Sun Oct 27 12:43:33 1996
From owner-tc-list Sun Oct 27 12:43:33 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id MAA18729; Sun, 27 Oct 1996 12:40:22 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 10:25:29 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz"
Subject: Original Byzantine Text (Was: 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: 4300
On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:
[ ... ]
>> 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.
I don't know what happened there; it was in my original draft. (I
wonder if I can blame this on my popmail server? It's been acting
strange lately.)
Anyway, Pickering and H/F would call "Y" the original reading of
the Byzantine text.
>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?
In this case, early testimony. The support for X begins in the fifth
century and continues through the ninth (and perhaps beyond); Y
does not appear until the eighth.
But I would also argue that it is the reading of the majority of
Byzantine *groups*, and the testimony of groups -- to me -- is
stronger than the testimony of number of witnesses.
I will admit that I do not know enough to engage in firm stemmatic
work on the Byzantine tradition; my feeling based on my own incomplete
work is that Family Pi is generally better and earlier than Kx (and
obviously better and earlier than Kr), and should be followed when
it has support from other Byzantine groups -- but I do not claim
certainty for this, and am willing to listen to counterarguments.
>> 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.
I'm basing my titles on what *I* would use the editions for. You give
your names on what *you* use the editions for. (And ne'er the twain
shall meet :-)
Under the circumstances, I may have to give up and say, "I'm not sure
which is which. Where they agree, that's the majority text. Where
they disagree, I need to form my own conclusions."
Which is why a critical apparatus would be nice. I agree with an
earlier post that not all manuscripts need to be consulted to
produce a Byzantine edition; we couly get by, e.g., with the data
in the IGNTP. But it will be a *long* time before that will be
complete (and even longer, I fear, before I am in a position to
afford either a copy for home use or the time needed to commute
to check the seminary's copy regularly. :-)
Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Back