Mon Jun 3 08:59:00 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Jun  3 08:59:00 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id IAA19922; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 08:57:53 -0400
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 96 07:54 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: "Alexandrian" Text
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 7963

On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson  wrote:

>I appreciate Bob Waltz' attempts to list the five major categories of
>textual relationship.  I think he did a fine job of categorization.  I do
>have one significant point of difference, however, and this naturally is
>based upon my own transmissional theoretical perspective:

Now if I only had names for the five categories!

>On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>
>> 5) The "text-type." These are related manuscripts that *do not* derive
>> directly from a single common ancestor (other than the autographs).
>
>By my own definition this would exclude the Byzantine from being a
>texttype, which is indeed why I use the term "Textform" to describe the
>Byzantine text.

I think I missed something here.... If I read this correctly, you are
claiming that all Byzantine manuscripts derive from one archetype which
is *not* the autograph. If so, what is its superiority?

>> Another thing that needs to be noted in using these definitions is the
>>role of
>> the Byzantine text. No matter what one thinks of the origin of that text,
>> Byzantine mixture is the single most important element in the history of the
>> text.
>
>The problem here from my perspective is the use of "Byzantine mixture",
>when if looked at from a Byzantine-priority hypothesis, there is no real
>"mixture" occurring, but merely cases where either (a) certain MSS did not
>deviate from the Byzantine Textform itself or (b) such MSS were corrected
>back to the reading of the Byzantine Textform.  Certainly cases of the
>first category would not reflect any real "mixture," but merely a refusal
>or resistance to departure from the Byzantine Textform standard.  Cases
>of category (b) would not reflect "mixture" as much as "restoration"
>based upon cross-comparison and correction in the normal course of events.

This is only a difference in terminology, but I think we should clear it
up.

"Mixture" is not a measure of value, only of ancestry. When a manuscript
like 424 is corrected from a Byzantine type toward family 1739, I do
not refer to it as "restoration" -- even though in almost every case
I believe that this correction restores the original reading.

Mixture is just that: Mixture. It can go in any direction (as 424 proves.
I also suspect that the pair 630/2200 were originally Byzantine and
corrected toward other texts). Of course, given the dominant nature
of the Byzantine text at the time most manuscripts were copied, it
follows that most of the manuscripts were corrected to be closer to
the Byzantine text. And that most of them derive from something that
is significantly less Byzantine.

If I place a low value on the Byzantine element of the mixture, it is
not because I think we should ignore the Byzantine text, or automatically
assume that the Byzantine text is late. It's just that there are *so many*
Byzantine texts available that we do not need the testimony of mixed
manuscripts. For all other text-types, we *do* need mixed mss.

>> In "tight" families, there is no Byzantine influence at all. Or more
>> correctly, what separates the members of the family is not Byzantine
>> influence; the family text may be heavily Byzantine. But all that separates
>> the family members is the errors and peculiarities of scribes.
>
>This is a good assessment.  I would add to this that the errors and
>peculiarities of scribes do not account for all the family
>idiosyncracies, but usually there is some influence exercised by a
>non-Byzantine tradition involved as well.  Bob may differ with me on
>this, but I suspect much of the non-Byz influence comes from Alexandrian
>readings as found in the Vulgate, with slight Alexandrian influence from
>other non-Greek versions.
>
>By the time most of these late MSS are copied, there is little question
>that Alexandrian Greek MSS are any longer predominant, even in regional
>locations, and I suspect therefore versional or patristic/versional
>influence.  This will account not only for certain idiosyncracies of the
>"tight" families, but also for those later minuscules which are
>consistently cited in the UBS edition as presenting a text which at times
>differs significantly from the remainder of the Byzantine tradition.

I honestly can't say. I don't think this is true in Paul or the Catholics,
but I haven't done enough work in the gospels to have an opinion.

>The one thing that I would not want to claim in such situations is
>"Byzantine mixture" when it appears the REAL "mixture" is that which
>comes in at such a late date from wholly extraneous sources.

Whereas, from my perspective, mixture is commutative (to speak mathematically).
It doesn't matter whether the manuscript is Byz+f1739 or f1739+Byz; the
result is a mixed text.

>> We've already noted the classical work by Colwell. It does a
>> good job of describing the problem and what needs to be done -- but then
>>gives
>> us the useless 70% definition.
>
>Certainly Colwell's 70% criterion is hypothetical and selected basically
>at random, but I would not concur that it is useless.  There really should
>be SOME basic criterion by which to assess texttype alignment, but it
>might have to differ with each accepted texttype.  For the Byzantine
>Textform, Waltz is correct that really a 90% cutoff level would be
>preferable.

Did I say that? I agree that the number has to be high... but 90% might
exclude family Pi, which most people consider Byzantine.

Maurice has hinted elsewhere that he does *not* consider family Pi Byzantine.
I would welcome his (or anyone's) thoughts on that.

>Pickering and Hodges/Farstad lowered that to 80%; my own edition merely
>accepted Colwell's 70% (which I still think is reasonably valid).  But for
>the Alexandrian texttype, one needs to lower the standard even further,
>into the 60%-70% base, with some cases dropping into the high 50% range.
>The Western text (or non-texttype) is in even worse shape, with often a
>51%-53% amount of agreement to establish a reading as belonging to that
>texttype.
>
>I suspect in the case of the Western that some readings in the 40%-50%
>range are still clearly of the "Western type" (whatever that might mean),
>but in dropping below 50% tend to indicate that such were only
>sporadically perpetuated rather than maintaining a dominant position
>within the type.

The *basic* reason I cannot accept Colwell's 70% rule is because of
mixture. Since I keep mentioning 424, let's mention it again. Even
after correction, 424 is probably 70% Byzantine. But the remaining
30% is pure family 1739, and we can easily identify those readings
(since they are corrections). Any definition we come up with *must*
allow for 424's kinship with family 1739. Colwell's rule doesn't.

In fact, by Colwell's rule, *only one* minuscule (33) qualifies as
Alexandrian in Paul, and one other (1739) qualifies as independent.
A few others (1175, 1506, 1962, 2127) are mixed. Everything else --
including such important and/or well-known witnesses as 104 326 330
1505 1611 -- is Byzantine!

>> To sum up: If there is *any* reliable modern definition of a text-type, I
>> can't find it. Basically people are still saying, "I know one when I see
>>one."
>
>I know the Byzantine when I see it.  I know in general the Alexandrian
>when I see what remains of it.  I know the Western from some of its
>individual readings, and I know the Caesarean only in certain patterns of
>mixture between Alexandrian and Byzantine readings.  I'm not sure that we
>can move quantitatively beyond the qualitative in the search for the
>definition of a texttype.

I'm glad somebody agrees with me as to the problem. :-)

But if we cannot even agree on how to define a text-type, I have to think
that Epp is right and we are still in an "interlude" in textual criticism.
Without a definition of a text-type, how can we possibly formulate a theory
of the text?

I think we need help!

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back