Thu May 2 17:57:21 1996
From majordom Thu May 2 17:57:21 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA24295; Thu, 2 May 1996 17:57:21 +0500
Date: Thu, 2 May 96 16:54 CDT
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz)
Subject: Re: Textual Theory
Content-Length: 7687
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
On Thu, 02 May 96, schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) wrote:
>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.
Interesting. Although, if I read your statement correctly, this is only
in non-Byzantine readings. Not overall readings.
Still, I would make three comments:
1. The fact that someone else generally agrees with my result hardly
invalidates my method. :-)
2. If the closest manuscript to 6, in the list of overall agreements,
is still 1739, it is a very strong argument for Broman's contention
that the nature of one's sample STRONGLY AFFECTS one's results.
3. The results above are calculated based on PITIFULLY small samples.
As I recall, _Text und Textwert_ uses only about 250 readings
in the entire Pauline corpus. In individual books there are
about three readings per chapter. (For instance, I believe there
are ten readings in Colossians.) This is FAR too small a sample
to give meaningful results -- especially since 6 has Byzantine
readings in many of these places.
I'm not saying the _Text und Textwert_ data is wrong. But it is not
sufficient. (I'm not alone in saying this. Eldon Jay Epp has made
similar comments.)
>>So 6 is a weak member of family 1739 -- and this is not evident >from
>>_Text und
>Textwert_.
Try looking at it from the other direction. What manuscript stands
closest to 1739 in _Text und Textwert_? I think that, in a number of
the list, it is B. (I could be wrong; I can't check this for a few
days. But I think I recall that.) Rarely, if ever, does 6 top the
list. But 6 _is_ a member of family 1739, and B is not. B just has
a lot more non-Byzantine readings. So the only way I can locate
6 as a member of family 1739 is working from 6's list. We need a
reciprocal tool. I have one; _Text und Textwert_ doesn't.
>Well, the statistics given above tell a different story. One should better
>check
>the tools, before criticizing them.
Depends on what one means by "criticism." _Text und Textwert_ is a massive
achievement. It allows us to distinguish the 80-90% of minuscules which
are Byzantine from the relatively few that are something else.
>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).
That's complicated. In Paul, the first witnesses to have a _purely_
Byzantine text are the ninth century uncials. But we see Byzantine
influence as early as A and C, and quite a bit in the Syriac versions.
It might be worth asking: Does it follow that the Byzantine text is the
same age in all parts of the scriptures? I don't know.
[...]
>
>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.
>
[Long argument about Marcion's text omitted]
>
>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 don't consider this an attack. You have more facts at my disposal than
I do. But if Marcion didn't make changes to the ending of Romans, nonetheless
those changes OCCURRED. That still seems to me an easier explanation for
the phenomena of Romans than Byzantine priority.
>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.
Agreed. But if NT textual criticism were simple, we wouldn't still
be arguing about it. :-)
>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.
On this I would be interested to hear your opinion. In most cases (Ephesians
and Romans being perhaps exceptions), there could only be ONE autograph.
There could well have been various editions of the Pauline corpus, but these
are later than the autographs. Which are you proposing to reconstruct?
Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Back