Fri May 31 10:12:09 1996

From owner-tc-list  Fri May 31 10:12:09 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA08902; Fri, 31 May 1996 10:09:18 -0400
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 10:09:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: "James R. Adair" 
To: TC List 
Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2607

When we upgraded our operating system on Wednesday, this message to the 
list didn't get delivered, so I'm forwarding it now to the list.  Those 
of you subscribed to tc-list-digest will see this message twice.

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de
Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text

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