Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Comments on Wachtel: "Kinds of variants ..."
Wieland Willker wrote:
I agree in part. I don't think there was a "not thoughtful, Darwinistic" development. It was thoughtful.
K. Martin Heide wrote: > Additionally, Codex W has the majority text only in > part, Wachtel's stages-theory does not exclude > larger steps which might be processed by scribes > during the first decades of the 4th century etc. What I mean is that Wachtel seems to think that the Byz text developed without thoughtful recensions. His argument is that Byz variants also appear in other texttpes. But there the appearance is much more sporadic. I doubt that such accidental or casual variation can lead within one century to the full-fledged form represented e.g. in W (Mt, Mk 8-16). I am not sure but still think it more likely that SOME FORM OF RECENSION more likely explains the evidence in the Gospels. What exactly this recension was I am not sure, but for a Darvinistic development is not enough time IMHO. Of course one question is where to draw the line between thoughtful recension and accidental variation. Perhaps we will meet somewhere in the middle. Best wishes Wieland <><
Very interesting in this regard is what Tov says about the devlopments of variants at Qumran, that
literary compositions in the biblical environment (commentaries, Targumim, apocrypha, citations) served as a ressource
for acceptable variants.
During / after the changes allowed by Constantine,
new bibles were ordered and copied by thousands (cf. the letter of Const. to Eusebius), and a more smooth and readable,
user-friendly bible was produced for the spread of Christianity. Known variants which helped to understand the bible
(early church-father citations, commentaries, parallels in the gospels...) seem to have been allowed to a certain extent,
but controlled (not at random).
(Tov, “The Nature & Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts”, JSOT 31(1985), S.16ff)
Best wishes, MH