Fri Jun 7 10:40:35 1996
From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 7 10:40:35 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id KAA14211; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:39:14 -0400
Message-Id: <199606071435.QAA35806@mail.uni-muenster.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 96 16:39:20 +0100
From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid)
Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" text
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 5220
On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>By the way -- are you sure the alignment should not be 1505+2495
>versus
>1611+2138? That seemed to be what I found when I examined the data
>(though
>I was consulting Richards and Merk for some of my readings, and
>neither is particularly reliable).
Sorry, my fault. Shure, the alignment in the Generals is 1505 +
2495 versus 1611 + 2138. I simply can not recall what caused this
fault.
>I obviously spoke too dramatically when I said there were *no*
>such deviations.
>I would imagine that a detailed examination would reveal several.
>There will
>always be a few deviations due to scribal errors or perhaps
>marginal comments.
>Or even an occasional mixed reading. But the bulk of the
>variations in family 2138 are cases where one set of manuscripts
>have a reading associated with the
>Byzantine text and the rest don't.
It all depends on how far one goes into detailed examination. I in
fact did not go into very detail, but I commented on the bases of a preliminary
glance at the edition (Aland/Juckel) with a Rueckuebersetzung of James, 1 Peter,
and 1 John. With some extra-time I will be able to put the figures together.
[omitting large parts of Bob's post for the sake of related
subject:]
>Although in assessing the Harklean version, one thing that *must*
>be remembered is the marginalia. This is only a feeling -- I have
>not studied the matter in detail -- but it appears to me that the
>Harklean is based on *two* texts -- one
>Byzantine and one belonging to family 2138. Where the two
>manuscripts disagreed on an add/omit reading, Thomas put the
>longer reading in the text in asterisks.
>Where there was a substitution, one or the other reading went into
>the text and the other (sometimes) in the margin.
The marginalia of the Harklensis are hard stuff. In the General
epistles there are roughly speaking two types of marginalia, one of
the comment like type, and one referring to critical signs
(asteriscus) within the text itself. Within the comment like
type there are some presumably only referring to different
renderings (often the Greek word is written in majuscule), and some
presumably giving different readings (alike the critical signs type
marginalia).
For the General epistles (and Acta) Thomas himself stated that he
only used one Greek manuscript. He also stated that he used the
Philoxeniana as collation base. Therfore it seems that the readings
he comments on in the margin (with or without asteriscus) are
somehow referring to the (mainly lost) Philoxeniana of the General
epistles and not to another Greek manuscript. Shure, the Philoxeniana too
was a translation based on a Greek manuscript, but for the Generals
the marginalia seem to reflect Greek readings through the
intermediary stage of the Philoxeniana. (BTW in the colophon of the
Harklensis to the Pauline epistles it is said that Polycarp [the
translator of the Philoxeniana] checked his Greek Vorlage with an
autograph of Pamphylus of Caesarea.)
If Thomas in James puts a longer reading in the text in asteriscus
(nine times), the longer text is only two times a Byz. reading,
three times the longer text seems to be not (no more?) attested in
our extant Greek MSS, another three longer readings are near
singulars (one to four Greek MSS). Interesting, isn't it?
Bob further wrote:
>I do not claim that p46 and B belong either to a family or to a
>tribe. I believe they *do* share a text-type. But I would be
>amazed if anyone would claim they are closer than that. p46, in
>particular, has a text which seems completely
>unique. It has near-singular agreements with everything -- B,
>Aleph, D, G, 33, 1739.
>However, it has many more near-singular agreements with B than
>with anything else.
I totally agree with the description of P46.
>If B and p46 share only a text-type, then the question of
>Byzantine influence does not come up.
>I suppose I should admit that I compiled my list of levels of
>agreement rather hastily (the disadvantage of e-mail). I should,
>perhaps, have argued for five levels of agreement (I still feel
>that *that* is correct) without mentioning the Byzantine text.
>But I also think that, in *most* cases, it *is* the degree of
>Byzantine influence that separates family or "tight" tribe
>members.
I should point out that I stressed the influence matter to the
extreme in order to emphasize the problems involved. Assuming
influence from (other) text-types implies by consequence the
assumption of existing text-types. But text-types are exactly what
we are trying to define. It is by no means clear that we all refer
to the same "thing". May be you can refrain from the logical
implications (letting the historical problems aside) of
"influence", I simply cannot. Text-types, the least one can say, refer to a
certain distinct _pattern_ of readings. Even within the Byzantine "text-type"
slightly different patterns are detectable. So, to my mind, the question is what
distinct _pattern_ of readings makes for example the Peshitta the "earliest
substantial witness" for the Byz. text of the Gospels (Bob on Thu, 6 June 1996)?
Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
Back