Thu Jun 6 13:23:08 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu Jun  6 13:23:08 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id NAA09693; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:21:43 -0400
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:18:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nichael Cramer 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
cc: 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: 1057

On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:
> The mystery question par excellence is _how_ did the Byzantine-era scribes
> consistently and harmoniously tend independently and sporadically to
> choose "Byzantine-like readings" (to use Fee's term) and to do so in
> precisely the _same_ pattern, without any collusion or certain knowledge
> that other scribes were similarly selecting nearly-identical patterns? 

???

I don't think anyone has seriously argued that Byzantine scribes developed
identical harmonizations independently or without collusion -- or at least
certainly not in a way that is implicit in this characterization. 

Certainly various harmonizations (etc) occurred independently, finally
resulting in the "final" Byzantine text as it evolved over six or so
centuries.  But it is also likely that many "Byzantine-like" variations
came and fell by the wayside, losing out to those emendations that
finally congealed into "standard form" of the text-style as we have it
now. 

Nichael Cramer
nichael@sover.net
http://www.sover.net/~nichael/

Back