Fri Jun 7 09:50:20 1996
From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 7 09:50:20 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id JAA14037; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 09:49:07 -0400
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 96 08:45 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: Another set of miscellaneous replies
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 12842
I don't know whether to be amazed at how many side discussions this
"Alexandrian Text" thread has thrown off -- or irritated that we still
haven't managed to come to grips with the initial question of "What is
a text-type, and can we prove that B and Aleph do/do not form one in
the gospels?"
But here are some odds and ends of replies, mostly to Maurice Robinson.
First off, I did not mean to imply that Diocletian's persecution was
not severe. It was very prolonged (over a decade of mild persecution,
followed by nine years of intense persecution). It was more extensive
than any previous persecution except the Decian. And -- in the areas
administered by Galerius, at least -- it was thorough.
But there was nothing unique about it. Everything that happened under
Diocletian and Galerius had happened before. So we should not attribute
any extraordinary effects to it.
Also, about scriptures under Constantine. Obviously, since Christianity
was now legal, there would be an increase in demand under Constantine.
I just don't think that production would have risen all that much.
This is only logic, but I think it has a certain validity. Remember
that Constantine did not *enforce* Christianity, merely allowed it.
So many scribes would have remained non-Christians. And I can't speak
for anyone back then, but I wouldn't want a non-Christian copying my
scripture! Maurice has told me he disagrees; he may be right.
Remember also that no one could have been absolutely certain the Edict
of Milan would hold. The Empire had changed its mind about Christianity
several times before (and would change it briefly again, in the time
of Julian). So scribes would have been cautious at first.
Yes, copying of scripture would increase after Constantine. But -- I
think -- only slowly.
Also, I did not mean to imply that Constantine issued an "official
text," or that Eusebius's fifty copies had a particularly great effect
on the text of scripture. I *do not* believe that Constantine had an
official text. My point was simply that, if Constantine's reign had
any direct effect on scripture at all, it was not to promote the
Byzantine text.
Now, on a subject near and dear to my heart....
Robinson:
>> Rather the logic here, it seems to me, would be the same as asking how
>> could Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn and all the rest, working independently,
>> have come up with a style of music which we (now) call "Classical"?
>
>This analogy fails, since it does not deal with the same thing. Rather,
>allow a given of the hymn tune "Amazing Grace" and note that in virtually
>all hymnbooks of all denominations, the rendition remains basically
>identical, and usually even the key in which it is written remains
>unchanged. Various classical composers, with styles as diverse as Bach,
>Beethoven, and Ives might deal in a quite different manner with that hymn
>tune, but the "original essence" of it (which preceded any of the
>classical variations) would still remain, even though altered by those
>composers, sometimes in a dramatic manner.
Please folks, let's not use analogies to classical music. Classical
music is largely defined by its instruments. Most orchestral instruments
(except piano) can play only one note at a time, and most (except
strings) can only play out of the twelve-tone scale. It is this, far
more than composer's habits, that define classical music. Within
those limits, almost anything prevails (listen to music by Berg or
Hindemith some time and you'll see what I mean).
If we must use musical analogies at all -- and I'd rather we didn't --
we should use analogies to folk music. By which I don't mean the stuff
they played on radio stations in the 1960s, but actual *traditional*
music, handed down from parents to children. In which one can see
significant variations. For example, I just encountered a version
of "Poor Wayfaring Stranger" from the Catskills in which the stranger
became a "Poor and Foreign Stranger." Hymns, if not rigorously
controlled by the printing press, can undergo amazing changes....
Leaving the soapbox now. :-)
>> 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.
I'll admit to being slightly shocked by this. If this is valid, it
implies that less than one manuscript in ten thousand has survived.
Which seems almost unbelievable. What have I missed?
Robinson:
>> 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?
Well... "medieval" would imply such a date; I perhaps should have used
a different word. (Come on, people, don't write so fast, so I can have
more time to think about what I'm saying. :-)
I would imagine you are much more expert on this than I am. To me it
seems that the flood of full-blown Byzantine manuscripts that continued
until the time of Erasmus began in the ninth century, and that manuscripts
such as E-F-G-H in the gospels and K-L in the epistles are typical.
But I am open to enlightenment; my knowledge of the Byzantine text in
the Gospel is largely confined to the comments by Wisse and in Paul
is dependent on the "NT auf Papyrus" collations plus Clark's "Eight
Praxapostoloi."
>
>> 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)
Agreed. Though W is of about the same date as A, so it doesn't change
things much.
>> 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.
Again, agreed. P and 046 are, as I understand it, the lead witnesses
to those two types.
As an aside to Maurice -- how do you feel about those two types?
Which one do you consider the original Byzantine textform?
>> 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.
When I referred to a "mindset," I meant (say) a tendency to add
superfluous pronouns, or delete them, or fix certain grammatical
constructions. I agree with Maurice that most scribes were doing their
best to copy what was before them, and that each scribe made
idiosyncratic errors. But idiosyncratic errors will hardly create a
text-type!
Carlson:
> The analogy to biological genetics seems apt. The main way for a large
> number of variants that constitute a text-type to be adopted is for the
> transmission process to go through a bottleneck (i.e., reproductive
> isolation). Apparently the Lucian recension that had been proposed but
> now largely abandoned as one such bottleneck, and I think the
> conversion from uncial to minuscule is another. Although, there could
> be a textual analog to "genetic drift," it seems quite unlikely that a
> majority text-type can coalesce at a late stage without going through a
> transmissional bottleneck.
I once had an extended discussion on this subject with a biologist. We
concluded that there are a number of functions in nature and human
society which followed this "genetic" model.
However, there *is* a way for a new "gene" to be propagated without
a "bottleneck." That is "mutation" to produce a "superior" form.
I won't get into an argument about biological evolution. But I can
cite examples in other areas. It will often happen that a folk song
will exist in various forms, and then someone creates a "superior"
form (e.g. one with an improved melody or an easier set of words).
The "improved" form will then gradually sweep all other forms away.
(I could cite examples, but they probably wouldn't mean anything
to the people on this list.)
It could certainly be argued that this has happened with the NT text
as well. The best example is the ending of Mark. Without saying which
is original, it is clear that two major forms circulated -- with and
without 16:9-20. But the longer form clearly prevailed because it
was *superior* -- i.e. it looked complete.
Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Back