Tue Jun 4 17:01:52 1996
From owner-tc-list Tue Jun 4 17:01:52 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id RAA29204; Tue, 4 Jun 1996 17:00:56 -0400
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 16:57:45 -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: 8386
On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
> 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.
Admitted. *;-)
> 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.
I suspect that any attempt to start from the bottom up with no
assumptions regarding textual groupings or theory will lead to jumbled
and inconclusive results (just as you are noting). Since textual
criticism cannot be done in a vacuum, I do not think it unreasonable to
begin with theories regarding transmissional history before attempting to
evaluate the interrelationship among MSS based upon percentage
agreements; but this may only be a peculiarity of my own approach. I do
not think the results are skewed by my method, nor do I think
they are necessarily improved by your method.
> 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.
My own textual theory and reconstruction is also based upon what I know
about the MSS and copying habits of scribes etc., but it does not require
the determination of what I consider the minutiae of MS
interrelationships in order to function. Even if the results remain
tentative in any reconstruction, the theory still must exist in order to
explain the interrelationships.
> And, more to the point, I do not consider that text to be final
> until the textual complexion of all manuscripts is known.
And if such were indeed known, would you REALLY consider your text
"final" and/or inviolate as a representation of the autograph? I
certainly would not claim such in regard to the Byzantine Textform even
were we to possess full collations of all MSS, since the places where the
Byzantine MSS are divided would still remain tentative in light of both
internal and external evidence. I simply remain skeptical of being able
to approach any total level of certainty merely by statistical methods.
> 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.
Which, from your perspective, I can understand. From my perspective, I
would prefer to maintain the semantic distinction previously mentioned.
>> 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.
Let me rephrase simplistically: if local texts existed (and they did),
they must have come about as a deviation from the autograph. What was the
autograph remains the question. If the autograph were basically the
Byzantine Textform, then the local texts in process of time would tend to
slowly disappear and become re-amalgamated within the Byzantine Textform
through the process of cross-comparison and correction against MSS from
other portions of the Greek-speaking Empire. This is a logical and
natural conclusion from within my own text-critical perspective.
On the other hand, if the local texts were deviations from an autograph
which itself was non-Byzantine in character, some other explanation needs
to be given as to how and why the deviant local texts did not eventually
return to the theoretically "predominant" autograph text which supposedly
permeated the Greek-speaking portion of the Empire hitherto, but instead
gravitated inexorably toward a Byzantine Textform.
> 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.
I really have no problem with the concept of local texts. The Western
text, even though fragmentary and scattered, still seems to be quite
clearly divided into European and African forms. The local text of
Alexandria can be seen not only in the Greek MSS in varying degrees, but
also in the national Coptic texts of that locality; the "Caesarean",
though also questionable in nature and essence, still seems to stand
midway between the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts, and does seem, from
patristic evidence, to have an locale of origin in and around Palestine,
with possible spreading from there into the Georgian and Armenian
versions. Even some of the Byzantine sub-families likely reflect texts
current in a given locality, and that possibly a monastery or even
Constantinople.
> 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)?
I'm not sure what your point is here: the present localities of MSS have
no bearing on the "local text" question, since that goes back to the
venues wherein they were originally copied, and the resultant textual
alignments which can be discerned among the existing MSS. Of course, if
you are starting from scratch and reject the alignments, then nothing is
certain.
> >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.)
John G. Griffith, "Numerical Taxonomy and Some Primary MSS of the
Gospels," JTS, n.s. 41(?) 1969. Not completely sure of the reference;
that was off the top of my head, but the article is definitely in the
fall 1969 fascicle.
> 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.
Excuse me? I thought _I_ had done that *;-) Maybe you mean "within the
modern eclectic fold"?
> Why do you think I started this discussion? Remember, I was offering a
> deliberate unorthodoxy -- even though I was not sure it was true.
I recall that quite well. I also offer a heterodoxy to the common
eclectic position, though I am more convinced that my model has validity.
> 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.
On this I fully concur.
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back