Fri May 31 12:10:23 1996
From owner-tc-list Fri May 31 12:10:23 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id MAA09608; Fri, 31 May 1996 12:09:17 -0400
Resent-Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 04:25:25 +0800
Date: Wed, 29 May 96 15:07 CDT
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: nt-mss@entmp.org
From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz)
Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" text
Resent-Message-ID: <"uwFb82.0.PN6.qABhn"@joshua>
Resent-From: nt-mss@entmp.org
X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/105
X-Loop: nt-mss@entmp.org
Resent-Sender: nt-mss-request@entmp.org
ReSent-Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 12:05:40 -0400 (EDT)
ReSent-From: "James R. Adair"
ReSent-To: jadair@scholar.cc.emory.edu
ReSent-Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
ReSent-Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 12:08:54 -0400 (EDT)
ReSent-From: "James R. Adair"
ReSent-To: TC List
ReSent-Message-ID:
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 8703
On Wed, 29 May 96, schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid)
>
>a.) When working on the textual transmission of the Gospels one is struck
>by the
>tremendous amount of data: MORE THAN 2300 MSS with Gospel text are known up to
>now (Corpus Paulinum some 780 MSS, Acts + Catholics some 650 MSS, Revelation
>"only" 287 MSS).
>
>b.) Another striking feature within the Gospels, at least within the
>Synoptics,
>is the well known fact of "assimilation". Not only the Byz text testifies
>to it
>(cf. Wisselink) but virtually every MS is somehow affected by this tendency.
>Therefore a great deal of variation within the textual transmission of the
>Synoptics might be due to a tendency that independently produced partially
>identical text-type alignments with no "real" text-type relation
>underlying. Or,
>looking at this from the other side, the tendency towards assimilation might
>weaken "real" text-type relations, for some of the MSS originally belonging
>together may independently desert in some readings while retaining others.
>
>The combination of a.) and b.) might explain some of the problems "theoretical
>advances" in the Gospels have to handle. Therefore, "gathering of data" might
>not be inappropriate.
Agreed -- but now the data has been gathered -- both by the Institute at Munster
and by the IGNTP staff (as represented by Wisse and the CPM).
I can't help but think that, now that that data has been gathered, the situation
in the Gospels is actually *easier* than in the epistles. Simply because so much
of the data can be set aside.
Consider Paul: A good solid text of Paul should be based on, at minimum, some
23 minuscules (and more would be better):
6 33 81 104 256 330 365 424** 436 451 629 630 1175 1319 1505 1506 1611 1739
1881 1962 2127 2464 2492
If I could, I would add 69 88 263 323 326 1852 1908 1912 2495 and probably
others.
And of this list, at least three -- 33 1506 1739 -- deserve as much weight
as the
old uncials. Several more -- e.g. 81 1175 2127 -- are almost as good. Still
more --
e.g. 330-451-2492 and 1505-1611-2495-syh -- represent texts which are largerly
Byzantine but still preserve elements not found in the more important
manuscripts.
That's a lot of manuscripts to work with. And we also need some Byzantine
representatives.
In the Gospels, of course, we have many more uncials. But the list of valuable
minuscules is, if anything, *shorter*. There are, of course, the members of
family 1 and family 13. (If Wisse is to be trusted, we should also probably
define a family 22). Beyond this, the list of minuscules showing anything other
than a simple Byzantine text (based on a hasty check of Wisse) is short:
28 33 47 67 149 157 160 173 176 179 213 372 377 382 399 427 472 508 563 565
574 579 683 695 700 713 792 799 844? 851 892 903 1013 1048 1061 1071 1093 1166
1171 1215 1217 1230 1241 1253 1273 1282 1289 1299 1325? 1330 1331 1337 1342
1364 1443 1542 1573 1574 1604 1641 1647 1670 1682 1692 1697 1714 1797 1823 2095
2178 2405 2430 2525 2533 2546 2561 2643 2665 2680 2747 2757
Of these, only 33 157 372? 565 579 700 892 1071 1093? 1241 1273? 1342
appear to have substantial value for criticism. And even these are of much
less value than the old uncials. Most of the pther manuscripts listed appear
to be Byzantine texts that do not happen to fall into one of Wisse's groups.
Even allowing for the fact that other minuscules (e.g. 2427) will emerge in
other books or chapters, it would appear that the basis for work in the
gospels is *less* in the Gospels than in, say, Paul.
>Bob further wrote:
>
>>Long ago, Hoskier found (I believe it was) over 6000 differences >between
>>B and
>Aleph. Most are trivial, and many of the remainder >are in the early part of
>John (where Aleph is accused of having a >"Western" text). But many are
>substantial, and not all are in >John.
>
>Hoskier (Codex B and its Allies, Part II, 1914) found 3036 differences
>between B
>and aleph (656 in Matt., 567 in Mark, 791 in Luke, 1022 in John).
Oops. My apologies for the mistake. But the fact that I multiplied by two in
my head does not materially affect the arguement.
>To assess the validity of Hoskiers's samples is not easy (I know that Streeter
>was not impressed). But the least one can say from a first look is:
>a.) Hoskier includes not very few near-singulars of either B or aleph,
>which are
>in fact singulars to my mind -some of them are found only in one patristic
>writer, others only in one version. A very telling example is the randomly
>choosen "difference" at Matt. 16,17: ALLA hO PATHR aleph + sahidic + bohairic
>versus ALL hO PATHR B and the rest.
I'll certainly agree that that is a trivial difference! And I know that Hoskier
has a bad tendency to overstate the case (the introduction to "Codex B and its
Allies" reads like something Burgon might have written).
>b.) Most of the only-versional-support singulars, even if more than one
>version
>is involved, are of no value, since very often there are Greek composits or
>different tempora involved.
>c.) Quite a lot of the "differences" are only textual trivia mostly due to
>assimilation.
Agreed on both counts.
>To be shure, Hoskier pointed out differences between B and aleph, but to
>what do
>they give conclusive or even probable evidence?
If I knew the answer, I would not be posing the question. :-)
The number of differences between B and Aleph is not really the point. The point
is that there are several witnesses tightly clustered around B (including p75 T
sahidic). There are also witnesses clustered (rather more loosely) around Aleph.
We tend to speak of only two levels of textual groupings: families and
text-types.
But there are intermediate levels (I think the term "tribes" has been used).
I think the existence of a "B tribe" can be accepted without question. There
may well be an "Aleph tribe" as well. But are these tribes members of the same
text-type? The question is not being addressed.
>On Tue, 28 May 1996, Bob wrote in his second post:
>
>>I think most changes in textual complexion are the
>>result of correctors being more or less diligent. Take, for >instance, L. In
>the first part of Matthew it is mostly Byzantine. >Does this mean that
>part of L
>was copied from a Byzantine >manuscript and the rest from an Alexandrian? I
>think not. Far more >likely that the ancestor of L was heavily and carefully
>corrected >in Matthew and much more sporadically corrected elsewhere.
>
>a.) From the manuscript tradition it is obvious that all of the Papyri,
>most of
>the uncials and quite a lot minuscules are mutilated at the beginning
>and/or the
>end due to mechanical break off.
>b.) The MSS 206 429 522 614 630 1292 1890 2200 2412 related to the
>Harklensis-Vorlage (1505-1611-2138-2495) in the General Epistles give ample
>evidence that the slightly changing textual character of these MSS compared to
>the Harklensis-Vorlage takes place in the last three of the epistles,
>where most
>of them desert.
Agreed in part. Certainly I agree that the beginnings and ends of
manuscripts were
most liable to destruction. And this *does* affect manuscript relationships.
You cite 206. The reason it deserts family 2138 is that the later books are
from another hand. This also explains why 33 is Byzantine in Romans and
Alexandrian
in the rest of Paul: Romans comes from another hand.
But there are examples that, at least arguable, go the other way. Consider 323.
In James it is primarily Byzantine (in my sample, 66%). In 1 and 2 Peter it
moves toward family 1739; it's exactly 50% Byzantine. And in 1 John-Jude it
is a strong family 1739 text, with only about 35% Byzantine readings (about the
same percentage as 1739 itself).
>To conclude from the presented evidence: "More or less diligent
>correctors" may
>also be found within manuscript tradition, but exhaustive evidence points to
>mechanical corruption and restoration when dealing with changing textual
>character within one and the same manuscript, at least at its beginning and/or
>end (L being a perfect example of this feature).
I would simply say that we cannot assume one solution or the other. The
essential fact that I am stating is that very few manuscripts seem to
derive readings from more than two sources, one of them usually being
Byzantine. There are exceptions (W is the obvious example; another is
630, which goes with family 1739 in Acts and Romans-Galatians, is
Byzantine in Ephesians-Hebrews, and goes with family 2138 in the
Catholics), but they are few.
And I must admit that I've forgotten what this has to do with the internal
relations of the Alexandrian text of the gospels. So I will spare you
any further conclusions. :-)
Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Back