Mon Oct 28 20:44:00 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Oct 28 20:44:00 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id UAA00948; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 20:43:02 -0500
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 20:39:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Original Byzantine Text (Was: 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: 2480



On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson  wrote:
> 
> >On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

[Waltz]

> >> 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.

[Robinson]

> >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.  

> 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? 

I am not sure what you or I missed -- my comments were specifically
directed to the above statement of "finding all possible [Byzantine]
sub-groups and taking their 'majority' testimony."

> If changes
> in the Byzantine text cannot occur, how does one explain the existence
> of the three great groups, Kx, Kr, and family Pi?

Not sure if we are talking past each other here or not.  Certainly the
Byzantine Textform is not rigid or monolithic, else there would be no
sub-groups.  The difference is in how the history of development of those
sub-groups is viewed.  You view a sub-group (Family Pi) for example as the
source from which the later Kx group developed; I view Kx as reflecting
the primary Byzantine Textform, from which the sub-groups Ka K1 Kc Kr
etc.) developed during the course of time, but with none of the sub-groups
being the parent of Kx let alone any other sub-group. 

> (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.")

Which is reasonable, though I still prefer Ka.

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

Back