Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Comments on Wachtel: "Kinds of variants ..."

Expand Messages
  • K. Martin Heide
    Wieland Willker wrote: ... What I mean is that Wachtel seems to think that the Byz text developed without thoughtful recensions. His argument is that Byz
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 10, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Wieland Willker wrote:
      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
             <><
        
      I agree in part. I don't think there was a "not thoughtful, Darwinistic" development. It was thoughtful.
      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
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.