Thu Jun 6 21:29:50 1996
From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 21:29:50 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id VAA11697; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 21:28:38 -0400
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 21:25:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: This and That
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: 7242
[Answering a selection of items from Waltz' lengthy response]
On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
> 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.
Probably less gravely than you think, since the bulk of the texts of all
editions remains identical.
> Robinson again:
>> 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.
The article mentioned (which I have before me) reflects a reasonable
statistical sampling with significant results. The article contains a
collation of a sample chapter (Mark 11) from "all the MSS (excluding
lectionaries and commentaries) on Mt. Sinai, at Patmos, and in the
Patriarchal Library and the collection of St. Saba at Jerusalem" [as of
1928, obviously] (p.339). They omitted from collation only MS 1241, which
is treated separately in the Six Collations volume, due to its peculiar
text. They also omitted 1192 and 1210 because "they seem to us to have
weak Caesarean texts" (p.340). Their intention in this particular
excursus was not to categorize the Caesarean text, but accurately to
present a Byzantine model. Just under 100 MSS were collated for this
particular study, and the results are displayed in the HTR article.
The point is that these MSS, which in the view of Lake, Blake, and New
were likely copied within the confines of those three widely separated
monasteries, presented a near-identical Byzantine Textform, yet without
any indication of genealogical ties, or even descent from within the MSS
of the same monastery. They raise some valid concerns, and their
comments (p.340) are worth quoting in extenso:
The results are instructive, especially in their negative aspects.
This collation covers three of the great ancient collections of MSS.;
and these are not modern conglomerations, brought together from all
directions. Many of the MSS. now at Sinai, Patmos, and Jerusalem must be
codices written in the scriptoria of these monasteries. We expected to
find that a collation covering all the MSS. in each library would show
many cases of direct copying. But there are practically no such cases.
What does this mean?
Before answering the question, it may be well to put another. Why are
there only a few fragments (even in the two oldest of the monastic
collections, Sinai and St. Saba) which come from a date earlier than the
10th century?
There must have been in existence many thousands of manuscripts of the
gospels in the great days of Byzantine prosperity, between the fourth and
the tenth centuries. There are now extant but a pitiably small number.
Moreover, the amount of direct genealogy which has been detected in
extant codices is almost negligible. Nor are many known MSS. sister
codices. . . . Apart from . . . [f1 and f13] there seem to be no groups
of MSS. which are conceivably descendants of a single lost codex. There
are cognate groups -- families of distant cousins -- but the manuscripts
which we have are almost all orphan children without brothers or
sisters.
The data and conclusions of Lake, Blake, and New need to be seriously
considered in formulating any hypothesis regarding the nature of the
Byzantine Textform.
> 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.
It is generally agreed since Voss that Von Soden's Kr group is a
distinctive sub-type of the Byzantine Textform, and that MSS of this
sub-type do have some genetic links, though none of the links are direct.
> 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....
Which is why the Alands chose to use the 1000 selected readings as a
gauge of a MS's textual affinity. It may not be a perfect system, but,
given the geometrically-increasing alternatives noted above, it probably
remains a reasonable approach.
> I think we need to distinguish here between the Byzantine *textform*
> (to use Robinson's term), Byzantine *manuscripts*, and the late
> medieval majority text.
I would distinguish between these, though I would place the late medieval
Byz text after the 12th century; would you do the same?
> Gospels:
> Earliest substantial witness: Peshitta (IV)
> Earliest substantial Greek witness: A (V)
Add to that the clearly Byzantine portion of W (which had to have been
copied from some previous archetype which also was clearly "Byzantine" in
character)
> Apocalypse (again, tentative):
> Earliest substantial witness: P, 046, minuscules (IX)
> Earliest substantial Greek witness: same
> Earliest pure witness: same
Since there are two competing "Byzantine" or "majority" texttypes in the
Apocalypse (Andreas and Q), I would not claim any specific MS as "the"
substantially Byzantine example. Leading MSS of the separate An and Q
categories could be postulated, but little more.
> Hurtado, on Robinson:
> 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.
Actually, I think almost all scribes had a certain "mindset," and that
was basically to reproduce the text of their exemplar as accurately as
possible, correcting errors when known, and checking and correcting
errors against other exemplars when the situation was doubtful.
Other than that, scribes definitely -did- have certain "tendencies" toward
specific types of error (accidental omission, dittography, unconscious
substitution of synonyms, etc., coupled with at times deliberate
alteration where assumed error was perceived incorrectly, or to strengthen
orthodox doctrine, etc.). However, these tendencies were not texttype
specific, and affected all scribes of all texttype exemplars, though not
in identical forms or quantity. My own dissertation study on the
"Scribal Habits Among MSS of the Apocalypse" tended to show the basic
fidelity of most all scribes to their task, even with their varying
degrees of tendency toward error.
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back