Wed May 1 14:52:10 1996

From majordom  Wed May  1 14:52:10 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA17540; Wed, 1 May 1996 14:52:10 +0500
Message-Id: <9605011847.AA15385@mail.uni-muenster.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 01 May 96 20:51:19 +0100
From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de(Ulrich Schmid)
Subject: Textual Theory
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
Content-Length: 6049
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

>Please note that this theory is ONLY for Paul; my work on other
> areas is incomplete.

I appreciate this statement very much, since, looking on so much statements in 
the discipline of tc, one is often confronted with results, though initially 
stemming only from one part of the NT (for example from the Gospels, or even 
just from Luke), but boldly extrapolated to the whole of NT textual 
transmission.

>The first step is to identify text-types. This is a complex
>matter which cannot be covered briefly; suffice it to say that
>it is based on a statistical technique based on 550 readings
>(for statistical purposes I would like to have more readings,
>but I just haven't been able to come up with them) and about 50
>manuscripts...

>Based on this, we find a large number of manuscript groupings,
>some of which (e.g. 330-451-2492) seem not to have been noticed
>before, and others (e.g. Soden's family 1319, which ought to
>be called family 2127) which have been inadequately classified.

The _Text und Textwert_ volumes from 1991 for the Pauline Epistles give the 
collation results of 798 MSS at 231 variation units. Do the results drawn 
therefrom with respect to MSS grouping differ significantly from the results 
drawn from the 50 MSS at 550 variation units (supposing that "550 readings" 
means 550 variation units)? The examples mentioned above could be easily found 
out, when consulting _Text und Textwert_. 

>There are, in Paul, FOUR manuscript families which give good
>evidence of being independent of, and in my view predating,
>the Byzantine text.

a.)The independence of the Byz. text of these four manuscript families is one 
thing. But, on what reasons do they _predate_ the Byz. text?
b.) What about the above mentioned MSS group (330-451-2492), and what about 
other MSS groups (for example 1505-2495-1611)? Are they not independent enough 
from the Byz. text? What makes the independent status of manuscript families? 

>Since we now have FOUR groups, rather than the two that come up
>so often in textual studies, we are usually able to proceed on
>a Majority basis. If a reading is found in all four groups, it
>is certain. If a reading is found in three, I will accept it
>unless there is VERY strong internal evidence. (Usually the only
>evidence I accept in this case is assimilation of parallels.)
>If the groups split evenly, then some other criterion must be
>resorted to. This is where internal evidence usually applies.

What about cases in which _the_ group readings may be uncertain, for the 
intra-group testimony is split? I assume internal evidence is applied here, too.

>However, I take a very limited view of internal canons of
>criticism. I maintain that there is ONLY ONE canon for internal
>evidence: "That reading is best which best explains the others."
>All other canons ("Prefer the harder reading," "prefer the shorter
>reading," etc.) are simply corollaries of this rule, and should
>be applied in this light. (This simple rule has other corollaries
>which are often forgotten, e.g., "Prefer the MIDDLE reading.")

This I appreciate very much: "That reading is best which best explains the 
others". But, why excluding the Byzantine text from this procedure? Sometimes 
the Byz. text gives readings which may help to explain other readings, and there 
is at least one instance within the Corpus Paulinum where the Byz. text gives a 
reading that best explains all readings and settles the case of the somehow 
scattered evidence of the four manuscript families mentioned above: The position 
of the doxology of Romans 16,25-27.

a.) Parts of the "Western" family omit the doxology: F (G) 629.
b.) Family 1739 is split: 1739 and 630 give the doxology after 16,23; 6, 424, 
and 1881 give the doxology after 14,23.
c) The (other) Alexandrian family is divided, too: B and Sahidic give the 
doxology after 16,23, whereas P 46 gives the doxology after 15,33.
d) The traditional Alexandrian family is split: aleph, C, Bohairic, 81, and 436 
give the doxology after 16,23; 1175 gives the doxology after 14,23; so does 1506 
but omitting chapter 16; A and 33 give the doxology after 14,23 _and_ after 
16,23. 

Arguing from internal evidence the position of the doxology after 14,23 clearly 
best explains all other readings, since it is most unlikely that it should have 
been inserted at that position, as long as it is found in other positions (i.e. 
after 15,33 or 16,23). On the other hand, the removal of the doxology away from 
14,23 seems most logical as long as chapters 15-16 follow.
Puzzling enough, no homogeneous family gives this reading that best explains the 
others (at best three members out of five, cf. family 1739). But, on the other 
hand, the Byz. text most homogeneously gives this reading.   

To conclude therefrom: In this peculiar instance, the Byzantine text as a 
distinct entity displays a state of the text which is earlier than most of the 
scattered evidence of the four manuscript families mentioned above. 

>Technically this is an eclectic method. But it is a very limited
>eclecticism; the only place where I REALLY have to be subjective
>are when
>1. The four text-types split into two groups, or
>2. The text-types split into FOUR groups, or
>3. The members of the various text-types are so divided that
>   the group reading cannot be determined. 

The above mentioned example from the Romans doxology might point to at least a 
fourth scenario concerning the subjective element (combining 2. and 3.):
4. The text-types split into FOUR groups, _and_ the members of the    various 
text-types are so divided that the group reading cannot    be determined.

To sum up: The limited eclectic method exposed looks quite impressive to my 
mind. Nevertheless, I suspect the subjective element involved is much greater 
than expected. I may also point to my above mentioned questions concerning the 
lateness of the Byzantine text and the singeling out of _only_ four manuscript 
families.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

Back