Sun Oct 27 09:28:24 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sun Oct 27 09:28:24 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA17924; Sun, 27 Oct 1996 09:26:34 -0500
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 09:22:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: a presentation of Amphoux's work
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 4603



On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson  wrote:
> 
> [ concerning Vaganay-Amphoux: ]

> I think there really is an urgent need for a better manual of textual
> criticism. 

> I don't think any of them present the whole picture. Indeed, all
> of them combined leave something to be desired.

Fully agreed.  What is needed is a single volume which will contain the
best elements of what appears in Metzger, Greenlee, Souter, Gregory,
Aland, Vaganay, etc.  So far such still has not appeared.

> On another topic, in another post:

> >There still is the terminology matter which needs correction, to avoid
> >confusion: As I noted, < >is the "rough draft" of the Byzantine Textform ("original Byzantine
> >text"), while H/F is the "rough draft" of the "majority text".>>

> Let me give my logic, and then see what comes in response. :-)

[stemmatics brought up in re: Hodges/Farstad's edition]

> Still, I think that stemmatics have a place in constructing the
> *original* form of the Byzantine text.

The question is not one of stemmatics, but of stated goals and purposes.
H/F nowhere claim to be restoring the Byzantine Textform, and indeed even
with their stemmatic applications, the term "majority text" (even if by
then a misnomer) continues to be used.  In my case, the restoration of the
Byzantine Textform is primary, stemmatics or not.  Therefore, by each of
our own definitions, H/F are concerned only with the "majority text" while
I am concerned with the Byzantine Textform.

Recall also that I am not opposed to a proper use of stemmatics in
research.  My objection to H/F's use of stemmatics is that their entire
system is based upon shared agreement in readings of any type as opposed
to shared agreements in plain and clear error, which is a principle of
traditional stemmatics.

> Let's take a hypothetical example in the Gospels. (It has to be
> hypothetical, because I can't point to such a reading.) Suppose
> that the Byzantine text splits, with A, family Pi, the purple
> uncials, and the Lambda and M groups supporting one reading (call
> it "X"), while Kx and Kr have another (call it "Y"). The support
> for Y is greater -- probably over 60% of the total. "X," however,
> has the support of most of the earliest Byzantine witnesses, and
> of a large number of groups. Assume that both are equal on all
> other grounds (if such is possible).
> 
> Pickering would say that " was the original Byzantine reading.

Something got left out after the " ... so I don't know what you think
Pickering or H/F would say.  I think (assuming they had to work
solely from Von Soden here) that H/F and Pickering would support
the "Y" reading with little question.  

Robinson would suggest that the Kx group would remain that from which the
other Byzantine sub-groups most likely derived (i.e. the "Y" group).  It
still would have to be determined whether the reading of the other
Byzantine sub-groups might have arisen from outside the Byzantine Textform
and might thus reflect corruption within those earlier Byzantine witnesses
(certainly in an era where non-Byzantine texttypes have greater strength
the likelihood of corruption from them would be increased over the era in
which the Kx Byzantine group might clearly dominate).  I would not
automatically rule out the possibility of the Ka and Family Pi groups
being original, but I would be cautious in my approach due to the
possibility of outside contamination. 

> I would say that X is the original Byzantine reading.

On the grounds that the earlier testimony is more likely original, or on
stemmatic grounds of some sort?

> So, by my standards, the edition that prints X will be the
> "Byzantine" reading; the other will be the "Majority" edition.

These definition I think are reversed from those of H/F and myself, so I
would still suggest following our own terminology on this point.  The
assumption that the Ka or K1 groups might be earlier was already made by
Von Soden.  So far as I know H/F did not accept that assessment, and
neither do I; though I do not think H/F attempt to classify the Ka or K1
groups within any stemmatic line of tradition, whereas I consider them to
be derivatives from Kx.


_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back