Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message
news:<cDjNb.251$x75.217281655@news.nnrp.ca>...

:> Rick <warpedabit@aol.com.net.org> wrote:
:> : Yuri wrote:

:> :> When I say that, in the earliest period, the text of the gospels was
:> :> still very fluid, I'm merely stating the majority view among textual
:> :> critics. This view is based on much solid evidence.

: Interesting. Should we not want to see this comment tied down before
: we agreed with it, tho. I think most people would suppose -- as you
: do later -- that it means that the content of the gospels varied a
: lot.

Not necessarily only this, Roger.

: This is untrue. That there were some fairly wild text forms in
: existence is true -- but we're only talking about the minutiae of
: textual criticism.

No, we're not talking about the minutiae of textual criticism. In fact,
this is one of the central issues in textual criticism.

: I think about it like this. People really use texts in two ways --
: either to see what they say (historians do this), or to reconstruct
: the exact words of the author and remove scribal and other corruptions
: (text critics do this).

But I use texts in both of these ways.

: It's like looking through a window-pane, or
: looking at it for bubbles. Both are worthwhile, but the latter does
: not interfere as a rule with the former. Consider that most medieval
: texts do not have a critical edition. Do we really suppose that we
: are therefore uncertain of what the authors had to say? (I know that
: there is an extreme fringe in which this is indeed the case, but let's
: get our main lines of communication open here. There are always
: exceptions to everything).

: To me, the idea of textual fluidity only means that the early mss --
: all papyri -- do not fit neatly into 4th century families.

Correct.

: This is
: unsurprising, since papyri nearly always have wild texts for most
: texts -- they're carelessly copied, and belong to twigs of the tree of
: transmission, not to the stem.

Perhaps so.

: But we do not prefer the papyri to the
: 4th century codices for precisely this reason.

Or for other reasons.

: To infer from these
: random survivals that the text was wild everywhere seems to me a bit
: of a leap!

But I'm not doing this...

: In short, I would regard the observation as trite rather
: than as Rick seems to think, important.

: Incidentally Yuri ... Nice to see you supporting the scholarly
: consensus. (not something I get the chance to say to you every day!)
: :)

Well, it feels a bit strange. :)

:> All early MSS show a lot of variability.

: If the statement is that the content was uncertain -- which your
: example below suggests you mean, then I think I must disagree. If the
: statement means that mss have variants, I agree but don't see why this
: general statement is made only of the gospel mss.

Variability = uncertain content, at least to some extent. Sorry, but it
can't be otherwise.

Gospel mss were living texts. They changed as the official Catholic
doctrine changed. This cannot be said about Cicero, for example.

: Sorry Yuri, but I'm not sure I understand you.

Please read my webpage then, where these issues are explained more fully.

:> : then your thesis on a sound methodology for examining the data, and
:> : then the conclusion(s) that the examination of the data leads you to.

:> : (I sincerely hope the solid evidence doesn't turn out to be phantom
:> : documents and jumping to conclusions based upon assumptions - but you
:> : have the benefit of my doubt).
:>
:> Let's look at it this way. Anyway you look at them, the 3 Synoptic gospels
:> show some clear literary relationships among them. They are all
:> interrelated documents.
:>
:> But when we compare the stories in Mk and in Mt, for example, we find that
:> the same story is often told in radically different ways.
:>
:> For instance, in Mk 5:1ff, Jesus heals one Gerasene demoniac, but in Mt
:> 8:28ff, he heals two Gadarene demoniacs.
:>
:> So how's this for a variability in the earliest texts?

: Surely this has nothing to do with text criticism?

Wrong. In NT textual criticism, it's well known that the textual
transmission of Synoptic gospels was often influenced by the parallel
passages in the other Synoptic gospels.

: This example is of
: variations in narrative between *different texts*, not variations in
: the manuscripts of a given text.

But the two issues are often closely related.

: Yes, I know that there is evidence
: of literary relationship, but this is a different subject.

: Or are we hopelessly at cross-purposes?

No, you just don't seem to be very familiar with NT textual criticism.