Sat Oct 26 13:26:27 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sat Oct 26 13:26:27 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id NAA13334; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 13:23:20 -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: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:17:46 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Colwell, etc. (Was: Oh no... I agree with Maurice Robinson)
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2898

On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson  wrote:

>Re: the topic of this message: "Oh no... I agree with Maurice Robinson"
>It seems that textual criticism probably has degenerated beyond recovery
>if topics such as these continue....*;-)

Would it have helped if I had put a smiley on the topic? :-)

Seriously, I think that Maurice and I see many of the same problems with
conventional eclecticism. We just come to totally different conclusions
about how to address the problem.

>On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>
>> For Colwell, perhaps the best essay is "Hort Redivivus:
>> A Plea and a Program" (in "Studies in Methodology in Textual
>> Criticism of the New Testament").
>
>I would add to this Colwell's article on "Genealogical Method: It's
>Achievements and Limitations" as particularly significant.

Colwell's book, in fact, breaks up into four parts: "Genetic
Group Relationships" (pp. 1-95), "Elementary Procedures" (pp. 96-
124, including the infamous essay on the 70% rule), "Methods in the
Dating of New Testament Manuscripts" (pp. 125-147), and "The
Contemporary situation." The essays in Part I, which include
"Genealogical Method" as well as my favorite "Method in Grouping
New Testament Manuscripts," add up to a startling indictment of
the procedures of the early twentieth century. "Hort Redivivus,"
the only essay in part IV, is Colwell's proposals for remedying
the situation. I probably agree with this article more than
Maurice Robinson, since my results are closer to Colwell's.

>> Both authors attempt to show
>> that, at this time, we do not have an established theory of the
>> text, and so engage in rather mixed methods.
>
>...with equally mixed results.

Here again we agree, though my resultant text is obviously closer
to the eclectics' text than is R/P.

>> BTW -- For once I get to correct Maurice Robinson on another point
>> (although I'll admit I left myself open to this). I don't *really*
>> consider 1739 the most important manuscript. I consider it *one of
>> the most.* It's right up there with p46, B, Aleph, and D.
>
>All of which are among my favorite MSS which I do _not_ primarily use to
>establish the original text. *;-)

Why am I not surprised? :-)

BTW -- speaking of controversial manuscripts.... I've recently been
wondering about 2427. It's a manuscript of Mark (Aland dates it as
XIV century) that has the peculiar property of standing closer to B
than any other manuscript (including Aleph, according to my statistics).

I saw a reference in a commentary once claiming that this manuscript
was of questionable authenticity. I can imagine a reason for the
question: What is a near-copy of B doing being made in the fourteenth
century? But this doesn't seem to me to be reason enough to really
doubt it. Does anyone know anything about why this ms. is
controversial?

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back