Thu May 30 11:47:40 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu May 30 11:47:40 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA03362; Thu, 30 May 1996 11:47:38 -0400
From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de
Message-Id: <9605301544.AA26392@mail.uni-muenster.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 30 May 96 17:47:37 +0100
Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2044

On Tue, 28 May 1996, Larry W. Hurtado wrote:

> 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.).

Epp identifies in this essay three text-types being in existence already in the 
second century: a "B" text-type (P75 + B as nucleus), a "C" text-type (P45 + W 
only in Mark), and a "D" text-type (P29, P48, P38, 071, and perhaps P69 + D). 
"(T)hese concentrations or lines of trajectory identify clusters that in turn 
differentiate themselves sufficiently from other clusters" (p. 297).  
In defining a cluster or text-type Epp refers to Colwells famous quantitative 
definition ("A text-type is a group of manuscripts that agree more than 70 
percent of the time and is seperated by a gap od about 10 percent from its 
neighbors."), and in the case of highly fragmentary MSS to the Alands' 
principle: "If a fragment preserves a passage where there is any variation in 
the tradition, it is quite sufficient to signal the textual character of the 
whole manuscript."

With these essentials in mind I may shortly assess Epp's text-types "C" and "D".

a.) Text-type "C" (P45 + W): "Yet the affinity of variations-units between P45 
and W in Mark virtually reaches the seventy percent mark (68,9%)" (Epp, p. 292). 
In my words: ...shortly MISSES the seventy percent mark. What do definitions 
serve for, if they are not taken serious?
b.) Text-type "D" (P29, P48, P38, 0171, and perhaps P69 + D): These are all, 
save for D, fragments, and certainly 0171 and P69 desert from the D-text of Luke 
approximately as often as they testify to it. The handeling of fragments when 
establishing text-type relations is an open question to my mind.

Therefore, I must confess, I am not very much impressed by these results. More 
arguments could be adduced, but I will leave it for now.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

Back