Tue Jun 11 08:46:47 1996

From owner-tc-list  Tue Jun 11 08:46:47 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id IAA29806; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 08:45:33 -0400
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 96 07:41 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: Re: Holmes Overview Revisited
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3280

On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson  wrote,
in part (quoting Holmes):

[ ... ]
>
>>         --a reasoned eclectic like K. Aland worked with an explicit and
>> well-developed theory of tranmission of the text, as is clear from Aland and
>> Aland, _Text_.
>
>Is there really an "explicit and well-developed theory of transmission"
>in that volume?  If so, I must have missed it.  All I see therein is a
>notion that the papyri are a key to the original text and that the
>Byzantine is the late "Imperial text" (whatever is really meant by that,
>since no recension or imposed authority seems to be suggested).  No
>explanation really exists therein to explain how the utterly mixed text
>of the competing papyri actually came to be that way, nor how the
>existing texttypes derived from the mixed papyri, let alone from the
>autograph.  A theory of transmission simply does not exist by citing
>sporadic data without being comprehensive in explaining the whole process
>of transmission.

I have to agree with Maurice on this. While I concede that scholars
such as Zuntz and Metzger had textual theories (Metzger's being a
slightly modernized version of Westcott & Hort), Aland seems almost
to deliberately reject one. He concedes only two text-types (Alexandrian
and Byzantine), denies that they existed before the fourth century,
procedes to rate all the minuscules based on their similarity to
the UBS and Byzantine texts  -- and bases his text on "local genealogical"
methods that *sound* like rigorous eclecticism.

[ ... ]
>
>I would be especially interested to learn of either Fee's or Metzger's
>theory of transmission, since I have never seen such attempted by either
>scholar.  Do you have some privy information in this regard?

As noted, I would say that Metzger largely follows WH. See the
introduction to the UBS commentary volume, and his dissents there
on the subject of the "Western Non-Interpolations" (plus Aland's
comments on Metzger's conservative view of the "Western" text).

[ ... ]
>
>Colwell I know did _not_ have a theory of transmission, once he abandoned
>his quest to establish the Alexandrian texttype as the autograph (which
>came as he and K.W.Clark attempted to reconstruct that supposed
>Alexandrian autograph and gave the project up as hopeless).  Most of
>Colwell's later writings clearly show his discontent with modern
>eclecticism, but also his frustration with not being able to come up with
>much of anything better, even though he knew and admitted that "textual
>criticism without a history of the text is impossible."

Again, I am inclined to agree. Colwell sought methods to write the
history of the text -- but (whether one accepts his methods or not,
and it should be noted that I'm not the only one to question some of
his techniques!) he never actually *prepared* such a history.

>I still maintain, therefore, and unapologetically, that "modern eclecticism
>still proceeds as if it has no theory of textual transmission ... "
>I suggest you ask Epp and see whether he does not agree with me on this
>point.

I'm not sure that Epp would go that far -- but his recent collection of
essays suggests that he is *still* frustrated at the lack of progress in
this area.

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back