Subject: The "Alexandrian" Text

From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
Date: Tue, 28 May 96 15:12 CDT

Dear TCers,

Since this list has been quiet of late, it's probably time to spark a little
controversy. What follows is deliberate textual heresy. I do not necessarily
hold to the views expressed below. But I think them worth considering.

Today's Subject: Textual Theory in the Gospels

Eldon Epp has pointed out several times (see, e.g., "The Twentieth-Century
Interval in Textual Criticism") that there has been no major advance in
textual theory since Westcott and Hort.

This statement is too broad; we have seen real progress in Paul (Zuntz; also,
IMHO, me :-) ), in the Catholics (Duplacy), and in the Apocalypse (Schmidt).
In all three areas, the scholars isolated text-types not found in the WH
system. There is also major work being done on Acts (though I don't know the
status of that).

But in the gospels -- nothing. Gathering of data, yes (see the IGNTP). But
theoretical advances -- not really. We are still working with the text-types
of Westcott and Hort, which in fact go back to Griesbach. (The fact that
we now call this text "Alexandrian," after Griesbach, rather than "Neutral,"
after WH, does NOT count!)

Since WH, there have been a number of attempts at theoretical breakthroughs.
We have seen the rise -- and more recently the decline -- of the "Caesarean"
text. We have seen an attempt to define a "Syriac" text. We have seen the
"Western" text under attack. We have seen many efforts to clarify the history
and nature of the Byzantine text (the most ambitious effort along these lines
has been the development of the Claremont Profile Method).

Every one of these attempts has been reasonable -- but has borne limited
fruit. The methods Streeter and others used to define the "Caesarean" text
(divergences from the TR) was clearly inadequate. So was their attempt to take
anything not nailed down and include it in the "Caesarean" group. (If you look
at Streeter's list of Caesarean witnesses, it includes nearly every uncial not
in the Kx family!)

More recently, Hurtado has shown that, if there is a Caesarean text, it has no
"core witness." But no one ever claimed that there was such a core witness
(except in part of Mark, where Streeter thought W was a core witness. He was,
of course, wrong).

Still, there *is* something about the witnesses Theta, 565, family 1, family
13, arm, geo. They *do* have a fairly strong rate of agreement where they are
not Byzantine. Is it a text-type? For now the matter is open.

Similarly in the case of the "Western" text. Kurt Aland has questioned its
very existence. And with some justification. In the gospels, there is only
*one* "Western" witness in Greek. That one, obviously, being Codex Bezae.

But Bezae is problematic. There can be no question but that it has been
edited. This is *proved* by the fact that Luke's genealogy of Jesus is
replaced by Matthew's. (This reading, be it noted, is not shared by any of the
Latins except d.)

It may be that this is the only deliberate alteration in D. But that seems
improbable. So D's value as a "Western" witness must be considered diminished.

Still, there does appear to be a "Western" text-type; the Latin witnesses have
too many common readings not found in the Greek. Codex Bezae supports this
type; we just cannot trust it unless it has strong Old Latin support.

But while the "Caesarean" and "Western" texts have been coming and going, we
continue to accept, almost without thinking, the WH definition of the
Alexandrian text as "the agreement between B and Aleph."

Why is this? What proof do we have that B and Aleph belong to a common text-
type? They *do not* in Paul (Zuntz). Their relationship in the Catholics is
questionable. Even within Duplacy's "Alexandrian" text (B Aleph A 33 etc.,
excluding C-1241-family 1739), we see several subgroups: p72-B, A-33-436-81
(my work this time). Aleph stands alone. In LXX we see some similarity between
B and Aleph (they go together in Jeremiah, for instance), but there is still
considerable distance between them.

Long ago, Hoskier found (I believe it was) over 6000 differences between B and
Aleph. Most are trivial, and many of the remainder are in the early part of
John (where Aleph is accused of having a "Western" text). But many are
substantial, and not all are in John.

That there is a group centered around B is clear. We all know that p75 stands
very close to B. (It is interesting to note that, based on my results, B is
the closest uncial relative of every major papyrus manuscript: p13, p46, p66,
p72, p75, *and* p45!) It's not mentioned as often, but T stands almost as
close to B as does p75. The Sahidic Coptic also falls with this group. 2427,
wherever it came from, clearly belongs with B. And while L has a lot of
Byzantine readings, where it is non-Byzantine it generally sides with B rather
than Aleph. So too with X (though there the Byzantine element is
extraordinarily large.)

So there is a family B. The question is, is Aleph a more distant member of
this family, or does it belong with a family of its own?

It would appear to belong with its own family. Z clearly goes with Aleph.
Delta (in Mark, where it has the greatest value) is closer to Aleph. So is 579
(especially in Mark). The Bohairic Coptic, unlike the Sahidic, is as close to
Aleph as to B.

So we have two families: Family B and Family Aleph. Could they belong to the
same text-type? Certainly -- but we find the same situation in Paul, and there
the two do *not* belong together.

Conclusions, anyone?

Just to give people some grist to work with, here are some comparison tables
for witnesses with strong Alexandrian elements. (Note: The results are based
on my own sample of 990 readings. Other samples would, of course, give
different numbers, though the relationships between the manuscripts would
probably not change much. This sample, since it includes many of the readings
found in UBS/GNT, is biased toward places where p75 and B disagree. I don't
claim that this is a perfect sample, but it's a start.)

MS            Agreements with B                  Agreements with Aleph
      Overall Non-Byzantine Near-singular  Overall Non-Byzantine Near-singular
p66     57%        74%           75          49%        77%           18
p75     83%        90%           57          58%        79%           21
Aleph   60%        77%          114         100%       100%          253
B      100%       100%          279          60%        77%          114
C       49%        75%           26          52%        76%           20
L       61%        80%           67          59%        78%           48
T       88%        90%            6          45%        76%            1
X       39%        67%           11          40%        59%            6
Z       55%        74%            8          73%        81%           11
Delta
 (Mark) 62%        73%            4          64%        78%           10
Psi
 (Mark) 76%        86%            5          69%        85%            3
070     66%        82%           10          63%        84%            6
33      48%        71%           29          50%        70%           30
579     45%        67%           21          49%        73%           26
892     48%        75%           32          52%        76%           32
1241
 (Luke) 58%        82%           13          59%        82%            6
2427    89%        94%           17          68%        78%            6
sa      65%        82%          111          57%        76%           78
bo      60%        77%           70          61%        77%           67

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 17:16:54 -0500 (CDT)

A quick response to Robert Walz.  First, as Colwell pointed out some time 
ago, the relationship of mss has to be examined *book by book*, in some 
cases, even chapter by chapter.  Aleph & B do *not* of course agree at a 
constant level across the NT, for example. As Fee showed, there is even 
marked variation in their agreement within the Gospel of John.  This 
"block mixture" of mss is more frequent than might be imagined, but only 
careful collation practices & methods can detect it.
	So, the varying level of agreement of Aleph & B is not a basis 
for posing (only?) two text-types.  
	Second, discussion of "text-types" raises the question of what we 
mean.  Here I recommend *strongly* Epp's essay on "The Significance of 
the Papyri . . . A Dynamic View of Textual Transmission," in the Epp/Fee 
volume, _Studies in the Theory & Method of NT Textual Criticism_ (pp. 
274ff.).
	Third, Epp's famous "Interlude" essay did not assert no 
significant steps had been made, but rather that in the realm of *textual 
theory*, esp. in our grasp of the major history of the text, we had made 
surprisingly little agreed-upon progress.  Epp refers to Aland's work, to 
Zuntz's justly important work on the epistles, etc.  

Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba