tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post7149298808966933464..comments2024-03-17T17:46:24.354+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: SBL GNT: Three Questions and RepliesP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-63605601607421279932010-11-27T15:31:10.245+00:002010-11-27T15:31:10.245+00:00Matt 5:13
I also think h.t. error may have contri...Matt 5:13<br /><br />I also think h.t. error <i>may</i> have contributed to the variation we see here, with the proposed original<br /><br />BLHQHNAI EXW KAI KATAPATEISQAI<br /><br />altered by h.t. error to<br /><br />BLHQHNAI EXW KATAPATEISQAI (h.t. KA...KA)<br /><br />and then corrected to<br /><br />BLHQEN EXW KATAPATEISQAI (Aleph B C f1 33 pc)<br /><br />Jonathan C. Borlandjonathancborlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03436966120291169954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-81553203384974110932010-11-23T23:24:14.878+00:002010-11-23T23:24:14.878+00:00I was talking about the most primitive error that ...I was talking about the most primitive error that gave rise to to the others, namely, the accidental omission of SEI EPI from RAPISEI EPI (PI...PI). I don't deny that of course there were various reconstructions and cross-contaminations after the primitive transcription error that affected primarily Alexandrian manuscripts.<br /><br />Jonathan C. Borlandjonathancborlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03436966120291169954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-32543809294137305212010-11-23T21:33:46.621+00:002010-11-23T21:33:46.621+00:00JB:
"RAPI THN was then corrected to RAPIZEI E...JB:<br />"RAPI THN was then corrected to RAPIZEI EIS in the Alexandrian archetype now preserved in Aleph B W."<br /><br />Sinaiticus reads RAPIZI EIS THN, corrected to RAPIZI EPI THN.<br /><br />Vaticanus and Washingtonius read RAPIZEI EIS THN. But B has SOU later in the verse, and Aleph and W don't. So you come across with more confidence in your reconstruction than I think is warranted.The White Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06732782601569135839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-87686548843410158972010-11-23T13:46:56.028+00:002010-11-23T13:46:56.028+00:00The remnants of a primitive h.t. error in the ance...The remnants of a primitive h.t. error in the ancestor of the Alexandrian archetype is preserved in Matt 5:39, where the original was:<br /><br />RAPISEI EPI THN<br /><br />Due to h.t. error (PI...PI) the nonsensical RAPI THN resulted.<br /><br />RAPI THN was then corrected to RAPIZEI EIS in the Alexandrian archetype now preserved in Aleph B W. Therefore this should be treated as a single variation unit and not two separate ones as now occurs in NA27.<br /><br />Jonathan C. Borlandjonathancborlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03436966120291169954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-72525198158289437342010-11-23T13:42:55.215+00:002010-11-23T13:42:55.215+00:00Thanks, Dr. Holmes; I had a sense that the 209-num...Thanks, Dr. Holmes; I had a sense that the 209-number was not the stat I'm looking for, but couldn't quite see why not. If only I had reconsulted your ETC entry of Oct. 26, where you listed the number of differences between SBLGNT and each edition cited in its apparatus: out of 6,928 variant-units, there are . . . <br /><br />"SBLGNT—WH: 6,049 agreements, 879 disagreements<br /><br />SBLGNT—Treg: 5,701 agreements, 1,227 disagreements<br /><br />SBLGNT—NIV: 6,312 agreements 616 disagreements<br /><br />SBLGNT—RP: 969 agreements 5,959 disagreements<br /><br />Also, the SBLGNT differs from NA27/UBS4 at 542 places, and thus the two will agree at 6386 places."<br /><br />So, returning to the question about how many readings are in SBLGNT that are not in Trg, WH, or Byz (but which are in either NIV, NA, or SBLGNT), maybe this will work:<br /><br />Out of 6,928 variant-units, in 337 cases (i.e., 879-542) SBLGNT agrees with NA while disagreeing with WH. Plus, there are 56 cases in which SBLGNT disagrees with NA and with WH. So is the answer 393?<br /><br />Is there a mathematician in the house?<br /><br />Yours in Christ,<br /><br />James Snapp, Jr.James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-82058498446470985062010-11-23T07:00:55.507+00:002010-11-23T07:00:55.507+00:00Dr. Robinson: Yes, its obvious you are not an ecle...Dr. Robinson: Yes, its obvious you are not an eclecticist. I can't imagine what Mr. Scrivener was thinking. - he has taken correction though, which is encouraging.<br /><br />----------------------<br />To reply to Bob Relyea, who said:<br /><br />"If these are truly alexandrian homoioteleuton and the verses present in the majority of manuscripts, then the comparison with RP would have shown them up. Clearly Mike Holmes gave RP readings a fair hearing, and that each of the 70 places you discuss would have been examined in detail." <br /><br />I doubt they got a fair hearing, or were even seriously considered as homoioteleuton, but Mike Holmes will have to defend that claim.<br /><br />On the same front, Mr. Scrivener has been a very busy beaver, and has produced some 50 reconstructed physical layouts that would easily generate those errors. These diagrams, using special fonts and typical letter and column layout make the features of each Variation Unit visible at a glance.<br /><br />He has chosen only the most probable cases to display, and the result is actually very plausible, even overwhelming. While the odd case might have alternate causes, it is hardly credible that these 50 cases would have homoioteleuton features yet have other origins. <br /><br /><a href="http://adultera.awardspace.com/AF/homoioteleuton_files/index.html" rel="nofollow">Homoio in Aleph/B</a> <br /><br />The diagrams are outstanding.<br /><br />peace<br />NazarooNazaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-8317936929684598702010-11-23T06:20:36.041+00:002010-11-23T06:20:36.041+00:00Thx Mike for the correction. I should have checked...Thx Mike for the correction. I should have checked it :) 12.6% is a rather significant step away from WH, but I think we all agree that WH still lingers in the background vis-a-vis RP.<br /><br />Let me throw in another thing I ponder sometimes. Were would "we" end up if the original authors wrote more than one version of their own text(s)? If the current textual streams are in some way mutated-by-the-scribes versions of the different revisions by the original authors of their own texts, which one (if any or all) would "we" call the original text? How would "we" know this?<br /><br />I know these questions too have been asked before, but the point is that if "we" need to ask them again, how much progress has really been made in NTTC and how far do "we" still have to go?<br /><br />Mike knows (and agrees with me) that in orthographical issues we still have a lot of work to do. But before we can get there, more fundamental issues still seem to linger...<br /><br />Timo<br /><br />P.S. I think SBLGNT is a much needed improvement over NATimo Flinknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-29013095373066184902010-11-23T03:16:11.048+00:002010-11-23T03:16:11.048+00:00A quick correction regarding the number of differe...A quick correction regarding the number of differences between the SBLGNT and the Westcott-Hort text: the difference is not 209, as suggested in an earlier post, but in fact 879 (see the Introduction to the edition, p. xii)--ca 12.6% of the total.Mike Holmeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01282608301480952555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-49458629424189297852010-11-23T02:40:46.839+00:002010-11-23T02:40:46.839+00:00Not that I am thrilled to have "made the news...Not that I am thrilled to have "made the news" (which particular "news" I normally don't read or interact with for reasons that should be obvious).... I do object to one statement cited via that link:<br /><br />"...acknowledged experts like Dr. Maurice Robinson are clearly Eclecticists"<br /><br />Most assuredly that is the one position that I do <i>not</i> hold and therefore do not accept such term being applied to my position.<br /><br />This was apparently due to the misunderstanding of what I stated respecting the order of inquiry when seeking to frame and establish a consistent methodological approach. <br /><br />The point is much the same as Westcott-Hort's <i>initial</i> and <i>preliminary</i> examination of readings on internal grounds <i>prior</i> to their establishment of particular external criteria that then becomes the basis for the establishment of the text <i>without</i> "eclecticism" <i>per se</i> playing a determinative role in the final result.<br /><br />Also, tell "Mr Scrivener" that there is no such word as "irregardless".maurice a robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06207682737855397058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-36902260278653275722010-11-23T02:10:21.304+00:002010-11-23T02:10:21.304+00:00You have all made the news:
Mr. Scrivener has quo...You have all made the news:<br /><br />Mr. Scrivener has quoted each of you in his own discussion of Eclecticism, here:<br /><br /><a href="http://adultera.awardspace.com/AG/Snapp-Eclecticism.html#r00e" rel="nofollow">Eclecticism</a>. If anyone wants to add anything to their positions, I'm told he will accomodate you.<br /><br />peace<br />NazarooNazaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-18386000241844616032010-11-23T00:43:09.448+00:002010-11-23T00:43:09.448+00:00Dr. Hurtado (see his recent blog posts)
has made...Dr. Hurtado (see his recent blog posts) <br /><br />has made an observation that demands serious consideration, whether one is looking for better methodology to handle existing materials, or simply better materials (i.e., more archaeological finds). <br /><br />He suggests that the future of NT TC really will be found in evidence and theories concerning the history of the text //before// 200 A.D., the critical period.<br /><br />This is the clear watershed and mystery-barrier where all the exciting things happened. It can only be penetrated by better methodology and more evidence. <br /><br />If the key to the NT text is in this critical period of development, then all things point farther and farther //away// from the W/H text, which after all is simply the developed and standardized 3rd century text. <br /><br />Its time we put that lame toy away, and focused not only on extant papyri evidence, which significantly differs from W/H, but also on finding more MSS from this period, as well as supporting and corroborating evidences such as the earliest NT writers.<br /><br />peace<br />NazarooNazaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-78615545490456204452010-11-22T23:04:58.742+00:002010-11-22T23:04:58.742+00:00This may be as good a place as any to bring up the...This may be as good a place as any to bring up the implications of Hikmat Kachouh's study of the Arabic gospels corpus on transmission theory. Having assumed a Byzantine recension at the end of the 4th century, Kachouh finds in the Arabic mss clear evidence for a gradual takeover by the Byzantine text, culminating about the 9th or 10th century in Southern Palestine and much later in Egypt, with some Coptic readings persisting in diglots into the 19th or 20th century.<br /><br />Since a great number of Arabic mss are dated by colophon, and the Islamic conquest permanently changed the Arabic language, Arabic mss can be dated with great precision as far back as the late 8th century. At that time, 'pre-Byzantine,' Diatessaronic, Old Syriac, and Caesarean readings dominate the Arabic corpus. Inasmuch as these oldest Arabic manuscripts are from a climate equally dry as Egypt's, it's interesting to see them exhibiting a quite independent text from any of the Eygptian papyri, yet much less Byzantine than the manuscripts which came to dominate in the 9th to 13th centuries, even in Egypt, and even to some extent in Coptic diglots (in which it was clear that the Arabic side had an independent history).<br /><br />Most Arabic versions had their source in Syriac, and a Peshitta vorlage dominates. But many readings can be traced back to Old Syriac, even in versions that were heavily edited toward the Peshitta. Only one version was corrected toward the Harklean, and that incompletely.<br /><br />Another interesting note is that some readings found only in a cross-section of ancient versions--but particularly Old Latin--are found in an Arabic ms from a strictly Greek vorlage, possibly indicating a common vorlage with readings now extinct in Greek (this has implications for the theory of an Eastern origin for 'Western' readings).<br /><br />One last contribution this study makes to textual transmission is the realization that many gospel books circulated independently, especially John. Furthermore, John was usually the least affected of the 4 gospels by correction toward a different vorlage.<br /><br />In conclusion, although the Arabic evidence fits a 4th-century existence of the Byzantine text in the dry climate of the Mideast, it shows it taking 400 years just to begin displacing older text-types, and another 400 years to more or less complete the process: definitely not in line with an Orthodox Recension Theory.<br /><br />Also, as a side note--there are two multilingual palimpsests with Arabic overlying, inter alia, Greek texts that don't appear to be Scripture--rather the opposite of how it usually works with palimpsests. They are Sin. Ar. 514 and Sin. Ar. N.F. 8/28.Daniel Bucknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-71813899908670498242010-11-22T20:38:27.894+00:002010-11-22T20:38:27.894+00:00Flink: I'm sure Dr Robinson would not say &quo...Flink: I'm sure Dr Robinson would not say "amen" to SBLGNT, at least in terms of the actual text.<br /><br />This is readily granted, since I neither would be in agreement with any other Greek NT text based upon reasoned or rigorous eclectic principles, nor with any text that would reflect essential texttypical difference. <br /><br />The fact is that I would concur far more in terms of theory, method, and transmissional considerations with anyone whose goal would be to argue a "pure Alexandrian" originality or "pure Western" originality, based upon a legitimate reconstruction of the presumed archetypes of either texttype, than with any current form of eclectic praxis (whether such archetypal reconstruction can be accomplished for minority texttypes is another matter entirely). <br /><br />As Clark and Epp both had noted (and with which I concur), eclecticism -- rigorous, reasoned, local-genealogical (= CBGM) or otherwise -- is at best a "holding action", still awaiting a valid replacement theory that will supplant current eclectic critical text methodology: one that is primarily externally based and historically sound, based on reasonable transmissional considerations. Aside from Byzantine-priority, no such theory seems as yet to exist (<i>pace</i> the claims of either Holmes or Zuntz).<br /><br />Flink: [We] end up with WH-lookalike....The text of 1881 and the text of 2010 are so close to each other despite all the manuscript findings of the 20th century<br /><br />This was in fact K. W. Clark's primary thrust some 40+ years ago in his "Today's Problems" article. Dr Flink in fact asks the <i>same</i> question as did Clark:<br /><br />Flink: Are "we" any closer to writing the history of transmission than "we" were a century ago?<br /><br />I would suggest that for those who practice within the various eclectic positions, the answer really has to be no.<br /><br />And by the way, though I did not mention it in my previous recuperation comment, my and Pierpont's original starting position before any theory or analysis was that of rigorous eclecticism, allowing <i>any</i> variant reading potentially to be correct, and evaluating all candidate readings on that initial basis. Only <i>later</i> did we develop in various stages what ultimately became the Byzantine-priority position.maurice a robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06207682737855397058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-23272962050578477112010-11-22T19:45:54.440+00:002010-11-22T19:45:54.440+00:00Thx, James.
Indeed it depends on the "we&quo...Thx, James.<br /><br />Indeed it depends on the "we" :) I'm sure Dr Robinson would not say "amen" to SBLGNT, at least in terms of the actual text.<br /><br />But it seems to me that the more things change the more they stay the same. It is as if WH is the default text "we" (whoever) are trying to improve and end up with WH-lookalike. My point is this. If the text of 1881 and the text of 2010 are so close to each other despite all the manuscript findings of the 20th century, would it be correct to say that almost all the readings are already known and whatever new manuscripts "we" find, they only add their support to the already known pool of variants. Seldom we find anything new.<br /><br />It seems to me that basically we have three streams of texts (Alexandrian, Syro-Latin, Byzantine) and this has not changed, even though more than a century of research has been conducted. Are "we" any closer to writing the history of transmission than "we" were a century ago?<br /><br />Something to ponder.<br /><br />Timo<br /><br />P.S. I did not include CBGM as it's still an ongoing project.Timo Flinknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-29080274444765816922010-11-22T18:40:12.931+00:002010-11-22T18:40:12.931+00:00Timo,
I'm still not sure I've got the num...Timo,<br /><br />I'm still not sure I've got the numbers right. But assuming that they do imply that 97% of the readings adopted in WH were also adopted in SBLGNT, I'd adjust the nomenclature: instead of saying that the text is 97% certain and we disagree for the remaining 3%, it would be better th say that 97% of the variants adopted in 1881 were adopted in 2010. The percentages of the text as a whole and the percentages of the variant-units won't be the same. <br /><br />Yours in Christ,<br /><br />James Snapp, Jr.James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-69176644160337465772010-11-22T17:44:43.337+00:002010-11-22T17:44:43.337+00:00Timo Fink:
"is our text 97% certain and we di...Timo Fink:<br />"is our text 97% certain and we disagree for the [other] 3%?"<br /><br />I guess it depends on what your definition of 'we' is. But it does appear that publication of the SBLGNT has slightly lowered the first number and raised the latter.Daniel Bucknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-63657780320444084602010-11-22T12:05:49.722+00:002010-11-22T12:05:49.722+00:00An interesting question arising from Snapp's c...An interesting question arising from Snapp's calculation would be this: is our text 97% certain and we disagree for the rest 3%?-) If this is yes, what would that say about the preservation of the NT text (the history of transmission) overall?Timo Flinknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-79338541864889647822010-11-22T04:19:43.778+00:002010-11-22T04:19:43.778+00:00Okay; I feel a little punchy from a long drive ear...Okay; I feel a little punchy from a long drive earlier today, but I wanted to kick around this question before bedtime: <br /><br />How many textual changes to the NT text have resulted from the discoveries and analyses made between 1881 and 2010?<br /><br />Here is the answer that I get, using SBLGNT as a standard for comparison:<br /><br />SBLGNT has 94 readings accepted by Trg or by RP which were not adopted by WH or by NA. And SBLGNT has 59 readings adopted in NA which were not accepted in WH. Plus SBLGNT has 56 special readings. <br /><br />So the changes between the 1881 WH text and the 2010 SBLGNT text = 94+59+56 = 209.<br /><br />And since the total number of variant-units involved = 6,928, this means that the changes between the 1881 WH text and the 2010 SBLGNT = 3.017% of the variant-units.<br /><br />There's a small adjustment to consider; on 10 occassions, SBLGNT disagrees with the NIV-base-text but agrees with NA27; I didn't check to see if all ten of these readings agree or disagree with WH, but they won't significantly change the results.<br /><br />Does this sound about right, or not?<br /><br />Yours in Christ,<br /><br />James Snapp, Jr.James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-7372622331408342612010-11-22T00:35:49.523+00:002010-11-22T00:35:49.523+00:00Dear Sirs,
I stand corrected and sorry to have ar...Dear Sirs,<br /><br />I stand corrected and sorry to have aroused Dr. Robinson from his recuperative stasis!<br /><br />Jonathan C. Borlandjonathancborlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03436966120291169954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-76160547210318745362010-11-21T22:56:34.978+00:002010-11-21T22:56:34.978+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.maurice a robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06207682737855397058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1239370878032304802010-11-21T22:55:08.202+00:002010-11-21T22:55:08.202+00:00Forcing me out of bypass recuperation (which is no...Forcing me out of bypass recuperation (which is no fun at all)....<br /><br />Borland: Has Dr. Robinson ever stated it quite this way?<br /><br />Holmes: He heartily affirmed both my analysis and the diagram as an accurate representation. Even earlier ...I asked Dr. Robinson whether there are, in his estimation, any instances where other textual traditions preserve an original reading that is not found in the Byzantine tradition. His answer was a clear "No."<br /><br />And in fact Dr Holmes is quite correct. There is a <i>caveat</i>, however, and that is that one should not confuse the <i>conclusion</i> and consequent <i>application</i> of the theory as developed with the initial inquries that led to the development of the theory itself.<br /><br />Just as Westcott and Hort should not be faulted for following strictly a methodology and application based on their theoretical inquiry that led to the development of a position favoring Aleph-B except where "western non-interpolations" occur, so also my Byzantine-priority position should not be misconstrued as having begun with an <i>a priori</i> assumption that the Byzantine reading was always correct. <br /><br />Once a further detailed study of transmissional considerations was added to the mix, I became ever more certain that Kenneth W. Clark's original suggestion to me was more likely correct than not; namely:<br /><br />That unless all texttypes can be shown to be later disparate developments stemming from a now-non-extant "original texttype", transmissional considerations strongly favor a single, reconstructable, <i>existing</i> textype as normative, so long as a reading of that texttype is overwhelmingly supported by its constituent witnesses (thus the principle does not apply when the primary Byzantine witnesses are seriously divided; but elsewhere, then yes, the term "impossible" would be appropriate, so long as all the preliminary exploration and inquiry is not turned into a mere unscholarly <i>a priori</i>). <br /><br />I do differ from one of Dr Holmes' statements, however: "this conviction deeply shapes his use of internal considerations." On the contrary, I continue to use and apply <i>all</i> relevant internal considerations to <i>all</i> readings within a variant unit, and teach my students to go and do likewise.maurice a robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06207682737855397058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-44767387124010821992010-11-21T00:01:29.993+00:002010-11-21T00:01:29.993+00:00Dear Dr. Holmes,
Thank you for recounting the occ...Dear Dr. Holmes,<br /><br />Thank you for recounting the occasion where Dr. Robinson said that in his estimation he did not think a Byzantine consensus reading was ever corrupt. But obviously, even under Hort's theoretical history of the text, the clearly Byzantine reading almost always has either 'Western' or Alexandrian support of one kind or another. This is one reason I think your statement needs clarification.<br /><br />As I'm sure you have done, I have read all of Dr. Robinson's publications and always find that he deals with textual issues in <i>probabilities</i> and <i>likelihoods</i>. For this reason I also found your claim that Dr. Robinson says that ". . . it is <b>impossible</b> [emphasis mine] for a reading supported only by 'Western' or Alexandrian witnesses (or a combination thereof) to be an original reading" to paint an impression of his view that is generally unacceptable in academic circles, especially if he has not specifically stated such in publication. (At least a footnote after such a statement would have been appreciated!)<br /><br />Of course Dr. Robinson may support your statement as is, but I am certain (from his publications and private conversations) that he would fully support your statement with the expression "not likely" in place of "impossible."<br /><br />Jonathan C. Borlandjonathancborlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03436966120291169954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-38754662838678661502010-11-19T14:24:51.714+00:002010-11-19T14:24:51.714+00:00Hello, Jonathan,
I probably first proposed this an...Hello, Jonathan,<br />I probably first proposed this analysis (and used the Powerpoint diagram) of Dr. Robinson's view of the textual history of the NT at a conference in 2005 at which he and I were the two main presenters. At that time, he heartily affirmed both my analysis and the diagram as an accurate representation. Even earlier, at the conference on textual criticism at SEBTS in 2001, I asked Dr. Robinson whether there are, in his estimation, any instances where other textual traditions preserve an original reading that is not found in the Byzantine tradition. His answer was a clear "No."<br />So, as far as I know, this was an accurate description of Dr. Robinson's position at the time I wrote it.Mike Holmeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01282608301480952555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-23336298717041805882010-11-19T10:08:07.923+00:002010-11-19T10:08:07.923+00:00Dr. Holmes,
Thanks for the link to your lucidly w...Dr. Holmes,<br /><br />Thanks for the link to your lucidly written 2006 SBL paper.<br /><br />You say:<br /><br />"Thus one‘s view of the history of the text is no less important than one‘s basic approach to methodology.<br /><br />"For example: Maurice Robinson works with the same toolbox of transcriptional and intrinsic considerations as virtually all the rest of us. Yet he has produced a quite different text. A fundamental reason for this different outcome from the use of the same set of tools is that he works with a much different conception of the history of the text. On his interpretation of the history of the text, it is impossible for a reading supported only by 'Western' or Alexandrian witnesses (or a combination thereof) to be an original reading, and this conviction deeply shapes his use of internal considerations."<br /><br />Has Dr. Robinson ever stated it quite this way? I have thought that he, just as Hort with regard to the Alexandrian manuscripts, has always allowed for the theoretical possibility that a purely Byzantine reading (rare as they are!) could be inauthentic or have the appearance of being inauthentic. It is in such cases, just as Hort held with regard to his favorite group of manuscripts, that we would do well to trust the type of text that we are morally certain has habitually preserved the original text on a sequential basis in the vast majority of other places. No doubt Dr. Robinson will chime in as soon as he is feeling better after recovering from quadruple-bypass heart surgery, but as one of his former graduate students <i>I think</i> he would probably word it more like this: It is certainly <i>possible</i> that a purely Byzantine reading is wrong, but <i>more probable</i> that it is right!<br /><br />Jonathan C. Borlandjonathancborlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03436966120291169954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-89693617096216880312010-11-19T07:25:29.853+00:002010-11-19T07:25:29.853+00:00Dear Mike:
You state in your 2006 paper:
"...Dear Mike: <br /><br />You state in your 2006 paper:<br /><br />"This idea of the tradition as a broad stream, with the surviving evidence representing only small scattered subportions of it, is, in my opinion, an extraordinarily fruitful aspect of Zuntz‘s historical reconstruction." <br /><br />If you still hold to this reasonable point of view, I invite you to look at our reconstruction of the stemma for John 7:53-8:11 here, which takes into account a more modern "stream-view" of the history of textual transmission, and allows for the paucity of early MS evidence. <br /><br /><a href="http://adultera.awardspace.com/RECON/RECON3.html#nav07" rel="nofollow">PA Stemma</a> <- - Click here.<br /><br />Of similar interest should be our identification of a significant "hole" in the MS evidence for centuries 6 to 11, discussed in our article here:<br /><br /><a href="http://adultera.awardspace.com/TEXT/missingMSS.html" rel="nofollow">The Missing MSS</a> < - - Click.<br /><br />We would be delighted to have your comments on these issues updated.<br /><br />peace<br />NazarooNazaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com