Tue Dec 24 14:00:38 1996

From owner-tc-list  Tue Dec 24 14:00:38 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id OAA10202; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 14:00:05 -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: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:57:42 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Modelling early MS transmission
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2764

On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Maurice Robinson  wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Mar 1996, Timothy John Finney wrote:

BTW -- didn't anyone else note this date? I rather suspect we're resuming
an old thread here, and some of this may already have been copied.

[ snip]
>
>> To finish, as far as I know, the only cases of extant copies of extant MSS
>> are the two copies of Codex Claromontanus. This would indicate that we
>> have but a small number of the total ever made surviving. 
>
>With this I fully concur, of course (and probably most everyone else as
>well).  There is an important point here, however, and that is that the
>limited sample of MSS preserved from antiquity -- especially in the
>pre-minuscule era -- might _not_ provide to us a statistically significant
>representative sample of the _real_ state of affairs in MS transmission in
>the period from century I-VIII, both due to the limited amount of material
>preserved and the limited geographical area of MS preservation, especially
>in the papyrus era. This of course has been part of my contention
>continually in regard to the possibility that the Byzantine Textform may
>well have been dominant even in the early centuries, both numerically as
>well as geographically. 

We should probably offer a clarification here: The only known copies of
extand *uncials* are the two copies of Claromontanus. There are a few
copies of minuscules known, of which the most important (I think)
are 205 and 205abs. Since 205 is itself extremely close kin to 209
(someone though 205 a copy of 209), this group -- and indeed family 1
as a while -- form a good basis for comparisons of the habits of scribes.

Other minuscule copies (I'm taking this from the Kurzgefasste Liste;
there may be more that haven't been observed) include 9 and 9abs;
30 and 30abs; 1160 and 1160abs; 1909 and 1909abs; 1929 and 1929abs;
1983 and 1983abs; 2036 and 2036abs; it's also been speculated that
614 is a copy of 2412, and I wouldn't be surprised if some other
members of family 2138 turn out to be copies. There are also a handful
of copies among the lectionaries.

For that matter, I expect the Munster T&T volumes will reveal a few more
copies.

But these are, of course, minuscules, and the circumstances of their
transmission may (note that I say *may*) not match those of the uncial
era.

I think that, to learn about copying in the uncial era, we will have
to turn to sister manuscripts (e.g., in Paul, K and 0151 or 056 and 0142)
and see what we can extrapolate from those.

And even that gives us information for the late uncial era.

BTW -- there are also some known copies of vulgate and (I think)
Peshitta and Armenian manuscripts. But I doubt they tell us much....

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back