Subject: autographs and archetypes

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 96 13:38:05 +0100

On Fri, 5 Arr 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

[first quoting Schmid:]

>>I just may give an example from Patristic literature, the 
>>so-called 'Dialog des Adamantius PERI THS EIS QEON ORQHS PISTEWS' 
>>(author unknown, composed between around 330 and 363 A.D.). The 
>>text is
>>>conserved in 10 manuscripts stemming from 12th to 16th 
>>centuries. They
>>all go back to one single heavily corrupted archetype including
>>corruptions of all sorts (nonsense readings, interchange of 
>>leaves,
>>etc.). . . .
>>We know that the corruption goes back at least
>>to 40 to 70 years after the date of composition. Looking only at 
>>the
>>textual transmission of the dialogue Rufin was in no different
>>situation with respect to this peculiar reading than we are 
>>today. What
>>makes the difference is that we know the dialogue's source.

>This in itself is quite typical of the state of classical 
>literature, and
>already begs for emendation.  There is no parallel here to the NT
>situation. Ten MSS versus 5000+, along with versions and fathers, 
>make a world of difference in regard to what praxis should be 
>followed in relation to the NT data.

May be I should have stated the parallel more clearly. In New 
Testament textual transmission there is only one manuscript which 
is near the mark "40 to 70 years after the date of composition" of 
the New Testament writing that it testifies to, the famous P52. 
This manuscript consists in its actual state of less then a quarter 
of a single papyrus sheet. On the other hand, the textual 
transmission of the dialogue, allthough going back to 40 to 70 
years after the date of composition, already contained a fair 
number of textual corruptions. The restoration of the original 
reading of at least one of these corruptions would have been 
virtually impossible, if we did not have access to the dialogues's 
source. 

I mentioned this example only to illustrate the possibility of 
scribal error creeping in textual transmissions at a very early 
stage, and _not_ being removable within the textual transmission 
itself. 

Personally, I can not see what the constant appeal to the "wealth 
of support" really meens, if _only_  to indicate that the sheer 
amount of data involved can be seen as the greatest challange to 
editorial enterprise ever to be found on this planet. Precisely 
therefor, I would opt for extreme caution with respect to 
conjectural emendation. I may refer to Hort's famous statement: 
KNOWLEDGE OF DOCUMENTS SHOULD PRECEDE FINAL JUDGMENT UPON READINGS. 
But, looking from a theoretical perspective on the amount of data, 
there is nothing within this situation that can completely rule out 
conjectural emendation. 

To assess the "wealth of support" notion from a slightly different 
angle I may refer to what Maurice Robinson wrote on Wed, 20 Mar 
1996:

[first quoting Klaus Wachtel:]

>>What about the Byzantine omissions in 1Jn 2,23 and 3,1, then?

> Without going into a very extended discussion here, I would
> suggest that at the time of the switch from uncial to minuscule
> (9th-10th centuries) certain key MSS were selected as archetypes
> for the primary minuscule copies. In the case of 1John, the key
> MS which was selected apparently had omitted the clauses in
> question by homoioteleuton, and the later MSS which were copied
> therefrom followed suit in the omission.

> If the minuscule archetype were copied in sufficient quantity
> during the very initial period of minuscule distribution, the
> _omission_ of those two readings would dominate and (through the
> cross-correction process) would eliminate whatever vestiges
> remained of the longer reading which had previously dominated
> transmissional history before the radical change of script.

> I.e., the cross-comparison and correcting process would work
> normally, but the minuscule would form a new "archetype" which
> would dominate the tradition from that point...

> This does not invalidate the former hypothesis, but in fact
> confirms it, given that a "new" archetype situation has come into
> existence.

A "'new' archetype situation" in fact makes our work much 
easier. Because, once an archetype, or hyparchetype situation is 
settled the whole bulk of MSS belonging to that part of the 
transmission can be subsumed under one, or at least very few MS(S). 
MSS belonging to an archetype, or hyparchetype are by defintion no 
independent witnesses. They usually only testify to the textual 
transmission that started with the archetype, or hyparchetype. If 
in the archetype, or hyparchetype corruption occured in some 
instances then the bulk of dependent MSS normally would faithfully 
render the corruption (especially homoioteleuton like stuff).

I am not particulary unhappy to get the opportunity with respect to 
1John 2,23, and 3,1 to reduce the amount of data in the Catholic 
Epistles due to the "'new' archetype situation", though I would 
rather call it a new _hyparchetype_ situation. I may give the data 
as follows (c.f. _Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen 
Testaments, I. Die Katholischen Briefe, Bd.1: Das Material [ed. K. Aland], 
DeGruyter: 1987_ l.c.)
a) In 1John 2,23 a total of 402 MSS give the homoioteleuton 
corruption (= h.c.), whereas a total of 115 MSS lack the h.c. 
b) In 1John 3,1 a total of 426 MSS give the h.c., whereas a total 
of 78 MSS lack the h.c.

To conclude from these data I may state that around 75 per cent of 
the MSS can be subsumed under just one, or only very few leading 
MS(S). This reduces the amount of data tremendously, and we are 
left with around 25 per cent of the MSS which is still a lot but 
not threatening at all.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: Don Wilkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 17:21:28 +0000

I've mentioned before that I am new to this list, and I'm finding 
this and other threads most interesting. I share the feeling that 
emendation is not approriate to NT text criticism. As a classicist who 
started with NT studies, my experience has been that classicists do 
not really take into account the advantage of having abundant 
valuable mss for NT, and prefer to go about NT criticism in the same 
way they do for classical texts, where emendation is a necessity at 
times. The only real defense I have ever seen for this approach to 
the NT by classicists (other than the arguments I have been seeing 
in this thread) is that one should always start from scratch and give 
every ms equal weight with every other (i.e. ignore text type 
arguments etc.). I doubt very much that they would apply this 
technique to classical texts if there were an abundance of materials 
there as well (I for one would be overjoyed to find abundant 
classical mss, and would in that case immediately reevaluate the 
role of emendation).

Don Wilkins
UC Riverside

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 00:18:44 -0500 (EST)

>>literature, and already begs for emendation.  There is no parallel 
>>here to the NT situation. Ten MSS versus 5000+, along with versions and 
>> fathers, make a world of difference in regard to what praxis should be 

> of a single papyrus sheet. 

This in itself is irrelevant, since classical literature, with far fewer 
MSS is considered to have a basically secure text even though the oldest 
copies we possess are hundreds of years removed from the originals.  Few 
if any classical works are considered to all stem from a corrupted 
archetype, and the same applies to the books of the NT. (P52 also is 
text-critically insignificant in proving or suggesting any early 
"corruption").

> On the other hand, the textual 
> number of textual corruptions. 

This fact is certainly of significance when attempting to restore the 
text of that Dialogue.  It clearly indicates that there was no great 
scribal concern for the text of that work in its earliest stages, but one 
cannot carry this over to the NT MSS themselves, since, even without 
bringing in issues of inspiration and canonicity, I think a very strong 
case can be made for a greater scribal concern with the NT documents than 
with minor theological treatises.

But even so, the parallel exists: the second century MSS are far more 
"corrupt" than is the case with later MSS, and the whole concept of the 
"uncontrolled popular text" and Colwell's suggestion that all significant 
variants were created before AD 200 reflects a similar situation.  
However, the parallel breaks down as soon as it is presumed that all NT 
books somehow devolved into a "corrupt archetype" which then became the 
mother of all subsequent copies, as was clearly the case in regard to the 
anonymous Dialogue.  

> stage, and _not_ being removable within the textual transmission 

But if this were the case in regard to the transmission of the NT, one 
would have to show numerous or repeated instances of plain and clear 
error which permeated all MSS of all texttypes.  In the case of the NT 
MSS, this simply cannot be done.

> editorial enterprise ever to be found on this planet. 

The challenge _is_ massive if the intended goal is to present an absolutely 
complete text + apparatus.  However, if the goal is only to establish the 
original text of the NT documents, the amount of evidence we possess is 
more than adequate to the task. Any appeal to the "wealth of support" is 
with the latter goal in mind.

> there is nothing within this situation that can completely rule out 

But within the "wealth of support" concept, the need for such is reduced
to how many thousandths of a percent or less?  All critics agree that the
amount is so minimal as to be almost non-extant (as noted Ac.16.12 is the
first and only conjecture ever to have made it into the pages of a
critical NT Greek text).  So why is it an absolute necessity to continue
to postulate a presumption of primitive error which transcends all known
MSS?  This sounds like the old physics claim that if all electrons of a
brick should suddenly align in the same direction, the brick would shoot
through the roof -- nice in theory, but in practice such simply does not
occur. 

>> for the primary minuscule copies.... 

> transmission can be subsumed under one, or at least very few MS(S). 

The problem in regard to my own hypothesis applied to 1Jn.2.23 and 3.1 is
that there is no evidence which strongly supports such a scenario.  I
maintain the hypothesis primarily on the basis of the strong internal
considerations (homoioteleuton and Johannine style) which apply to the
longer readings in those situations.  If the internal grounds are indeed
sufficiently strong, then the "new archetype(s)" situation, created in the
initial stages of the minuscule era, might apply. 

Of course, if my hypothesis is wrong here (and my co-editor will be the 
first to declare such), then the shorter reading would remain defensible, 
but so also would the non-existence of a new archetype hypothesis.  

Keep in mind, however, that my "new archetype" suggestion is not made with
the intention that a _single_ new archetype was ever created, but that
during the conversion to minuscule form, the MS(S) which got the earliest
start would have a _tendency_ to slowly overwhelm the upcoming tradition. 
A key problem with this hypothesis is that the change apparently did not
happen "slowly," and this implies either that all minuscules descended
from a single archetype (which seems unlikely in the extreme) or that a
large number of early minuscules coincidentally omitted just those 
passages by homoioteleuton (which is possible, but still problematic). 

These considerations remain a primary reason for placing those longer
readings in brackets, even if my hypothesis were to be implemented in our
printed Greek text.  That the longer readings do not now appear there
(even in brackets) is due to the insistence of my co-editor at that point,
who was working on textual matters before I was born, and to whose 
preference I deferred in the initial publication of our text.

> b) In 1John 3,1 a total of 426 MSS give the h.c., whereas a total 

This proportion of support to me seems sufficient on its face to include the 
longer reading within brackets.  Had the shorter reading support been in 
an 8:1 or greater proportion, I would not be suggesting the same 
possibilities.

> MS(S). 

I would not claim that the "hyperarchetype" scenario would continue 
beyond the Johannine Epistles, or even beyond 1 Jn.  Among the Gospels 
and Praxapostoloi there does not seem to be evidence tending in that same 
direction.  The General Epistles as a whole have a different textual 
history, and it is likely that the Johannine Epistles within that group 
have their own peculiar history.

> This reduces the amount of data tremendously, and we are 

My own suggestion of following Scrivener and eliminating all MSS beyond 
the tenth century would similarly reduce the amount of evidence to 
manageable proportions, and would not be dependent upon any secondary 
archetype hypothesis.  I would prefer to go that route first.

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