Sat Oct 26 21:18:53 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sat Oct 26 21:18:53 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA15905; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 21:17:04 -0400
X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.4b9
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 02:15:50 +0100
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin)
Subject: Re: a presentation of Amphoux's work
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 7225

>
>Assuming all events occurred precisely as Amphoux wishes to claim, the
>question then must be asked as to why there is not a shred of historical
>or MS evidence to support his contentions, even granting (as I do) that

Not a shred? You're quite affirmative here! Amphoux's declarations rest not
only on variants, but also on (1) patristical texts about the history of
the NT text (you know, all these texts at the end of the Aland synopsis (2)
comparison with other very early texts parallel to the Gospel traditions
(Didache, Gospel of Thomas, writings of early fathers like Justin,
Ignatius...) (3) a deep literary analysis of the text as it is in Codex
Bezae. Of course, all this is open to discussion and analysis, and that's
where we all have to intervene... I don't pretend to be sufficiently expert
to pronounce a judgment on this work, simply I find it very interesting.

Specially, and that's people used to "classical" textual criticism may find
it exotic, litterary analysis plays a _very_ important role in his views
about Codex Bezae. To put it like he told it to me and like he puts it in
his latest books (La Parole qui devint Evangile and L'Evangile de
Matthieu), codex Bezae is the only NT text-type where the text can be seen
as a global literary project. The proof will be done when Amphoux will have
given us a global interpretation of codex Bezae - say, something like a
commentary showing us the structure and intertextuality of its text. Do you
see what I mean? What is interesting by Amphoux is that he opens our
discipline new avenues by showing an important interaction with literary
analysis.

By the way. If you have B. Aland and J. Delobel's (editors) book (New
Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Church History - a Discussion of
Methods, Kampen, Pharos, 1994), Jacobus A. Petzer gives on pages 24-25 two
paragraphs where he summarizes Amphoux's works.

I would also like to add that the vaganay-Amphoux manual is not enough to
have a complete representation of Amphoux's theories. His later works have
a much more developed argumentation, and I think it's worth making the
effort reading them (but maybe you have already?).

>recensions may have occurred in localized regions.  For such to have
>occurred on the grand scale so as to virtually obliterate almost all
>traces of the Bezae type of text among the Greek MSS and even among the
>"Western" witnesses is little different than Westcott and Hort's theory
>that a massive "Syrian [= Byzantine] recension" so totally eliminated the
>Neutral [Alexandrian] text from subsequent transmissional history.

Yes and no. There is quite a difference. I know the question is quite
commonplace, but when is a book considered "in the making" and when is it
considered to be "transmitted"? Amphoux's theories are based on a long
"making" process, in which there have been many interventions, among which
he puts the Smyrna edition and also what happened later.
Our division between redaction and transmission is simply too clear-cut to
understand Amphoux's points. He sees the "history of the text" (an
important notion in his vocabulary) as a long process, involving both
redaction and transmission, without such a clear distinction between both.
I do not think Westcott and Hort would have presented things in such a
nuanced manner.

>
>Given that scribes are supposedly more prone to include and insert than to
>remove, it would seem that significantly shorter texts than that found in
>the Bezae format (whether Alexandrian or Byzantine) would have been
>strongly resisted by the bulk of the church, and that the Bezae type of
>text should have continued to be perpetuated in quantity, if not in
>majority, among the Greek MS witnesses.  In light of these considerations
>I personally do not find much that is convincing in Amphoux's theory, any
>more than I did with A.C.Clark's view concerning the Western text (though
>I do agree with Clark's assertion that the canon of the shorter reading is
>faulty).

I understand. For this matter you need to read another article. What caused
the almost total loss of this text was its role in the priscillian
controversy.
Here's the reference of that important article:
C.-B. Amphoux, Les premieres versions latines de Luc 5 et leur contribution
a l'histoire du texte (this is catastrophic: I notice I have a photocopy of
the article, without its source being mentioned - a friend gave me a copy.
If I remember, it's taken from a collective work about the latin Bible,
dedicated to H.J. Frede and W. Thiele as the beginning of the article
shows; article is on pages 193-211 - give me references if you find!).
To summarize, Amphoux says the D-text was probably eliminated in the time
of St Jerome due to its exploitation by and association with priscillianist
circles.

Another earlier article that is illustrative of Amphoux's literary methods,
applied to the Lord's prayer in Luke is:
C.-B. Amphoux, La revision marcionite du "Notre Pere" de Luc (11.2-4) et sa
place dans l'histoire du texte in R. Gryson - P. Bogaert, Recherches sur
l'histoire de la Bible latine (Louvain-la-Neuve, Cahiers RTL 19, 1987)
Here he shows how the numeric structure (my vocabulary?) of a text in codex
Bezae gives evidence for its originality, as compared to other textual
witnesses where, due to revision, this structure is broken. Here, you're at
the heart of his method.

>
>> First, his revision of the Vagany manual has been translated into english
>> (and updated when compared to the french edition, you english-speaking guys
>> are lucky):
>> Leon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux, An introduction to New
>> Testament textual criticism (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991).
>
>We have this volume in our library.  I personally did not recommend it to
>students because it does not seem to provide a reasonably balanced view of
>the evidence in the manner of Metzger.

I understand, as it is sometimes a plea for Amphoux's theories. I begun
also with Metzger's little manual, and am very indebted to it. I'm even
more to his excellent book about the versions.
To come back to Amphoux, my point is that his revision of Vaganay doesn't
give a complete picture of his work. For this, you need to read his other
works and articles, especially the more recent ones. By the way, whan
Amphoux speaks of the manual, he still calls it "le Vaganay", which shows
that he refrains from considering it his own, and from incorporating too
much of his own material in it.

But, in fact: who's balanced? Probably every manual of textual criticism in
the world reflects the views of the person who wrote it. Metzger's stance,
though definitely balanced and moderated as you say (and, which french
politeness appreciates, kind towards people who think differently - which
is not always the case in the discipline) is definitely alexandrian. And,
speaking of another manual, Aland's is quite aggressive towards proponents
of other theories and other editors. May his soul rest in peace, though.

Respectfully yours,


shlomo w-shayno!

Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium

Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable.
What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable.

Back