Tue Jun 4 11:17:03 1996
From owner-tc-list Tue Jun 4 11:17:03 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id LAA26712; Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:15:46 -0400
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:12:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson
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: 6599
On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:
> >> 5) The "text-type." These are related manuscripts that *do not* derive
> >> directly from a single common ancestor (other than the autographs).
> >By my own definition this would exclude the Byzantine from being a
> >texttype, which is indeed why I use the term "Textform" to describe the
> >Byzantine text.
> I think I missed something here.... If I read this correctly, you are
> claiming that all Byzantine manuscripts derive from one archetype which
> is *not* the autograph. If so, what is its superiority?
Not at all; I use "Textform" to indicate the original autograph from which
all other MSS, families, tribes, and texttypes derive; thus the "Byzantine
Textform" takes on the superiority of autograph originality, and is not
itself a "texttype" in the normal sense.
> This is only a difference in terminology, but I think we should clear it
> up. Mixture is just that: Mixture. It can go in any direction
I agree with this point, but semantically I still would maintain that
such "mixture" when correcting a text BACK to the reading of the
autograph is not properly "mixture" per se, but still "restoration."
This may be merely a semantic quibble, but I think a distinction needs to
be maintained between restoration of the autograph reading by
cross-comparison and correction versus true "mixture" whereby the
original reading is corrupted by influx from other non-autograph readings.
> Of course, given the dominant nature
> of the Byzantine text at the time most manuscripts were copied, it
> follows that most of the manuscripts were corrected to be closer to
> the Byzantine text. And that most of them derive from something that
> is significantly less Byzantine.
I obviously would not concur on this point. I do agree that the tendency
would be for localized texts to move steadily toward a Byzantine form as
they begin to be corrected by comparison with MSS from outside their local
region. I also agree that the localized variations were themselves
movements to varying degrees AWAY from the Byzantine Textform. But I do
not concur that most MSS within the wider scope of MS transmission would
derive from a non-Byzantine or less-Byzantine model. If this were so,
what factors would legitimately, within any normal "process" view, cause
non- or less-Byz MSS to become Byzantine? Barring a major textual
upheaval, the normal patterns of MS copying and correction would tend to
maintain the text which was dominant at any given point of time.
> > For the Byzantine Textform, Waltz is correct that really a 90% cutoff
> > level would be preferable.
> Did I say that? I agree that the number has to be high... but 90% might
> exclude family Pi, which most people consider Byzantine.
You may not have said that; someone mentioned that amount. This is why I
would tend to err on the side of caution, and keep the cutoff percentage
lower than necessary, in which case Colwell's 70% works quite well.
> Maurice has hinted elsewhere that he does *not* consider family Pi Byzantine.
> I would welcome his (or anyone's) thoughts on that.
I don't think I said actually that: rather, Family Pi would be a
sub-Byzantine category. The MSS within that family are certainly
"Byzantine" enough. I would not, however, consider that family nor the Ka
group or K1 group as the archetypes of the Byzantine Textform (as, e.g.,
Von Soden or Lake), since this would imply that the later Kx group was a
lesser descendant of one of these smaller families, which is again open to
the question of how the normal copying processes could end up producing
such a result. I rather opted for the Kx group as more closely reflecting
the archetype Byzantine Textform, with the smaller groups being localized
variations of the Kx group (the smaller groups obviously affected by
"mixture" from otherwise extraneous readings)
> Any definition we come up with *must*
> allow for 424's kinship with family 1739. Colwell's rule doesn't.
This is why I supplement the Colwell rule with Griffith's "Near-Neighbor
Clusters" concept. I find that approach works admirably well, and allows
a MS like 424 to be "generally" Byzantine, but equally part of a
distinctive fam.1739 (and there is no reason why both cannot be true,
just as with Family Pi).
> >I'm not sure that we
> >can move quantitatively beyond the qualitative in the search for the
> >definition of a texttype.
>
> I'm glad somebody agrees with me as to the problem. :-)
I do to a point. Obviously we deviate beyond that point, and quite
dramatically at that.
> But if we cannot even agree on how to define a text-type, I have to think
> that Epp is right and we are still in an "interlude" in textual criticism.
> Without a definition of a text-type, how can we possibly formulate a theory
> of the text?
I agree with Epp insofar as Epp is describing modern eclectic theory.
Once a wholly different model comes into play (which Epp basically calls
for, following up on K.W.Clark in this regard), the "interlude" motif no
longer applies.
The problem is that those within the eclectic fold are themselves
unwilling to consider what Clark called for: the "new angle" or new method
of approach, because (as Colwell stated) they have "blinders on their
eyes" and "the dead hand of Hort" still weighs heavily upon them.
My own Byzantine-priority model does "work", and it works quite
consistently and logically (given the constraints of my own hypothesis and
model of textual transmission), but -- just as with the rejection of other
text-critical hypotheses (e.g., those of A.C.Clark, Dom Henri Quentin,
Vinton Dearing, Von Soden, and others), I do not expect or intend to make
any inroads within the "normal" fold of modern eclecticism, even
supposing that my claim of better support for my own theory might be
true.
Too many cherished presuppositions would be trampled to death by the
imposition of a substitute theory for any real abandonment or capitulation
of modern eclecticism to occur; in this Epp remains correct within a
modern eclectic context: "We know too much to believe the old; we know
too little to create the new."
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
?6;0c
[
Back