Thu May 2 15:15:16 1996
From majordom Thu May 2 15:15:16 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA23579; Thu, 2 May 1996 15:15:16 +0500
Message-Id: <9605021910.AA24255@mail.uni-muenster.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 02 May 96 21:14:22 +0100
From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de(Ulrich Schmid)
Subject: Re: Textual Theory
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
Content-Length: 9185
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
On Wed, 1 May 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>What cannot be found from _Text und Textwert_ is the mixed >manuscripts.
>Take, for example, 6. Its closest relative, in my sample, is L, >with
>69% agreement. The figures for other Byzantine manuscripts are >similar.
>By contrast, 6 agrees with 1739 only 64% of the time.
>I don't have _Text und Textwert_ in front of me, but if those >figures
>are representative, then T&T would show literally HUNDREDS of >manuscripts
>as being closer to 6 than is 1739.
Since I have _Text und Textwert_ in front of me, I may give the statistics
therefrom concerning 6 related to 1739. I may point out that in these statistics
only the units of variation were counted where 6 departs from the Majority text
-safe for those instances where the Majority text is judged to be original (1/2
readings in Aland's terminology)-, _and_ displays no singular reading (these
statiscis are easily found in the _Hauptliste_, concluding each presentation of
the data of the different epistles):
Romans - 86% agreement, with two MSS closer to 6 than 1739.
1.Cor - 97% agreement, no MS closer to 6.
2.Cor - lower than 70%, not in the list.
Gal - 78% agreement, no MS closer to 6 .
Eph - 82% agreement, 1739 is the colsest non fragmentary MSS to 6.
Phil - 100% agreem., 1739 is the closest non fragmentary MS to 6.
Col - 50% agreement, with 12 MSS closer to 6.
1.2.Thess - 80% agreement, with 6 other MSS closest to 6.
Pastorals + Philemon - 90% agreement, no MS closer to 6.
Hebrews - 90% agreement, with one MS closer to 6.
Safe for 2.Cor and Col the overall picture is clear: NO OTHER MS is closer to 6
than 1739.
>So 6 is a weak member of family 1739 -- and this is not evident >from _Text und
Textwert_.
Well, the statistics given above tell a different story. One should better check
the tools, before criticizing them.
Robert b. Waltz further wrote:
[quoting Schmid:]
>>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?
>Whether I can prove they predate the Byzantine text, of course, >depends on
what date you assign the Byzantine text.
>If you accept the Byzantine text as being fourth century, then the
>four groups I mentioned can be shown to be earlier. The early date
>of the p46-B group follows from the fact that p46 is third century
>or earlier...
No comment on that for the moment. I only wanted to know, if there is other
reasoning involved, apart from the classical argument from the age of the
witnesses. (Assessing this point seems to be Maurice's job).
[again quoting Schmid:]
>>This I appreciate very much: "That reading is best which best >>explains the
others". But, why excluding the Byzantine text from >>this procedure?
>Who said I omitted the Byzantine text from this procedure?
Nobody said that explicitely. I was just assuming this, when following Bob's
line of argument.
>I will admit that I may miss something in analysing it. But in
>analysing which reading best explains the others, I try to take
>ALL text-types into account.
Well, I just missed this, my fault. Thank you for clarification.
Robert B. Waltz further wrote:
[omitting Schmid's long quotation on the evidence concerning the place of the
doxology:]
>I can't agree with your assessment of the internal evidence. It >omits at least
one point: Marcion's editorial work on the epistle. >I think the
>possibility must at least be considered that the variation in the >placement of
the doxology is the result of Marcion's using a >shorter form of Romans.
>We must also consider the possibility that Marcion _wrote_ the >doxology.
Well, "Marcion's editorial work on the epistle" often serves as _deus ex
machina_. Especially with respect to the ending of Romans Marcion is either held
responsible for omitting chapters 15-16, or for writing the doxology. But this
is mostly due to not being acquainted with the evidence. In my recent post I
refrained from taking Marcion's testimony into account, simply because I wished
to know how Bob handles the problem.
The undisputed evidence concerning Marcion's shorter form of Romans is the
following:
a.) Origen testifies that the Marcionite letter to the Romans lacked chapters
15-16, _and_ the doxology.
b.) Tertullian testifies that the Marcionite letter to the Romans was heavily
mutilated (lacking at least parts of Rom 2 and most of Rom 9-11).
c.) There is additional evidence within the Old Latin prologue tradition and the
Old Latin capitula systems that a shorter form of Romans (lacking chapters
15-16, but including the doxology) circulated even outside the Marcionite
tradition.
To conclude therefrom:
a.) It seems most unlikely that Marcion added the dogology to the shorter form
of Romans, since the Marcionite edition(s) of the 3rd century lacked the
doxology too (cf. Origen).
b.) It seems also most unlikely that Marcion _created_ the shorter form of
Romans (lacking chapter 15-16), because there is evidence of this form of Romans
outside Marcionite circles, but there is NO evidence of the secure Marcionite
omissions (parts of Romans 2 and most of Romans 9-11) outside Marcionite
circles.
c.) The only logical conclusion to me is to assume that there once must have
been a pre-Marcionite edition of Romans (most likely being part of a
pre-Marcionite edition of a 10 letter Corpus) that lacked chapters 15-16
(presumably due to mechanical corruption). Due to the abrupt ending of Romans
after 14,23 the concluding doxology was added and so became part of the
tradition.
d.) The resulting variation of the postion of the doxology within the NT textual
transmission can be easily explained by assuming cross contamination between the
longer form of Romans 1,1-16,24 _lacking_ the doxology and the shorter form
1,1-14,23 _including_ the doxology.
I now may return to Bob's referrence to Marcion. The "possibility that Marcion
_wrote_ the doxology" is theoretically and practically ruled out -remember
Origen's testimony in conjunction with Occam's razor. The consideration "that
the variation in the placement of the doxology is the result of Marcion's using
a shorter form of Romans" is vague to the extreme and in itself quite typical of
how Marcion's testimony is generally used. It simply does not explain, why the
doxology, being originally placed after 16,23, should ever have been removed
from that position and put after 14,23 as long as chapters 15-16 still follow.
What impact should "Marcion's using a shorter form of Romans" really have on
this issue, especially when taking into consideration that a) Marcion's shorter
form lacked the doxology, b) Marcion's shorter form also lacked parts of Rom 2
and most of Rom 9-11 (which certainly had no impact on tradition), and c)
Marcion was at least from the time of Irenaeus considered as mutilating
scripture?
To my mind it seems beyond a reasonable doubt that Marcion neither created the
shorter form of Romans (omitting chapters 15-16), nor appended the doxology, nor
influenced the rest of tradition at this point. This is a pre-Marcionite
phenomenon and the Byzantine tradition in this specific instance testifies to
the presumably oldest form of the cross contamination of the longer and the
shorter form of Romans.
Lastly, I would like to apologize to Bob for having singled out his appeal to
"Marcion's using a shorter form of Romans" in order to attack this type of
argument. I shurely did not want to offend Bob with my somehow zealous attack. I
should say that this appeal is very frequent, but only seldomly thought through
with all it's implications. Seeing it repeated again and again just brings me
up. So, sorry for that.
I brought up the problem of the Romans doxology for two reasons:
a.) I wanted to illustrate that applying the limited eclected method exposed by
Bob sometimes may face problems that can not be solved from within the mere
grouping and counting of ancient manuscript families.
b.) Even more disturbing, there seems to be evidence of phenomena
transcendending and antedating all our known text-types: different editions of
Pauls letters. The limited eclectic method like most other theories presuppose
the existence of one archetype of the textual transmission. But there is
evidence that with respect to the textual transmission of the Pauline Corpus we
have to deal with no clear only-one-archetype-situation.
To conclude therefrom: I plea for weighing the _evidence_ (i.e. readings) rather
than merely counting it, and focussing on an "unbiased but intelligent selection
of readings". There I feel very much in agreement with Bob Waltz. He also wrote
on Wed, 1 May 1996 in another post:
> By "intelligent" I mean that we don't use too many variants of >the type
"add/omit article," or the like, which cannot be rendered >in the versions, nor
too many variants where scribes could easily >have made a change my accident
(e.g. between future indicative and >aorist subjunctive). By "unbiased" I mean
that we not take many >variants of the "D-and-a-few-Old-Latin-against-the-world"
type.
Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
Back