Thu Jun 6 14:35:51 1996
From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 14:35:51 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id OAA10150; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 14:34:39 -0400
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 96 13:31 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: This and That
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 11594
I was hoping that I could take a day off from controversy (it's a very
busy day today), but I guess I'd better start writing before I get left
behind. This is a mish-mash of responses to previous posts.
Robinson:
>I think you will find that, though I consider modern eclectic theory
>basically defective (not necessarily "bankrupt") at its presuppositional
>core, I do not really think the resultant text is "thoroughly bad", since
>over 90% of it would agree with the Byzantine Textform or any other
>texttype in the first place. I would consider the UBS/Nestle text and
>even the W-H text as "adequate" for virtually all purposes. The fact
>that I do not consider "adequate" to mean equivalent to the autograph text
>does not prevent the profitable use of that text or of tools based upon
>it; I simply propose a different model which (in my own opinion)
>transcends the concept of mere adequacy.
Once again, I suppose I overspoke. Modern textual scholarship should
probably not be called "bankrupt"; people are proposing new ideas
(e.g. Dearing, Robinson) or modifications of old ideas (e.g. Sturz).
It's just that we are not reaching consensus on new ideas.
And I suppose I must agree that there is no "thoroughly bad" NT text
in circulation. At least, there's no one I'd label a heretic just
because of that person's NT. Let's just say that both Robinson and
I see some defects in the current NT editions, and that he would
probably view them as graver than I.
Robinson again:
>I would concur this point with regard to the minuscules. I cannot concur
>the same in regard to the uncials (even the Byzantine-text uncials).
>However, the problem in this regard is the almost total lack of
>genealogical connection between the MSS which were copied in the region
>from the Greek monasteries spanning the geographical gamut from Meteora
>through Sinai, most of which present a near-identical Byzantine-type of
>text, yet without collusion or even significant cross-comparison between
>those monasteries in the post-9th century era. The lack of genealogical
>connection (noted by Lake, Blake and New, HTR 1928) becomes a very
>significant factor in evaluating those MSS, and tends to rule out any
>mere "local text" aspect regarding them.
I ask -- purely for information -- how well-established this is? Most
minuscules have never been collated; how can we *tell* what they are
related to.
Let's take an example. Wisse, page 93, reports that there are 59
minuscules that have a "perfect" Kr profile. So these manuscripts
would have to be considered candidates for genetic relationship.
Now the number of collating operations needed to cross-collate a
group of manuscripts goes as the order n squared. For 59 manuscripts,
that's 1711 cross-collations. For 700 Kx manuscripts, it's 244650.
And so on. Have we *really* tried to see which of those manuscripts
are directly related? I don't think it's possible without the
help of a computer. And even then, someone has to enter in the
59, or 700, or 3000 collations....
Robinson again, quoting others:
>[Schmid:]
>
>>>But, does this imply that a full blown
>>>Byzantine text in its actual state of appearance existed for the General
>>>epistles prior to around 500 AD to serve as deus ex machina for our influence
>>>theories? At least there is NO manuscript evidence to a full blown Byzantine
>>>text prior to the 9th century.
>
>[Waltz:]
>
>> Agreed -- although Byzantine manuscripts appear in large numbers in that
>> century (K, L, 049, assorted minuscules). That would seem to imply that the
>> text is at least somewhat older than that century.
>
>I also would differ with Schmid on this point, along with Westcott and
>Hort, who were quite willing to admit a generally developed ("full-blown"
>probably is a question-begging term) Byzantine text from at least AD 350
>onward. The new claims stemming from the Alands' Text of the NT volume
>(and picked up on by Wallace) regarding the Byzantine as "developed"
>and/or the "majority text" only beginning with the 9th century is simply
>revisionist history, held hitherto by no one. I will at the very least
>side with Westcott and Hort on this point; and Waltz is also clearly
>correct that 9th century Byzantine uncials certainly imply a much earlier
>existence of the "developed" Byzantine Textform, which in no way
>contradicts Westcott and Hort's own thesis on this point.
I think we need to distinguish here between the Byzantine *textform*
(to use Robinson's term), Byzantine *manuscripts*, and the late
medieval majority text.
In all cases, witnesses which are substantially Byzantine (say 75%
Byzantine) which occur long before "full-blown" Byzantine texts.
Curiously, these are often versions. But let me list what I think
are the earliest witnesses in each class, with dates, and then see
what others think.
Gospels:
Earliest substantial witness: Peshitta (IV)
Earliest substantial Greek witness: A (V)
Earliest pure witness: E (VIII)
Acts (tentative; I haven't worked with these manuuscripts much):
Earliest substantial witness: (E in part/VI) Psi (VIII/IX)
Earliest substantial Greek witness: same
Earliest pure witness: L, P, minuscules (IX)
Paul:
Earliest substantial witness: Harklean (VI)
Earliest substantial Greek witness: Psi (VIII/IX)
Earliest pure witness: K, L, 049, minuscules (IX)
Catholics:
Earliest substantial witness: K, L, 049, minuscules (IX)
Earliest substantial Greek witness: same
Earliest pure witness: same
Apocalypse (again, tentative):
Earliest substantial witness: P, 046, minuscules (IX)
Earliest substantial Greek witness: same
Earliest pure witness: same
Parker:
>On Tuesday 4 June Robert Waltz wrote that 'our knowledge of local
>texts, especially in the western half of the Roman empire, is very
>slight'. As a matter of fact, palaeography helps us much further than
>this. If, for example, you look at the introduction to the Supplement of
>Lowe's _Codices Latini Antiquiores_, you will find an excellent
>discussion of the distinctive hands of North Africa (surely the origin of
>Bobbiensis (k). There is a discussion of Cavallo's _Maiuscola
>biblica_ of a hand which he believes to be distinctive of the Nitrian
>Desert (p. 87f). There are plenty of other examples.
>
>The present location of MSS is not necessarily of any use -
>provenance may tell us nothing about origin - nor should the Vatican
>collection be treated as more significant in this regard. Devreesse's
>_Les Manuscrits grecs de l'Italie meridionale_ is another example of
>palaeography providing grounds for identifying local texts, and
>illustrates the growth of collections such as the Vatican's.
Without denying this point, I fail to see how it affects things. Taking,
again, North Africa, the fact that we can identify (Latin) manuscripts
as coming from there does not mean that we *have* identified a
significant number of such manuscripts. Despite this, to my knowledge
the only North African texts we have are k, e, and h, plus quotations
from Cyprian and a few others. We have *no* Greek witnesses (I concede
that there were few greek manuscripts used there, but the Old Latin
had to be translated from *something*). Even the Latin witnesses are
fragmentary. So our knowledge of that local text is weak.
As for the Vatican collection -- I am aware that manuscripts from
there generally come from the east. But a manuscript in the Vatican
*may* have been there all along, whereas a manuscript in, say, Ann
Arbor *cannot* have been there since its writing.
I still believe that our knowledge of local texts, except in areas
that belonged to the Byzantine empire, is slight.
>The whole discussion on this theme stirs up in me a thought on one
>point. It is being assumed (I suggest) that local texts had acquired all
>their own characteristics from the very beginning of their existence,
>and that therefore all members of the group must be, as it were, fully
>paid up members.
With this I have no argument. Also, I think local texts can evolve.
Hort noticed a bit of this when he spoke of "Neutral" and "Alexandrian"
texts. I do not view these as separate texts. But (to use Epp's
terminology, even though I hate it) the "trajectory" can change shape
as it moves along. In Paul at least, the Alexandrian text seems to
have phases. In Aleph/A/C/I/33/Bohairic we see one text. In later
Alexandrian texts (e.g. 81 436 1175 f2127) we see something which
is *mostly* early Alexandrian and/or Byzantine, but with a slight
mixture of something else.
Hurtado, on Robinson:
>> Another interesting point, which can be taken in two primary ways: either
>> the Byzantine Textform is a composite, pieced together from scattered
>> readings found in various texttypes or other minority groupings, by some
>> unknown method (since mere "conflation" will not account for all the
>> Byzantine readings, nor even a large percentage of them); or the presence
>> of Byzantine readings in nearly every other texttype or smaller group of
>> MSS implies an extremely strong Byzantine "influence", which is quite
>> difficult to explain without either imposing an official promulgation of
>> that text or an official revision which produced that text -- unless of
>> course, such Byzantine concurrence in non-Byzantine MSS and texttypes is
>> actually a result of preservation of the autograph text itself (which
>> latter I would naturally maintain).
>
>Maurice (and others): If you imagine that the only way "Byzantine
>readings" can have made their way into mss is through the "influence" of
>a "Byzantine text-type" (i.e., a relatively matured type of text such as
>we have in the primary Byzantine mss reps.), then, yes, readings in early
>mss would suggest that this text-form might be there. But, if (as I see
>it) "text-types" are basically the result of scribal copying/transmission
>habits/tastes/objectives, etc. (shaped of course by ecclesiastical
>concerns etc.), then what becomes the "Byzantine text-type" is basically
>a matured form/degree (late, so the evidence) of scribal/editorial
>tendencies observable quite early in their initial operation. So, the
>"Byzantine text" is basically an "ecclesiastical" text, that reflects a
>few centuries of transmission with readability, inoffensiveness,
>harmonization, etc. operational. These tendencies began very early, so
>they show up ad hoc in such early witnesses as P45, P46, etc. But a more
>programmatic operation of these tendencies gathers force over time.
It's interesting how often scholars have accused particular scribes
of a certain "mindset" -- e.g. Hort thought the "Alexandrian" scholars
were conservative but concerned with grammatical niceties; Aland,
Metzger, and others have called the "Western" copyists "wild" (without
having much evidence to go on); many people accuse the Byzantine
recensors of striving for a "smooth" text.
I agree with whoever it was that said that it's hard to imagine
a whole school of scribes with a "mindset"; if a text really does
exhibit a particular set of characteristics, recensional activity
seems more likely.
I think that, to decide between "influence" and "scribal tendency,"
we must examine the nature of the proto-Byzantine texts (A, Peshitta,
N-O-Sigma-Phi, P, Q, R, the early correctors of Aleph, etc.). Do they
share the same Byzantine readings? Do they share the same *type* of
Byzantine readings? Are Byzantine readings occurring in the same
contexts?
I don't know if this has been studied. Anyone?
***
I hope that covers everything I'm responsible for. Next?
Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Back