tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3002022731959835411.post5565373381910870758..comments2023-04-22T08:20:20.747-07:00Comments on <i>homoioteleuton</i>: Dr. Maurice Robinson on homoeoteleuton in Aleph/BThe Deanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12124671837959121334noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3002022731959835411.post-7478658834724059332011-03-19T06:39:11.704-07:002011-03-19T06:39:11.704-07:00Hi Folks,
One basic point is puzzling to me.
Pr...Hi Folks,<br /><br />One basic point is puzzling to me. <br /><br />Professor Maurice Robinson, in my experience, has been much more in favor of accidental scribal faux pas as the basis for variants like John 1:18, and Mark 7:19 and others (he also had a fav example, which I do not remember offhand, generally they were small scribal changes rather than the omission-addition question. I would venture that 1 Timothy 3;16 would be another example). <br /><br />Some of these are variants that have even been doctrinal battlegrounds (making deliberate tampering more feasible).<br /><br />And we know textcrits like to engage in what James White calls "mind-reading", sometimes even taking opposite scribal tendency positions on the same textual evidence (a point made by Maurice Robinson as well).<br /><br />Note: an accidental initial error can lead to variants that are decided with doctrine in mind, so there are mixed case scenarios, an important point often bypassed.<br /><br />Now here, in this discussion .. Prof. Robinson seems to be taking the opposite position, and I am trying to understand if that is based on:<br /><br />a) the particular subset or <br /><br />b) a modification of position, or <br /><br />c) the fact that the response was done through a type of 2nd-hand manner, reporting his views by a somewhat hostile (to Nazaroo's studies) intermediary forum.<br /><br />It would be nice if Professor Robinson, a gentleman and a scholar, would engage in direct discussions on such questions, and not go through a board not known for forthrightness and clarity.<br /><br />Shalom,<br />Steven Avery<br />Queens, NYStevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04766486905391570486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3002022731959835411.post-47248488004060238112011-02-13T20:28:55.402-08:002011-02-13T20:28:55.402-08:00I like your scenario:
It seems plausible that lo...I like your scenario: <br /><br />It seems plausible that lower-ranked scribes would have a hard time questioning a suspicious master-text, especially if it had a reputation, for instance being a copy made by Origen or some other beloved 'star'.<br /><br />peace<br />NazarooNazaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3002022731959835411.post-87449782540844396432011-01-17T15:07:48.927-08:002011-01-17T15:07:48.927-08:00I'd like to address the question as to whether...I'd like to address the question as to whether or not a text that was known to be defective could have been used as an exemplar for the Alexandrian Uncials 01 and 03. The point to be addressed is something that could be called The Emperor's Clothes Syndrome. In the original story, men alleging themselves to be tailors are accepted as experts, thus their opinion is never questioned.<br />This happens a lot, especially in academia. People will refuse to believe evidence that is staring them in the face, all on account of an expert's ipse dixit. Thus, if Alexandria had a reputation for authoritative bishops, and these bishops were using a text that had been handed down to them from authoritative bishops of earlier ages, no one would dare question the authority of the text being handed down. If they then went on to notice that the text had a lot of minuses, they would be forced to conclude that these omissions had been the result of deliberate and authoritative action some time in the past. Thus the omissions would continue to perpetuate themselves, despite the evidence, until someone finally had the courage (or naivety) to point out that the Emperor was naked.The White Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06732782601569135839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3002022731959835411.post-28497016323394330752011-01-17T10:13:07.203-08:002011-01-17T10:13:07.203-08:00I wanted to respond to one point made there regard...I wanted to respond to one point made there regarding the question of the number of accidental vs. deliberate (theological) changes supposed to have been made in the Alexandrian text.<br /><br />(Dr. Robinson claimed that most of the omissions, both h.t. and non-h.t. under question were deliberate edits, rather than accidents, as a counter-claim to Nazaroo's count. So the homoeoteleuton features were mere coincidences in some large or at least significant number of cases.)<br /><br />Here is a quote from Everett Harrison, (1971):<br /><br /> "Re: Doctrinal Alterations: There is considerable divergence of opinion on this matter. Are there places where the text has been changed in the interest of doctrinal viewpoint? E.C. Colwell goes so far as to say, "The majority of the variant readings in the NT were created for theological or dogmatic reasons." He surely cannot mean by this the actual majority, for the vast majority are devoid of all theological significance, being matters of orthography, synonyms, easily confused words, etc. A recent work by C.S.C. Williams, Alterations to the Text of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (1951), deals with this problem. Even if all his contentions are admitted, the amount of such alteration is not great."<br /><br /> - E.F. Harrison, Introduction to the NT,(Eerdmans, 1971) p.86.<br /><br /><br /> Harrison is doubtless right about Colwell's sloppy claim here. Most variants are indeed accidental or at least grammatical, not deliberate theological edits at all.<br /><br />The question that remains is, what about the specific 200 omissions in the WH text? Are the majority of those accidental or deliberate?<br /><br />If 40% of them have homoeoteleuton features, then 60% don't. But that doesn't mean that the majority of non-h.t. omissions are deliberate.<br /><br />I have shown some serious evidence that exposes the patterns of line-length, which is spread across both groups of readings (ht. and non ht.).<br /><br />Colwell himself showed that (significant) singular readings are mostly accidental haplography omissions across all early MSS. But there is no reason not to extend such results to non-singular readings, since these are often simply errors that were not caught until they were copied for a few generations and proliferated.<br /><br />We should apply what we know about immediate scribal habits (1st generation errors) to more distant variants (2nd/3rd generation errors). There is no good reason not to assume that the immediate predecessors of extant scribal work did not have the very same common faults.<br /><br />mr.scrivenermr.scrivenerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10295661257329405324noreply@blogger.com