Tue Jun 4 16:04:14 1996

From owner-tc-list  Tue Jun  4 16:04:14 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA28931; Tue, 4 Jun 1996 16:03:07 -0400
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 96 14:59 CDT
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz)
Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 8498

On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson  wrote,
in part:

>
>> 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.

I suppose it depends on which problem one is attacking. In using the
terminology you do, you are working from a particular theory: Byzantine
priority.

Now it's obvious that I don't agree with this theory, but that's not
the point.

My goal is to start without *any* assumptions. If I construct a
textual theory, I want to do it from the bottom up. *Any* assumption
about the relationship of texts can lead to invalid results.

The obvious example is Richards. In his study of the letters of
John, he isolated three non-Byzantine groups. Well and good;
Duplacy found the same groups, and so did I.

But, because Richards assumes that the only text-types in the
General Epistles are the Byzantine and Alexandrian, he proceeds
to label *all three* of those groups Alexandrian. It is possible
that he is correct in the case of the 1739/1241 group (though I
question it), but it is absolutely certain that family 2138 is
*not* Alexandrian.

If it be objected that elsewhere I have constructed a theory of the
text, and even attempted to reconstruct the original text based on
it, I will concede that this is true. But that reconstruction is
tentative, based on what I know about the manuscripts. It might
change if I knew more.

And, more to the point, I do not consider that text to be final
until the textual complexion of all manuscripts is known.

So I maintain that, until we have fully examined that manuscripts,
we must refer to the process of adding Byzantine readings to
non-Byzantine manuscripts as mixture.

Once we've established our text-types, then you can call it
what you will. :-)

>> 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.

I must admit that I don't understand that paragraph. So I may be missing
the point.

But how much do we really know about local texts? We know a little about
the text of Egypt from the papyri. But other than that, it seems to me
that our knowledge of local texts, especially in the western half of the
Roman Empire, is very slight.

Looking at the statistics for collections in the (old) Kurzggefasste Liste
and in Aland/Aland, it would appear that 40% are in Greece and nearby
areas -- areas which would belong to the Patriarchy of Constantinople.
Another 40+% are in libraries to which they must have been moved (e.g.
London, Oxford, Ann Arbor). Most of the rest are either at Rome or
Sinai. So how can we claim to know *anything* about the local text
of, say, North Africa (except from patristic writings)?

[...]
>
>> 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)

Understood. That makes your earlier statement much clearer.

>> 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).

That sounds reasonable -- though I do not know the work you mention.
Can you tell me was it published? (Thanks in advance.)

>> >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.

We disagree on results. Method is another question.

>> 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."

It sounds like you and I may suffer from the same degree of frustration,
even if for wholly different reasons. As long ago as Lake, people were
calling Westcott-Hort a "failure," yet no one has proposed a substitute.

Why do you think I started this discussion? Remember, I was offering a
deliberate unorthodoxy -- even though I was not sure it was true.

Of course, the discussion has now taken a completely different course.
But I still maintain that everyone needs to look at our fundamental
assumptions -- in this case, the definitions of text-types.

In saying this, I can only think of the history of science. At (admittedly
irregular) intervals something comes along and completely overturns
everything. On that analogy, textual criticism is overdue for a revolution.

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back