Mon Jun 3 10:40:32 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Jun  3 10:40:32 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA20359; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 10:39:22 -0400
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 09:36:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text
In-Reply-To: 
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: 3011

As to Colwell's suggested quantitative definition of a "text-type" (70% 
or better agreement in relevant variation-units), I've always taken his 
intention as somewhat pragmatic and ad hoc.  That is, because the term 
"text-type" itself begs the question of what the term means, Colwell 
suggests that we start "empirically" with something and then 
"inductively" proceed.  In this case, he suggested we start with what few 
will dispute (other than Hoskier?):  That if there is anything like 
"text-type" agreement it is probably manifested/demonstrated in the 
Aleph-B relation in the Gospels.  Now, when Colwell tested out his 
proposed method of collating a selection of major witnesses against one 
another, what he got was an Aleph-B agreement consistently in excess of 
70%.  So, translating the Aleph-B relationship into quantitative 
categories, he offered 70% agreement.
	There's nothing inflexible or non-negotiable about this, nor is 
the 70% figure something that exactly defines, so that 67% for example 
would somehow "fail".  Colwell pointed out that the leading Western 
witnesses don't have the level of agreement he found in Aleph-B.  So he 
suggested that the "Western text" is not the same relatively more 
cohesive phenomenon that the Aleph-B relationship seems to represent.
	I've argued that the incorrectly labelled "pre-Caesareans" (esp. 
W and P45) are (a) not in fact particularly related to the purported 
major "Caesarean" witnesses (Theta, 565), and (b) that the W-P45 
relationship approaches the Aleph-B relationship in most of Mark, but is 
not as tight a relationship as Aleph-B.  This doen'st mean that W and P45 
aren't from a common "text-type" (in my view), but it does suggest that 
"text-type" has be be a bit flexible in what it means, or else W & P45 are 
(one or both) a bit more loosely members of whatever "text-type" one 
imagines them to represent than are Aleph & B.
	In all the recent discussion here I've wanted to suggest that we 
look carefully at what "text-type" means for us.  To my mind, a 
"text-type" is empirically represented in measurable  and significant 
agreements between/among witnesesses of such amount and kind as to make 
some kind of special historical relationship the best explanation.
	In historical terms, however, "text-type" seems to me to refer to 
a particular kind of scribal behavior.  Each text-type seems to me to be 
distinguished by scribal practices and approaches to copying/transmitting 
the NT texts.  Of course, once a more freely/loosely copied scribe did 
his work, a more careful scribe could have diligently & faithfully copied 
the many variants introduced!  But still, that faithful copy would 
indicate that at the (crucial) earlier stages of this textual tradition, 
this "text-type" is a more edited, more loosely-transmitted kind of text.
	Of course also, all such judgments are *comparative*, for no ms 
seems to be completely free of scribally-produced variants.
	
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba

Back