Sat Apr 6 06:39:47 1996
From majordom Sat Apr 6 06:39:47 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA03296; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 06:39:47 +0500
Message-Id: <9604061137.AA23944@mail.uni-muenster.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 96 13:38:05 +0100
From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de
Subject: autographs and archetypes
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
Content-Length: 5697
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
On Fri, 5 Arr 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:
[first quoting Schmid:]
>>I just may give an example from Patristic literature, the
>>so-called 'Dialog des Adamantius PERI THS EIS QEON ORQHS PISTEWS'
>>(author unknown, composed between around 330 and 363 A.D.). The
>>text is
>>>conserved in 10 manuscripts stemming from 12th to 16th
>>centuries. They
>>all go back to one single heavily corrupted archetype including
>>corruptions of all sorts (nonsense readings, interchange of
>>leaves,
>>etc.). . . .
>>We know that the corruption goes back at least
>>to 40 to 70 years after the date of composition. Looking only at
>>the
>>textual transmission of the dialogue Rufin was in no different
>>situation with respect to this peculiar reading than we are
>>today. What
>>makes the difference is that we know the dialogue's source.
>This in itself is quite typical of the state of classical
>literature, and
>already begs for emendation. There is no parallel here to the NT
>situation. Ten MSS versus 5000+, along with versions and fathers,
>make a world of difference in regard to what praxis should be
>followed in relation to the NT data.
May be I should have stated the parallel more clearly. In New
Testament textual transmission there is only one manuscript which
is near the mark "40 to 70 years after the date of composition" of
the New Testament writing that it testifies to, the famous P52.
This manuscript consists in its actual state of less then a quarter
of a single papyrus sheet. On the other hand, the textual
transmission of the dialogue, allthough going back to 40 to 70
years after the date of composition, already contained a fair
number of textual corruptions. The restoration of the original
reading of at least one of these corruptions would have been
virtually impossible, if we did not have access to the dialogues's
source.
I mentioned this example only to illustrate the possibility of
scribal error creeping in textual transmissions at a very early
stage, and _not_ being removable within the textual transmission
itself.
Personally, I can not see what the constant appeal to the "wealth
of support" really meens, if _only_ to indicate that the sheer
amount of data involved can be seen as the greatest challange to
editorial enterprise ever to be found on this planet. Precisely
therefor, I would opt for extreme caution with respect to
conjectural emendation. I may refer to Hort's famous statement:
KNOWLEDGE OF DOCUMENTS SHOULD PRECEDE FINAL JUDGMENT UPON READINGS.
But, looking from a theoretical perspective on the amount of data,
there is nothing within this situation that can completely rule out
conjectural emendation.
To assess the "wealth of support" notion from a slightly different
angle I may refer to what Maurice Robinson wrote on Wed, 20 Mar
1996:
[first quoting Klaus Wachtel:]
>>What about the Byzantine omissions in 1Jn 2,23 and 3,1, then?
> Without going into a very extended discussion here, I would
> suggest that at the time of the switch from uncial to minuscule
> (9th-10th centuries) certain key MSS were selected as archetypes
> for the primary minuscule copies. In the case of 1John, the key
> MS which was selected apparently had omitted the clauses in
> question by homoioteleuton, and the later MSS which were copied
> therefrom followed suit in the omission.
> If the minuscule archetype were copied in sufficient quantity
> during the very initial period of minuscule distribution, the
> _omission_ of those two readings would dominate and (through the
> cross-correction process) would eliminate whatever vestiges
> remained of the longer reading which had previously dominated
> transmissional history before the radical change of script.
> I.e., the cross-comparison and correcting process would work
> normally, but the minuscule would form a new "archetype" which
> would dominate the tradition from that point...
> This does not invalidate the former hypothesis, but in fact
> confirms it, given that a "new" archetype situation has come into
> existence.
A "'new' archetype situation" in fact makes our work much
easier. Because, once an archetype, or hyparchetype situation is
settled the whole bulk of MSS belonging to that part of the
transmission can be subsumed under one, or at least very few MS(S).
MSS belonging to an archetype, or hyparchetype are by defintion no
independent witnesses. They usually only testify to the textual
transmission that started with the archetype, or hyparchetype. If
in the archetype, or hyparchetype corruption occured in some
instances then the bulk of dependent MSS normally would faithfully
render the corruption (especially homoioteleuton like stuff).
I am not particulary unhappy to get the opportunity with respect to
1John 2,23, and 3,1 to reduce the amount of data in the Catholic
Epistles due to the "'new' archetype situation", though I would
rather call it a new _hyparchetype_ situation. I may give the data
as follows (c.f. _Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen
Testaments, I. Die Katholischen Briefe, Bd.1: Das Material [ed. K. Aland],
DeGruyter: 1987_ l.c.)
a) In 1John 2,23 a total of 402 MSS give the homoioteleuton
corruption (= h.c.), whereas a total of 115 MSS lack the h.c.
b) In 1John 3,1 a total of 426 MSS give the h.c., whereas a total
of 78 MSS lack the h.c.
To conclude from these data I may state that around 75 per cent of
the MSS can be subsumed under just one, or only very few leading
MS(S). This reduces the amount of data tremendously, and we are
left with around 25 per cent of the MSS which is still a lot but
not threatening at all.
Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
Back