Wed Aug 21 17:27:15 1996

From owner-tc-list  Wed Aug 21 17:27:15 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id RAA27324; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 17:25:41 -0400
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
 
References: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 16:18:47 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Manuscripts
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 4611

On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Maurice Robinson  wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>
>> twice as many readings -- and a *good* determination of which readings
>> are the true majority readings. (I once made a very big fool of myself
>> because NA26/27 list the wrong reading as the majority text in 2 Cor. 2:17).
>
>Seems the onus of foolship rests on those who wrongly determined one or
>the other reading in that variant unit was "the" Byzantine.
>
>This variant is an interesting case, since according to the Text und
>Textwert data, there is _no_ dominant Byzantine/Majority reading here.
>
>The "loipoi" reading has 315 MSS in support, plus 8 others which would
>obviously also support that reading, while "polloi" has 280 MSS in
>support, plus 1 other which would support that same reading.  The small
>numerical difference between 323 MSS vs 281 MSS (53% vs 47%) is not
>sufficiently significant (e.g. Colwell's 70%) to establish either reading
>as "Byz" in this case.
>The UBS and Nestle editions _are_ in error in claiming either "Byz" or "M"
>support for only the "polloi" reading (which also happens to be that of
>the TR).  Von Soden, on the other hand, is just as much in error by
>claiming "loipoi" is "the" bold-faced K (Byzantine) reading while
>asserting that "polloi" is "the"  bold-faced H (Alexandrian) reading.

Exactly. The NA apparatus *should* have marked *both* "loipoi" and
"polloi" as "pm."

>Although the wrong variant (whichever it may have been) certainly arose
>accidentally from metathesis ("loipoi" is a phonetic anagram of "polloi"),
>there simply is _no_ clear Byzantine reading here.

I agree. Which, based on my critical principles, is important. You see,
loipoi is supported by 6 630, two weak witnesses of family 1739, while
polloi is supported by 1739 1881, the two lead witnesses of the family.

If one believes that "polloi" is the Byzantine reading, then it would
appear that 1739 1881 had both been corrected toward that reading,
and that "loipoi" is the true reading of family 1739. Since, however,
there *is* no Byzantine reading, it looks as is "polloi" is the
family 1739 reading.

That fact threw off a major portion of an exposition in the only
text-critical paper I ever dared/was allowed to expose to the wide world.

>"Loipoi" was chosen in my edition on the basis of internal grounds (it is
>the "more difficult" reading, not generally being used in the Pauline
>epistles in the masculine nominative, but more normally in the phrase "to
>loipon").
>
>Metzger of course defends "polloi", but primarily, I suspect, on external
>grounds of favored MS support (Aleph A B C K P Psi 88 1739) rather than
>real internal evidence, since his claim that "loipoi" is "too offensive
>for Paul to have used" doesn't seem to cut it in light of other Pauline
>strong language (e.g. Gal.1.8-9, 1 Cor 3, 5, etc.) where he has few
>scruples concerning whom he might offend.

Exactly. I think it clear that internal evidence favors "loipoi" as the
harder reading. It also has strong manuscript support (p46 and the
"Western" text). On that basis, I also read "loipoi," though my
critical approach obviously differs completely from Robinson's.

Whereas the UBS people can generally be relied upon to print the
reading of Aleph+B whatever the other evidence says.

>It is of significant passing interest that only _one_ MS out of the entire
>divided "Byzantine/Majority" group actually follows the alleged "typical"
>Byzantine practice of "conflation" and combines both readings into "loipoi
>polloi."  Seems that under current eclectic theory well over 80% of those
>MSS should have conflated in this place, since Metzger clearly stated
>that, when confronted with more than one variant reading, both of which
>made sense, "MOST SCRIBES" [sic, with emphasis added] would choose to
>combine both opposing readings into a single unit.  Here in a requisite
>case, they chose not to do so.  Should anyone be surprised that neither
>would the same Byzantine scribes elsewhere go and do likewise.

It seems to me that the theory that scribes conflated when confronted with
two variants has been pretty well demolished. Westcott and Hort's examples
are far too few to mean anything. I would say that scribes, when faced
with conflicting readings, will tend to choose the reading they think
*most appropriate* -- but how they decide what is "most appropriate" is
frequently beyond *my* understanding. :-)

See, folks, even Maurice Robinson and I agree on some things. In this
instance, we agree at all points.

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back