Sat Jun 1 10:23:16 1996
From owner-tc-list Sat Jun 1 10:23:16 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id KAA13383; Sat, 1 Jun 1996 10:20:22 -0400
From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de
Message-Id: <9606011417.AA14060@mail.uni-muenster.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 96 16:20:29 +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: 6581
On Wed, 29 May 1996, Rober B. Waltz wrote:
>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.
I may again refer to Larry W. Hurtado's point: "Discussion of 'text-types'
raises the question of what we mean." This point is well taken, though I found
Larry's referrence to the Epp essay on _The significance of the Papyri..._ not
very helpful in this respect. If we add further labels ("family", "tribe") the
same question ("of what we mean") occurs. Colwell defines the labels as follows
(Hort-Redivivus: A Plea and a Program; Studies in Methodology in Textual
Criticism of the NT, 1969, pp. 162f):
a.) "The 'family' is a group of manuscripts so closely related to each
other...that a stemma can be reconstructed and the archetype, or its text,
reconstructed. Examples are family 1, and family II".
b.) The 'tribe' is a group of families with looser relationships between
families, yet a group whose interrelationships are relatively close, relative
-that is- to the looser relationships of the members of a text-type. The tribe
is thus defined by its position between the family and the text-type...The
classic example of confusion in the terms applied is the Caesarean Group, called
Family Theta by Streeter and a text-type by others. It now seems that it is
neither".
c.) "The 'text-type' is the largest identifiable group of manuscripts. It has a
longer life span than most families or tribes. Thus it will have some members
that may be weaker than the members of either of these smaller groups. Examples
of text-types are Kenyon's Beta (Hort's Neutral), and Kenyon's Alpha (Hort's
Syrian)".
Therefore, Bob, if you wish, you may identify a "B tribe" and an "Aleph tribe"
as well. But, as you can see from Colwell's definition, though he describes the
relationship between tribes and families ("tribe is a group of families"), yet
he gives no clear description of the relationships between text-types and
families and text-types and tribes. To my mind, it is not clear therefrom, if
and how the split of "text-types" (granted their existence) into various
"tribes" affects the consistency of "text-types". Or, to take it from the other
side, if and how the existence of "tribes" precludes, or weakens their grouping
together under the heading "text-type", or a least makes it irrelevant.
I suspect, Colwell's definition of "tribe" was almost exclusively inspired by
the "Caesarean Group", presumably to cope with this problem. The question of
"text-types", I think, Colwell holds to be settled by his famous 70 percent
criterion of group support for the existence of text-types.
On Fri, 31 May 1996, Bob wrote:
>I must insert here a strong argument *against* the Colwell >definition of a
text-type. Two, in fact.
>The first is the use of exact numbers in deciding text-types. >Unless we are
prepared to examine *all* variations in the >manuscripts involved (as Hurtado,
>to his credit, did), the numbers mean nothing. If we use a >comparison based on
sampling, the rate of agreement between >manuscripts will depend on the sample
being taken.
>[...]
>The cut-off line for defining a text-type *must* depend on the >sample.
>But even for a particular sample, I don't think we can fix a >cut-off and say,
"All manuscripts that meet this criterion belong >to this text-type." The great
problem with the Colwell definition >is that it ignores mixture.
>Take a manuscript like 424. Even after diligent correction, it is >still more
Byzantine than anything else. Depending on the sample, >it might well be rated
as 70% Byzantine. But is it a Byzantine manuscript? Well, maybe...
>but what makes it interesting is not the 75% of the text that is >Byzantine,
but the 25% that agrees very closely with 1739 6 etc.
>[...]
>Which leads to another problem: Can a text-type be defined without >a "core
text"? This is precisely the problem of the "Caesarean >text." If one omits p45
and W (as Hurtado has shown we should), >there is no "core" Caesarean witness.
Does this mean that the >Caesarean text *cannot* exist? I think that too strong
an >argument.
>Note that I am not saying that the Caesarean text *does* exist; >that remains
to be settled. I'm just saying that we cannot use >Colwell's definition to
settle the matter.
I totally agree with that. I may even add another suspicion: Colwells famous 70
percent criterion of group support for the existence of text-types was almost
exlusively inspired by the Aleph-B group support. If one chooses an 80 percent
group support, Aleph and B would only sporadically reach the limit (if one
chooses 85 percent, hardly ever), and so by consequence would not belong to one
and the same quantitatively defined text-type. On the other hand 80 or 85
percent group support is a relatively poor description of the Byzantine text.
The vast majority of NT MSS (some 80 percent) have a group support of around 90
percent.
To my mind, all the textual complexions commonly labeled as "text-types" reveal
intra-group alignments of different quantity and different quality. We should
not even the differences in order to retain our well known "text-types". The
least we have to do is to honestly make clear the points of difference. If we
wish to have for example Aleph and B forming a "text-type" or belonging to one,
we have to admit that this "text-type" is essentially different in quantity and
quality with referrence to its intra-group alignments than for example a
Byzantine "text-type". Even if a dynamic element is added to the picture of a
"text-type" (as Colwell and more strongly Epp emphasize), the dynamisms are of a
different kind. One simply can not compare the intra-Byzantine textual shifts of
at least the later strata with the supposed intra-"Alexandrian" ("early" and
"late") shifts.
So here I end up where I started: "Discussion of 'text-types' raises the
question of what we mean" (Larry W. Hurtado). Any proposals what YOU mean,
Larry, Bob,...?
Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
Back