Tue May 28 18:22:05 1996

From majordom  Tue May 28 18:22:05 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA10105; Tue, 28 May 1996 18:22:05 +0500
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 17:16:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: The "Alexandrian" Text
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1269
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

A quick response to Robert Walz.  First, as Colwell pointed out some time 
ago, the relationship of mss has to be examined *book by book*, in some 
cases, even chapter by chapter.  Aleph & B do *not* of course agree at a 
constant level across the NT, for example. As Fee showed, there is even 
marked variation in their agreement within the Gospel of John.  This 
"block mixture" of mss is more frequent than might be imagined, but only 
careful collation practices & methods can detect it.
	So, the varying level of agreement of Aleph & B is not a basis 
for posing (only?) two text-types.  
	Second, discussion of "text-types" raises the question of what we 
mean.  Here I recommend *strongly* Epp's essay on "The Significance of 
the Papyri . . . A Dynamic View of Textual Transmission," in the Epp/Fee 
volume, _Studies in the Theory & Method of NT Textual Criticism_ (pp. 
274ff.).
	Third, Epp's famous "Interlude" essay did not assert no 
significant steps had been made, but rather that in the realm of *textual 
theory*, esp. in our grasp of the major history of the text, we had made 
surprisingly little agreed-upon progress.  Epp refers to Aland's work, to 
Zuntz's justly important work on the epistles, etc.  

Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba 

Back