Fri Nov 29 11:43:36 1996

From owner-tc-list  Fri Nov 29 11:43:36 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA13696; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 11:42:40 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <449CDE2C87@div.ed.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 10:40:00 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Cesarean Text
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3842

On Fri, 29 Nov 1996, "Professor L.W. Hurtado"  wrote:

>In addition to the specific data about the mss sometimes referred to 
>as "Caesarean", summarized briefly by Waltz, we also have to think of 
>the associated question:  What do we mean by "text type"?

I believe that I asked that question. I also pointed out that there
are several different answers possible -- one of which is Colwell's.
I obviously don't agree with Colwell, but I concede that the
definition exists. The question is, is it *useful*?

For my opinions on this point, I again refer to the article I cited,

http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn

>Waltz 
>doesn't like Colwell's emphasis on some kind of minimal quantitative 
>agreement criterion, and seems to prefer something like patterns of 
>readings.

My point is that there are two ways to define the type. One way --
Colwell's -- disbands the "Caesarean" text, because there are no
pure representatives. The other way *probably* preserves it.

Scholars must make up their own mind which they prefer. I am simply
pointing out the alternatives.

>But it seems to me that Waltz presupposes what he in fact 
>needs first to show--that there was a developed "Byzantine" 
>*text-type* to "mix" with other influences to produce the "Caesarean 
>text-type".

Let me get this straight: You don't believe in the Byzantine text?

Certainly there can be questions about its date, its origin, its
exact degree of unity. But, surely, no one would deny that there
was such a text-type in the ninth century (which is, after all,
the date of the earliest Greek witness to the "Caesarean" type).

Once a text-type exists, it will start mixing. Once it become
dominant (as the Byzantine text was by the ninth century), it
will inherently become the primary source of mixed readings.

If that isn't obvious, I can't see any point to the discussion.

>I've tended to view "text-types" as the varying products of different 
>scribal traditions, tendencies & purposes.  [ ... ]

This would imply that there is no such thing as mixture. How, then,
does one account for mixed manuscripts?
  
>For example, we need first to *demonstrate* a text type existed at a 
>given period before we can invoke it to explain things.

Again I ask: Are you denying the existence of the Byzantine text in
the ninth century (and after)? If so, let's have a show of hands for
how many agree with you. (I thought so.)

>And to 
>demonstrate that a text-type existed, we first have to specify what 
>we mean by the term "text-type".

With that I have no argument. I would argue merely argue that, to date,
no one has come up with a universally accepted definition.

And that includes Colwell's definition. Even if you ignore me, and
the discussion on this list earlier this summer, I know that Richards
argued against Colwell's definition.

Perhaps I should moderate that a bit. I think that, in general,
Colwell's definition does find text-types. It just does not find
*all* text-types. It is, in mathematical parlance, a sufficient
but not a necessary condition.

What *is* a necessary condition? I don't think anyone has ever
answered the question....

>To clarify thinking, I strongly recommend E.J. Epp's essay, "The 
>Significance of the Papyri for Determining the Nature of the New 
>Testament Text in the Second Century:  A Dynamic View of Textual 
>Transmission," in Epp & G. D. Fee, _Studies in the Theory & Method of 
>NT Textual Criticism_ (SD 45; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 274-97.

It perhaps says something that I consider Epp, after Colwell, the
greatest textual thinker of the second half of this century -- and
yet I constantly find both quoted against me, just as I quote them
on my behalf. Sounds like it's time the rest of us try to figure out
what the two of them are saying. :-)

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back