Fri Jun 7 13:55:53 1996
From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 7 13:55:53 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id NAA15629; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:53:46 -0400
Message-Id: <199606071749.TAA18472@mail.uni-muenster.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 96 19:53:46 +0100
From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid)
Subject: Re: Another set of miscellaneous replies
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
In-Reply-To:
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: 6902
On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote (inter alia):
[quoting Robinson:]
>>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?
Well, the first thing we all miss at least from the long quotation from Kirsopp
Lake (given by Maurice) is the concluding sentence: "(...are almost all orphan
children without brothers or sisters.) Taking this fact into consideration along
with the negative result of our collation of MSS. at Sinai, Patmos, and
Jerusalem, it is hard to resist the conclusion that the scribes usually
destroyed their exemplars when they had copied the sacred books" (HTR XXI, 1928,
pp. 348f).
If this had been usual scribal practice, then why do we have more than one
manuscript now? But, to be serious, if we look at the Vulgate tradition, we have
similar results.
In 1972 (Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung, vol. 5), Bonifatius
Fischer published the results from the examination of 32 Vulgate-MSS all
stemming from the scriptorium of Tours (France) covering a time span from around
100 years (796 to around 900 AD). These 32 Vulgate-MSS can be pretty well
arranged by the style of handwriting and the decorations. But, a collation of
these MSS at 50 Teststellen in the Gospels revealed NO stemmatical arrangement
of the texts they contain. Shurely, there are some MSS that are more closely
related than others, but a more precise description of the textual development
is not possible. Interesting enough, what can be seen is:
(a) When the leadership of the monastery changed to the Abt Adalhard (834 AD),
there was a textual shift towards the Vulgate text of Reins.
(b) However, a dependence of Tours (Marmoutier) remained at the same time
conservative (not influenced by the text of Reins).
(c) Towards the end of the leadership of the Abt Vivian (around 850 AD) there
was a change back to the older text of Tours.
(d) After that there seems to have been taken place a constant change between
both texts with mixtures involved.
After all, we have to keep in mind that the texts involved are Vulgate-texts,
i.e. they all belong to the same branche of textual transmission clearly
distinct from the various Old-Latin texts.
I now may return to the Lake-Blake-New collations from the MSS mentioned above.
119 (I found the number on p. 342) against Textus Receptus collated MSS in Mark
11 are involved.
(a) First, they isolated a textual stratum which they call the "Ecclesiastical"
text ("the most popular text in MSS. of the tenth to the fourteenth century") by
meens of identifying four readings were almost all MSS under discussion deviate
from the Textus Receptus.
(b) Then, they noted another 10 readings which they judge to be regarded as
variants within the "Ecclesiastical" text.
(c) Some 20 MSS might be connected to (von Soden's) K 1, though Lake shows signs
of hesitation.
(d) Another seven MSS present a relatively pure K a text, with 16 additional MSS
representing a mixture of K a and the "Ecclesiastical" text.
(e) Another four MSS appeared to share a common pattern hitherto unknown.
(f) The readings of von Sodens Antiochian commentary (A c) are clearely
identifiable, but not by meens of a group.
(g) Within the 33 verses of Mark 11 collated against the Textus Receptus there
are 23 readings where at least 10 percent of the 119 MSS desert.
To conclude therefrom, I may say that some 17 to 34 percent of the MSS
(depending on wether we take K 1 into account or not) out of the 119 could be
grouped by different patterns of readings. A glance at von Soden revealed that
some of the readings involved have support from von Soden's various I groups,
occasionally also from von Soden's H group. But that needs further assessment.
However, it seems important to me that not few of the readings may have been
caused independently by assimilation. The whole thing, to my mind is not as
disturbing as it seems. A huge distinct pattern of readings seems to be fixed
(i.e the primary Byzantine text stratum ), a few smaller distinct patterns in
addition to the primary stratum are relatively purely displayed by few MSS. The
majority of the MSS seems to display mixture mostly within the smaller patterns.
Therefore, the additional smaller patterns can be seen as representing a broadly
disseminated and very well known (at least to later scribes) pool of
variant-readings. If the constant threat of assimilation is taken into account,
it is to my mind not disturbing what can be found within the libraries
Lake-Blake-New have examined.
Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
Back