This article was reposted in two parts because it was too large as one.
Which Bible 4, Part 2
Tuesday, September 03, 2013
Cursives, Uncials, and Other Stuff
Since we cannot examine ancient manuscripts first hand,
there is very little reason to spend much time here. Cursives are manuscripts written in more or
less running writing, but somewhat different than Spencerian English
script. Uncials or majuscules are
manuscripts lettered in all block capitals or uppercase, as opposed to
minuscules which are generally lettered in all lowercase. Since these manuscripts are all lettered
manually the style of individual scribes, and teams of scribes plays an
important role in manuscript identification.
Surface materials, inks, and paints used are also subject to
visual examination; but chemical analysis, microscopy, x-ray, radio-dating, and
just about any other technology you can imagine can be used. Since nearly every material on earth has been
used as a writing surface: broken pottery and wet clay; velum, parchment, and
paper; plastic, metals, and wood; all kinds of cloth and carpet; cave walls and
mountain sides; dirt and sand; glass, granite, marble, precious gems, even
diamonds have all been used as writing surfaces. Writing materials are not limited to pencil
and ink: also included are paint, charcoal, scribing, cutting, etching,
hammering, slip, weaving, welding, air and water jet, stitching, stone
lithography, and now laser. Today, I am
writing with an electronic keyboard on a computer pixel display. Let your imagination run as wildly as possible;
you cannot think of a chemical element or compound that has not been used
somewhere in the development of writing.
Text criticism is the process of detailed and thorough
examination of each artifact from every possible angle. It is nothing less than the attempt to
mentally reverse the writing process, and trace it back to its physical
origin. Since the making of writing is
such a varied process, involving nearly every technology known to man,
reversing the process is every bit as complicated and diverse. Text critics may be drawn from the best
experts from nearly any field.
In addition the text critic must crack a foreign language,
master its idioms, and be able to detect the minutest details.
Text-types[1]
Alexandrian (Category I):[2] so called because of its development
and discovery in and around Alexandria, Egypt.
Alexandria, Egypt[3] is founded by and named
for Alexander the Great;[4] capital city of the
Ptolemaic Empire;[5]
easily the most prominent city in first century Egypt; and second only to Rome
in the entire Roman Empire. Being such a
seat of government, prominence, wealth, and culture, it developed all the best
education, libraries, and writing.
Alexandria had a large Jewish population. Such Greek speaking Jews needed Scripture
translated into a language they could understand. In terms of cultural resources, Alexandria
was a far better location for such work than Jerusalem was. Consequently, at least part of the Septuagint[6] translation is made there:
at least the Torah, and probably much more.
It is not inconceivable that the entire Old Testament, including the
Deuterocanon, is first translated there, although this is far from certain. The Alexandrian text-type is thought to have
originated and developed there. In both
Old and New Testament text criticism, the oldest known manuscripts are thought
to belong to the Alexandrian text-type; so the Alexandrian text-type is crucial
to both Old and New Testament text criticism.
A few of the more prominent Alexandrian manuscripts are:75
·
P52, P90,
P104 according to Aland’s classification
·
P46 (circa 200)
Paul’s Epistles
·
P66 (circa 200)
Gospels
·
P75 (201-300)
fragments of Luke & John
·
P72 (201-400) 1
& 2 Peter; Jude
Byzantine (Category V):[10] so called because of its development
and discovery in and around Byzantium,[11] or Constantinople,[12] and the Byzantine Empire.[13] Constantine the Great made it the new capital
city of the Roman Empire in 330 AD, shortly after his conversion to
Christianity. Before long Constantinople
reached a prominence rivaling that of Rome and Alexandria. While Constantinople thrives, Alexandria and
Rome are in decline. Being also such a
seat of government, prominence, wealth, and culture, it developed all the best
education, libraries, and writing. The
Byzantine text-type is thought to have originated and developed there. A few of the more prominent Alexandrian
manuscripts are:
·
P73
(401-500) Matthew 25:43; 26:2-3
·
P29 (201-300)
·
P45 (201-300)
Eclectic (Category III): refers to any manuscripts that Kurt
and Barbara Aland considered to have multiple sources (i.e. part Alexandrian
and part Western)
·
0212 (250)
·
P88 (350)
Egyptian (Category II): refers to any otherwise Alexandrian
manuscripts that Kurt and Barbara Aland considered to have alien influences.
·
P6 (350)
·
P8 (350)
·
P17 (350)
·
0185 (350)
Western (Category IV): so called because of its predominance
among Latin Christians. It is not
associated with any known academic center, although Rome would be the logical
possibility.
·
P48 (201-300)
fragment of Acts 23
·
P69 (201-300) fragment
of Luke 22
·
P37 (circa 300) fragment
of Matthew 26
·
P38 (circa 300)
fragment of Acts
·
0171 (301-400) fragments of
Matthew & Luke
·
א
Antiochian or Syrian: see Byzantine.
Notes on Text-Types
David C Parker71
“Commenting on the
text of the Greek New Testament, he said:
The text is
changing. Every time that I make an edition of the Greek New Testament, or
anybody does, we change the wording. We are maybe trying to get back to the
oldest possible form but, paradoxically, we are creating a new one. Every
translation is different, every reading is different, and although there’s been
a tradition in parts of Protestant Christianity to say there is a definitive
single form of the text, the fact is you can never find it. There is never ever
a final form of the text.
Regarding a
textual change in Codex Sinaiticus:
There is also a
fascinating place in the codex in the Sermon on the Mount where we can see a
change to the text altering the attitude to anger. Jesus says the person who is
angry with his brother deserves judgement. But there is a variation on that. If
you look at the page in Codex Sinaiticus you will see that somebody’s added a
little word in the margin in Greek which changes it to “the person who is angry
with his brother without good reason deserves judgement,” and there you’ve got
two very different views of Christian life.”
The classifications are less than exact. One critic assigns a manuscript to one type,
while another critic classifies the same manuscript to a different type. There is a regular practice of marginalizing
evidence that is offensive for one reason or another. Many manuscripts, especially the papyri are
too small to classify at all; few have a known or knowable history. This lack of size and history does not deter
the critic from making a classification where it is suitable, or declaring that
a manuscript cannot be classified where it is unsuitable. There are very few real text critics. The work is hard, technically rigorous, and
poorly funded.
Schools
Alexandria:[23] According to Jerome or
Eusebius, it was founded by St. Mark who appointed St. Justus (d. 129).[24] Reported deans are: Athenagoras (176),
Pantaenus (d. 200)[25] who allegedly adopted the
Greek alphabet in the Coptic script, Clement of Alexandria (150-216),[26] Origen (184-254)[27] who was expert in text
criticism and published his Hexapla,[28] Heraklas, (180-248),[29] Dionysius of Alexandria (190-264),[30] Theognostus (210-270),[31] Pierius (d. 309),[32] Pamphilus,[33] Peter (d. 311),[34] Didymus (c.313-c.398).[35] It was closed shortly after 451, possibly in
persecution of the Copts. Reported famous
students include: Gregory Thaumaturgus (213-270),[36] Rufinus, Basil (229-379),[37] Gregory Nanzianzen
(329-390) or possibly his father,[38] and Jerome.[39]
Antioch:[40] Antioch[41] is one of the five
ancient patriarchates,[42] or the Pentarchy: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch,
and Jerusalem.[43] Little is known of the school (270-450). Reported leaders and students include:
Paul of Samosata (200-275),[44] Lucian of Antioch
(240-312) who is proposed as the author of a critical recension of the text of
the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament,[45] Diodorus of Tarsus (d.
390),[46] John Chrysostom (347-407),[47] Theodore of Mopsuestia
(350-428),[48] Nestorius
(386-450),[49]
and Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-457).[50]
We hoped that this search of ancient schools would uncover
historical connections to texts, and text criticism. It bore little fruit.
We expected that the school at Alexandria would have had a
significant influence on the development and preservation of the Alexandrian
text-type. The hypothesis concerning
Pantaenus and the adopting of the Greek alphabet in the Coptic script is a
solid clue that could help with identifying writing styles. Origen’s work is commonly known, but it does
not seem related to the subject at hand.
We hoped that the school at Antioch would disclose some of
the history of development for the Byzantine text-type. The theory concerning Lucian lacks
substantiation.
Still, if the history of textual development is to be known,
it must be gleaned from the writings of the Church Fathers. Here we are totally dependent on specialists
in Patristics, and eagerly await any new findings.[51] For example:
“Fee, recognized as one of the leading patristic authorities today,
wrote: ‘Over the past eight years I have been collecting the Greek patristic
evidence for Luke and John for the International Greek New Testament Project. In all of this material I have found one
invariable a good critical edition of a father's text, or the discovery of
early MSS, always moves the father’s text of the NT away from the TR and closer
to the text of our modern critical editions.’ ”1
The Crux of the Problem
I have always adhered to the priority of the Byzantine
text-type,87 of which the Majority Text and the Textus
Receptus are two variations. I have also
followed my mentors Hodges and Farstad in embracing the Majority Text position.62 This
is the text supported by most Orthodox Christians, as well as many conservative
western Christians. I believe it is fair
to say that the majority of scholars have consistently adhered to the
Alexandrian text-type.
I have always adhered to the idea that hypotheses
unsupported by evidence, must necessarily fail.
We are grateful to St. Thomas for this idea: we want to see the nail
prints, and since Thomas pressed the point we are all the more confident in our
faith. Cheap arguments are
worthless. We believe that Christ would
have us follow Truth, He is the Truth, and Truth requires reality — solid
evidence.
Fee claims that there is very little Patristic support for
the Textus Receptus [or, therefore, for the Majority or Byzantine text
either]. Wallace claims that there is
absolutely no evidence for a Byzantine, Majority, or Textus Receptus prior to
the fifth century (401).[52] We have searched for evidence to the
contrary, and found none. It is not that
evidence for the Majority Text prior to 401 is rare or sparse; it is totally
absent.
The Majority Text hypothesis stands or falls on the
existence of a majority of manuscripts; and the argument that, prior to 401,
climactic conditions and regular use, caused a more rapid deterioration of the
majority manuscripts. In this case we
would expect the existence and preservation of worn out fragments, but no
fragments exist at all.
We are reluctantly compelled to two conclusions.
One, the Majority Text hypothesis has failed for lack of
evidence. Baring the discovery of new
evidence, or the reinterpretation of old evidence, the Majority Text hypothesis
is wrong and will remain defeated forever.
Two, using the rules of the Majority Text hypothesis, the
true Majority Text must be the Alexandrian text, not the Byzantine.
Several questions remain.
Will a more thorough examination of the Patristic evidence
support Fee’s conclusion? If all we ever
examine are Alexandrian Fathers, we have begged the question, we have assumed
the conclusion. There are authorities
that disagree with Fee’s conclusion.
Will a more thorough examination of the papyri, and other
manuscripts support Wallace’s conclusion?
We believe that the classification and analysis of manuscripts is a
highly subjective process, prone to error, and lacking verification. Simply counting manuscripts to see who has
the most marbles is inadequate.
Almost all of the canons or rules of text criticism have
been called into question. Do we need to
reexamine the historic evidence with fresh minds and proposed new rules?
Since the Majority Text hypothesis has fallen, does that
obviate all similar approaches?
Since the Majority Text hypothesis has fallen, does the
Byzantine Text fall with it? Or are
there other compelling approaches?
A Mile Stone or Two or More
All is not lost.
“But the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send
in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your
remembrance, whatever I have said to you.”[53]
Our world has conformed many churches to its own
standards. Brothers and Sisters, these
things ought not to be. The job of The
Church is to be that instrument in the hands of Christ, by the power of the Holy
Ghost, and totally dependent on the grace of God the Father, that instrument,
which conforms our world to Christ. We
are failing in our assigned task. If we
ever needed to be revived from our complacency, today is that day. Shame on us, we have denied our Savior. Shame on us, our hands are drenched in the
blood of those who are perishing.[54] Shame on us, if we refuse to take this
seriously.
Yours in Christ,
Augie-Herb
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_New_Testament_manuscripts
— All authorities are neither consistent nor in agreement.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_text-type
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Alexandria
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_dynasty,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_Kingdom, http://www. livius.org/ps-pz/ptolemies/ptolemies.htm,
and http://books.google.com/books/about/A_History_of_the_Ptolemaic_ Empire.html?id=cLBhof4h2K4C
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus_Graecus_1209
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alexandrinus
[10] https://www.google.com/#q=byzantine+text-type
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantium
[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople
[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire
[14]
This could be an error in classification.
It is dubious that both text-types can claim the same document unless
the texts are mixed, the classification is in error, or the entire
classification system is fallacious.
Please note the duplicity in evaluation: when Alexandrian, the date is
circa 400; when Byzantine, the date is fifth century. These terms mean the same thing, but they
create the impression that Alexandrian is one hundred years older than
Byzantine. If Alexandrinus is
substantiated to contain both Alexandrian and Byzantine features the whole
debate over which family, which archetype may fall flat. If mixed, how did they become mixed at such
an early date? Again the debate over
text families is called into question.
[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Ephraemi_Rescriptus
— Bruce classifies C as Alexandrian, rather than Byzantine: p 185.
[16]
characterized by having (many) gaps, holes, lapses, or lacunae.
[17] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Washingtonianus
[18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Guelferbytanus_B
[19] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncial_061
[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarean_text-type
[21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarea_Philippi
[22] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bezae
[23] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechetical_School_of_Alexandria,
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Catechetical_School_ of_Alexandria, and http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/patrology/schoolofalex/I-Intro/chapter1.html
[24] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coptic_Orthodox_Popes_of_Alexandria#1st.E2.80.936th_centuries,
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Justus_of_Alexandria
[25] http://orthodoxwiki.org/Pantanaeus_of_Alexandria,
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantaenus
[26] http://orthodoxwiki.org/Clement_of_Alexandria
[27] http://orthodoxwiki.org/Origen
[28] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexapla,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07316a.htm, and http://orthodoxwiki.org/Hexapla
[29] http://orthodoxwiki.org/Heraklas_of_Alexandria,
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclas
[30] http://orthodoxwiki.org/Dionysius_of_Alexandria,
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_of_Alexandria
[31] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theognostus_of_Alexandria
[32] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierius
[33] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamphilus_of_Alexandria
[34] http://orthodoxwiki.org/Peter_of_Alexandria,
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_of_Alexandria
[35] http://orthodoxwiki.org/Didymus_the_Blind,
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didymus_the_Blind
[36] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Thaumaturgus
[37] http://orthodoxwiki.org/Basil_the_Great,
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_the_Great
[38] http://orthodoxwiki.org/Gregory_the_Theologian,
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Nazianzus
[39] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm, and http://orthodoxwiki.org/ Jerome
[40] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Antioch
[41] http://orthodoxwiki.org/Antioch
[42] http://orthodoxwiki.org/Patriarchate
[43] http://orthodoxwiki.org/Pentarchy
[44] http://orthodoxwiki.org/Paul_of_Samosata,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Samosata, and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11589a.htm
[45] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucian_of_Antioch,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09409a.htm, http://ccdl.
libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/ref/collection/cce/id/1218, and http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/10/orthodoxy-of-lucian-of-antioch.html
[46] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diodorus_of_Tarsus,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05008a.htm, and http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_against_diodore_01_text.htm
[47] http://orthodoxwiki.org/John_Chrysostom,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom, http://www.
newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm, and http://www.ccel.org/ccel/chrysostom
[48] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_of_Mopsuestia,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14571b.htm, and http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/theodore_of_mopsuestia_nicene_01_intro.htm
[49] http://orthodoxwiki.org/Nestorius,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorius, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Nestorianism, and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10755a.htm
[50] http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theodoret_of_Cyrrhus,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodoret, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ theodoret,
and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14574b.htm
[51] http://guides.library.yale.edu/content.php?pid=129512&sid=1127867,
http://libguides.stthomas.edu/content.php?pid=165489&sid=1550660, http://patristics.org/journal/submission-guidelines/,
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2008/2008-01-63.html, http://etd.nd.edu/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-12112009-152813/unrestricted/DonaldsonA122009_Vol_I.pdf,
http://www.ivpress.com/accs/, http://www.ivpress.com/series/acd/, and http://www.ivpress.com/series/acd-act/
[52]
See Wallace’s diagram on page 206: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-2/JETS_37-2_185-215_Wallace.pdf,
and Aland’s chart “Distribution of Greek manuscripts by century and category” at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_New_Testament_manuscripts.
[53]
John 14:26; see Luke 12:12; John 16:13.
[54]
Acts 20:26-31; 26:20
No comments:
Post a Comment