A natural consequence of this would have been the cross-comparison and subsequent correction of these local textforms once they could be compared to the faithful copies of the archetype which had been providentially preserved in the Syrian Churches - the very cradle of Christianity. Thus the archetype itself - the Textus Receptus - would then have been available on a major scale for correcting the various local texttypes.

This spontaneous "improvement" would have proceeded on a numerical and geographical scale far greater than ever before possible; nevertheless, it would have taken some period of time until the result would have fully manifested itself. Slowly yet inevitably, nearly all the manuscripts would tend toward a common and universally shared text. Still, some minor distinct readings would have remained yielding their own subgroups among the mss. This "universal text" would have been the only one which could closely approach the common archetype from which all the local text forms had originated. This scenario views this emergent "Byzantine" (Syrian) text as being almost exclusively that of the "non-church" variety described previously whereas the archetype which gave it life is of the "Church manuscript" - namely the autograph form itself.1 The present theory envisions many more "non-church" copies resulting from the above described process than those in the Syrian churches themselves. The increasing number of manuscripts would slowly have overcome the influence of "local" texts to eventually become the dominant text of the Greek-speaking world. This accounts for both the origin and dominance of Byzantine/Majority Textform as well as the fact that the Greek Church continues to use the Textus Receptus exclusively.

Allusion has been made within the body of this study that scribes are assumed by critics to tend to alter the text being copied into readings with which they are more familiar. Such harmonizing was not a major factor among Byzantine-era scribes as may be proven by comparing the extant N.T. documents themselves. Were this type of alteration widespread, how does one account for the numerous often obvious and sensitive places left completely unchanged. Citing from his own Ph.D. dissertation on the subject of scribal habits, Maurice Robinson states:

"Byzantine-era scribes as a whole were less inclined to gratuitously alter the text before them than simply to perform their given duty. It was the earlier scribes in some locales who, during the uncontrolled 'popular' era of persecution and the initial years of Imperial 'freedom,' felt more at liberty to deal with the text as they saw fit."2 This suggested transmissional history exposes the fallacy of the maxim "oldest is best". Again, it is not the age of the manuscript itself. The issue is the age and reliability of the text contained within the manuscript - that is the real substance of the matter. Robinson is correct when he reminds us that: "Most early manuscripts in existence today have been affected by the uncontrolled nature of textual transmission which prevailed in their local areas, as well as by the persecutions which came continually against the church. The whole matter of early copying practices is hypothetical, regardless of which textual theory one prefers. We know nothing beyond what can be deduced from what survives. In the early papyri, we may have only personal copies, and not those which were generally used by the churches

161


continued...