Wed Jun 5 09:10:07 1996
From owner-tc-list Wed Jun 5 09:10:07 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id JAA01992; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 09:08:50 -0400
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 96 08:05 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: 8231
On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:
[I'll omit most of this, since I either agree with it or am in such
fundamental disagreement that it's not worth wasting bandwidth over.
I leave it to you to guess which parts are which. :-) ]
>
>> 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.
No, I will never consider my text final. (If nothing else, there
is the possibility that, for certain books, *all* extant manuscripts
derive from some early copy which contained errors, rather than the
autograph.)
Also, I would draw a distinction. I am not using a statistical method
to determine the text. I am using statistics to determine manuscript
relationships. (Though, as noted, *even here* there must be examination
of collations before final judgment is passed.) The goal of examining
the relationships of the manuscripts is to determine the theory of
the text.
Despite our disagreements on results, it should be noted that Maurice
Robinson and I agree on at least one fundamental point: that current
eclectic methodology is theoretically bankrupt. We differ in how
serious we think that problem is (I think the UBS/GNT text only
mildly defective; he would find it thoroughly bad), but clearly
agree on the nature of the problem.
[...]
>
>>> 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.
Question: Why "must [local texts] have come about as a deviation from
the autograph"? Conceded, where they differ, no more than one of the
local readings can be original. But surely we would all agree that
all texts -- even the "Western" -- are *generally* correct.
[...]
>
>> 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)?
It occurs to me that I should add that I compiled those numbers *very*
hastily. Don't quote them, folks! I ignored a lot of places with one
or two mansucripts, and those could affect my totals.
>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.
Agreed. All I am saying is that we don't *know* much about local
texts, since almost all known manuscripts are, or could be, derived
from Byzantium and the patriarchy of Constantinople.
Though I must concede that the one other local text we know something
about (that of Egypt) *did* gradually grow closer to the Byzantine
text -- and that, interestingly, most of the change took place
*after* the Islamic conquest cut Egypt off from Constantinople. It's
a small point, but it argues in your favour.
>> >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.
Thanks. If I know the journal and the era, I can certainly find it.
>> 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"?
My apologies. You're right.
And since I'm apologising, I should apologise again for not knowing
more about your theory. My (sort of) local seminary doesn't seem
to have any of your writings. So I'm learning as I go along.
>> 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.
:-)
Incidentally, an aside to the lurker whose e-mail address is
rachel@ms1.hinet.net:
You certainly won't hear any complaints from me about people coming out
of lurking. If we need scholarly qualifications to address this list,
I'd have been kicked out long ago. I'm just a guy with a B.A. (yes, a
B.A.; my school didn't grant the B.Sc.) in physics and math, a poor
knowledge of Greek, a poorer knowledge of Latin, and an even poorer
knowledge of German, who happens to be fascinated by textual criticism.
I still (dirty confession) haven't learned to read most minuscule
scripts, though I'm pretty good at reading uncials by now....
But nobody has told me to shut up yet. We'll see how long it takes.
Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Back