Sat Apr 27 15:42:34 1996

From majordom  Sat Apr 27 15:42:34 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA01298; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 15:42:34 +0500
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 15:39:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Vulgate: (Was: Re: Byzantine text)
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 2575
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu



On Sat, 27 Apr 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> >In Acts:
> I have no disagreement with your statment in Acts. 

ok there.

> >In Matthew:
> I guess I should concede some ground here, too... the closest neighbours
> in my study, as in yours, were certain Old Latin witnesses... 

To some extent we agree here as well.

> As I look at your list, though, apart from the Latin witnesses,
> I can't help but think how Byzantine these witnesses are. 565 is
> called "Caesarean," but it's mostly Byzantine in Matthew. 

I am not prepared to concede this point, since I suspect we really have a 
Caesarean sub-type (at least) in all four gospels as well as in Acts, and 
565 is part of that sub-type.  Of course, since "Caesarean" is defined 
textually as a pattern of mixed Alexandrian and Byzantine readings, there 
certainly would be a large "Byzantine" element in any Caesarean witness.

> K and 1079
> are members of family Pi. W and Delta are Byzantine in Matthew. 

Whether Family Pi is Byz or another sub-type is of course open for debate.
W is predominantly Byz in Matthew, but I would not suggest the same for
Delta, which has a large Western element to it.  (I could also extract
statistics for those MSS as well, but all has to be done slowly from paper
and not from electronic form).

> So
> I think we actually found much the same results (allowing for the
> fact that you were studying Matthew and I was studying all four gospels).

Perhaps, but I would like to tabulate once more my own findings for the 
other gospels, and especially John, since I have a note regarding the 
specific textual differences between John and the Synoptics which now at 
20 years after the fact is uncertain as to its meaning for me.

> I also think the UBS editors should have cited more Byzantine witnesses.
> How are we supposed to work out anything just on the basis of K and Byz?

I really think "Byz" and "Lect" sufficiently serve to reflect the
Byzantine base in the UBS text.  The other minuscule witnesses cited
therein, though largely Byzantine, were specifically included because they
possessed a significant number of differences from the typical Byzantine
minuscules. Adding more purely Byzantine MSS would simply duplicate "Byz" 
and "Lect" with no significant differences.

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back