Mon Oct 28 10:07:05 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Oct 28 10:07:05 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA24780; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 10:05:58 -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: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 09:59:23 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: 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: 2347

On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson  wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>
>> 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 would conclude this to fall under the same fallacy as that of Sturz with
>his "majority of texttypes" view.  The Byzantine archetype (whatever it
>might be) should not be established merely by finding all possible
>sub-groups and taking their "majority" testimony.  This again avoids the
>question of historically explaining the transmission of the various
>components which are part of the Byzantine Textform.
>
>Certainly if one wants to hold Ka or K1 as original solely because of age
>of witnesses, that is a possibility, and a better one than merely counting
>up the subgroups;  however, my objection to that method is that I consider
>it a fallacy to presume earlier date of witnesses necessarily means an
>earlier text, when in fact such might reflect an early Byzantine text with
>intrusions from non-Byzantine texttypes, from which the later Byzantine
>MSS are free.  Otherwise, one also will be compelled to explain
>transmissionally how the readings found in the Ka or K1 types were
>rejected and/or otherwise altered so as to produce the "standard" reading
>found in the Kx mass of Byzantine MSS.  I continually find it far simpler
>to view minority texttypes as well as minority sub-types as localized
>deviations from the primary Textform rather than earlier forms of the text
>which is dominant.

I think I missed something here.... I offered as a hypothesis that
Family Pi approximates the original Byzantine text (while wanting
one or two other subgroups to support it, so as to ensure that the
particular reading is not just an error in that group). Apart from
numbers of witnesses involved, how does this differ from assuming that
Kx, or one of its subgroups, is the original Byzantine text? If changes
in the Byzantine text cannot occur, how does one explain the existence
of the three great groups, Kx, Kr, and family Pi?

(Incidentally, I tentatively am accepting Wisse's groupings here,
rather than von Soden's, so I call Ki part of Kx, and refer to Ka
as "family Pi.")

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back