16:32:00.000+01:002007-08-20T16:32:00.000+01:00You can ask your question to Barbara Aland, who wr...You can ask your question to Barbara Aland, who writes, "There is an equally substantial number of manuscripts representing a 'strict' text, which transmit the text of an exemplar with meticulous care (e.g., p75) and depart from it only rarely" (Text, p. 64).<BR/><BR/>The study of scribal habits is a long-standing science, with which you apparently are either unfamiliar or the conclusions of which you reject outright. Currently I cannot tell which is true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-76298782991765880362007-08-20T16:27:00.000+01:002007-08-20T16:27:00.000+01:00Maurice Robinson:"Apparently the problem has been ...Maurice Robinson:<BR/>"Apparently the problem has been exacerbated by various posters elevating a contention that essentially deals with minor stretches of text into some claim that the issue involves the overall text of the NT or even a given book. If so, that is not nor has ever been my point."<BR/><BR/>Thanks, Maurice, that is very helpful. But it's not just posters that seem to have used such a claim in a global way, but my reading of Jenny Read-Reimerdinger's 2002 book on 'The Bezan Text od Acts' very much points in that direction too. The fact that you cited her in that respect with approval (I would guess so) in your edition made me wonder as to what your position actually is. <BR/><BR/>Ulrich SchmidUlrich Schmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04599151189851613469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-49090461099786047722007-08-20T16:08:00.000+01:002007-08-20T16:08:00.000+01:00"Every appearance is that P75 is a strict copy"A s..."Every appearance is that P75 is a strict copy"<BR/>A strict copy of what?<BR/>What evidence are you looking at when you say "every appearance"?<BR/>If we don't know anything about its exemplar and we don't have any other MSS of similar age that are like it textually, I don't see any way to make this claim.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559055709208918638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-74571407243900437702007-08-20T16:04:00.000+01:002007-08-20T16:04:00.000+01:00"If P75 doesn't represent a specimen of the earlie..."If P75 doesn't represent a specimen of the earliest documentary MS evidence still surviving, what does?"<BR/>See my last post.<BR/>P75 is full century later than the autographa.<BR/>Although we do have a handful of MSS from that range of the late second century or so, we don't have any from the period in question.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559055709208918638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-73420347671205718342007-08-20T16:01:00.000+01:002007-08-20T16:01:00.000+01:00If P75 doesn't represent a specimen of the earlies...If P75 doesn't represent a specimen of the earliest documentary MS evidence still surviving, what does? Every appearance is that P75 is a strict copy, and that B is also a strict copy in the same family line as P75. This shows that a strict copy process did exist, although obviously in the minority in Egypt, as early as our present documentary MS evidence allows, and also allows us to speculate that "stable" MSS as early as the 4th century and later may in fact be strict copies of strict copies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-35455053971600717852007-08-20T15:30:00.000+01:002007-08-20T15:30:00.000+01:00Neither P75 nor B would qualify as "the earliest t...Neither P75 nor B would qualify as "the earliest times". The time period that I have seen subjected to the most extreme pessimism is the period before Justin. P75 may date to only shortly later than that, and if it were corroborated by another MS of similar age, your point may stand. But B is not nearly as old.<BR/><BR/>Also, when you say "some copyists had it in their mind to make a strict copy," at issue is how many are "some". If the great majority of scribes prior to 175 or so did not have that goal (and I'm only speaking for the sake of argument), then it would have had a big impact on the reliability of our extant witnesses.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559055709208918638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-41359106834667160012007-08-20T14:57:00.000+01:002007-08-20T14:57:00.000+01:00Doesn't P75/B prove that from the earliest of time...Doesn't P75/B prove that from the earliest of times some copyists had it in their mind to make a strict copy? The Fathers and the rest of the Papyri generally show such rigid copying to have been in the minority, but nevertheless it did exist.<BR/><BR/>There must be a re-entry of genealogical thought into the field of NT textual criticism. One might say that it is still firmly present, that all texttypes are but older combinations and mixtures of the annihilated original text that we see exhibited in the early papyri.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, P75/B show that strict copying did take place in the earliest of times, and that older MSS, in this case B, may in fact be strict copies of texts far earlier than the supposed 4th century origin of the major texttypes. Pondering such a scenario gives real hope to the field of NT textual criticism, and should cause us to reconsider the value of genealogical processes in our field of study.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-41356922850734477982007-08-20T13:45:00.000+01:002007-08-20T13:45:00.000+01:00I'm afraid I am missing the point. Or perhaps I wa...I'm afraid I am missing the point. Or perhaps I was until your last two posts.<BR/><BR/>You asked, "under what theory of transmission can one reasonably or successfully account for merely a short portion of text utterly failing to retain some sort of "textual continuity" amid the massive number of Greek, versional, and patristic witnesses that exist for the NT -- witnesses that span the entire range of textual/transmissional history?"<BR/><BR/>A theory of transmission history that could explain that might be as follows:<BR/>1) Every extant MS has its own transmission history of multiple generations going back to the autograph.<BR/>2) Each time a book was copied a certain percentage of the characters in the exemplar differed from what was written in the new MS.<BR/>3) In every instance of copying this mix of changes was totally unique and distributed across the MS in an essentially random way.<BR/>4) If you take 2 MSS that are only 5 generations removed from an autograph, and even if the entire transmission history of both of these MSS involved copyists with 99% accuracy, then they would each differ from the autograph in about 5% of their total characters. And 5% of that proportion (i.e. 0.025%) will be points where both MSS differ in some way from the autograph. Thus, at those points the autograph will not be preserved in either.<BR/>5) Extending this concept over the entire MS tradition for the NT, the possibility of finding any single point (i.e. a single character) without any MS support at all would be virtually zero. But comparing strings of 100 characters in a row for exact representation of the autograph (instead of a single character as above) would increase the likelihood of no MS having the exact string. Given the great number of witnesses, such a string is unlikely at any given point. But out of the entire 400,000 letters of the NT, even such unlikely 100-letter strings may well occur 100 times or so.<BR/><BR/>This model is, of course, oversimplified. One major factor it ignores is the very important phenomenon of MSS being corrected. Allowing for that would further decrease the likelihood of any short strings from the autograph being without MS support. However, it also ignores other important factors, such as the intrusion into the tradition of major changes, which would increase the likelihood of such strings existing. Maybe more importantly, many text critics (not me--but I'm only speaking for the sake of argument anyway) believe the first century or so of NT transmission was very fluid, with hardly any MS copies being made by scribes who even cared to produce something exactly like their exemplars. Imagining such a scenario would vastly increase the likelihood of short character strings from the autograph being without any exact MS support.<BR/><BR/>I agree that we must consider theories of transmission. But I can't go so far as to say with you that I "can't fathom" one that would justify the phenomena you have identified in NA27. Particularly, for people who are pessimistic about early transmission, that phenomenon would be expected.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559055709208918638noreply@blogger.com