Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text

From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 96 16:56 CDT

On Wed, 05 Jun 96, [email-masked] (Ulrich Schmid) wrote:

>On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>
>>Despite our disagreements on results, it should be noted that >Maurice
>>Robinson
>and I agree on at least one fundamental point: >that current eclectic
>methodology is theoretically bankrupt.
>
>Please, calm down and let us return to the question Bob initially adressed:

Thanks for the reminder. :-)

>What
>about text-types in relation to various other MSS groupings (families,
>tribes)?
>His long post (Sun, 2 Jun 1996) was devoted to define MSS alignments of
>different quantity and quality.
>
>First of all I would like to say that I appreciate every effort to
>describe MSS
>alignments in a more sensitive way, without putting them into the Procrustean
>bed of either text-types or families.
>
>After defining five levels of relationship, Bob wrote:
>
>>In "tight" families, there is no Byzantine influence at all. Or >more
>correctly, what separates the members of the family is not >Byzantine
>influence;
>the family text may be heavily Byzantine. But >all that separates the family
>members is the errors and >peculiarities of scribes.
>
>Fine point, though the problem to my mind is already lurking behind.
>
>>In "loose" families, Byzantine influence begins to appear. In >family
>>2138, for
>>instance, all members of the family seem to disagree with the >(hypothetical)
>>archetype by about 10-20%. But in every case we find that the >divergence is
>Byzantine. Either the manuscript displays the family >text, or it displays a
>Byzantine reading. There are *no* instance >of other readings (at least, none
>that I've noticed).
>
>This point is simply not true. At least in the General epistles there are some
>instances where the family text is split -usually 1505 + 1611 versus 2138
>+ 2495
>(but sometimes only one MS deserts)- _and_ the deviation is NOT Byzantine (cf.
>B. Aland/A. Juckel, _Das NT in Syrischer Ueberlieferung_, ANTT 7, 1986).

I obviously spoke too dramatically when I said there were *no* such deviations.
I would imagine that a detailed examination would reveal several. There will
always be a few deviations due to scribal errors or perhaps marginal comments.
Or even an occasional mixed reading. But the bulk of the variations in
family 2138
are cases where one set of manuscripts have a reading associated with the
Byzantine text and the rest don't.

By the way -- are you sure the alignment should not be 1505+2495 versus
1611+2138? That seemed to be what I found when I examined the data (though
I was consulting Richards and Merk for some of my readings, and neither
is particularly reliable).

>>In "tight" tribes, Byzantine influence becomes important, as do >the side
>effects of many generations of copying. Still, there is >no sign of influence
>other than the Byzantine.
>
>>In "loose" tribes, we see evidence of mixture from sources other >than the
>Byzantine text. Thus L, in the gospels, is mostly a >mixture of p75/B readings
>and Byzantine readings, but has a few >readings that seem to belong to a
>different non-Byzantine strain >(perhaps from the Aleph group, or possibly
>from
>some later phase >of the Alexandrian text...).
>
>Bob critized repeatedly Colwell's 70 percent criterion for it can not
>adaequately deal with mixed MSS. To my mind he is quite correct in doing so.
>Nevertheless, I suspect his grouping method offers only slight
>improvement. For
>example, if he only had retained  P75-B as belonging to one group, he
>would have
>been able to place them under the heading "loose" or even "tight" family. By
>adding the somehow "mixed" MSS T and L to the gene pool the otherwise
>presumably
>"tight" family P75-B is to be removed and placed under the heading "loose"
>tribe.

I suppose that I should have pointed out that any grouping can contain any
number
of lower level groupings. Thus the "loose" family 2138 contains at least three
much tighter families: 2412+614, 630+1799, 1505+2495.

In the case of the B tribe, p75-B go together at the family level. T may
also (I haven't examined the matter in detail). The sahidic is more distant,
and L more distant still.

The image I would offer is a familiar one of trees branching into smaller
and smaller branches. Except that, on trees, one can tell where one branch
begins and another ends. With text-types, it's not so obvious.

I would remind everyone that most people have started with the branches
(the text-types). I think we need to pay more attention to the twigs
and the leaves (families and manuscripts).

> The same is to be found when looking at Bob's example for a "tight" tribe
>(family 1739):
>>An example of this is family 1739 in Paul.
>>Here we can say, for instance, that 1739 and 0243 are closely >related at a
>level only slightly removed from the archetype (I >believe they are first
>cousins, with their common ancestor being >about three removes from the
>archetype). 6 and 424** are related >to each other within the family, but
>split
>off at a slightly >earlier point and have both suffered extensive Byzantine
>influence >(with 6 receiving more corrections of the late Byzantine type).
>>1881
>split off at about the same point as 1739, but comes from a >different family
>and has suffered more corruptions. And so forth.
>If I may add MS 2685 in Romans (cf. _Text und Textwert_), it may well turn
>out a
>MS alignment between 6 and 2685 which is closer than between 6 and 424**.
>Therefore 6 and 2685 may well enter the major league "family", perhaps at the
>"looser" stage.

I won't argue with this. I can't prove it without a collation of 2685, but
certainly there's no reason it can't be true.

>Though this might look like quibbling on some MSS, to my mind it is essential.
>In Bob's definition of "tight" and "loose" tribes we are dealing with compound
>MSS groups, where one or two "pure" member(s) are together with "mixed"
>members.
>The only difference between "tight" and "loose" is if there is Byzantine
>influence (only) or Byzantine and other. But do these definitions by Byz.
>and/or
>other influence still hold water, if we look at for example P46-B in
>Romans? How
>is their alignment to be described in terms of families, tribes? Harry Sturz
>gives in Romans two (admittedly not very impressive) alignments of P46
>with Byz.
>contra "Alex." and "Western", from Text und Textwert I know of at least five
>near singular alignments of P46 and D F G.

I do not claim that p46 and B belong either to a family or to a tribe. I believe
they *do* share a text-type. But I would be amazed if anyone would claim they
are closer than that. p46, in particular, has a text which seems completely
unique. It has near-singular agreements with everything -- B, Aleph, D, G,
33, 1739.
However, it has many more near-singular agreements with B than with
anything else.

If B and p46 share only a text-type, then the question of Byzantine influence
does not come up.

I suppose I should admit that I compiled my list of levels of agreement rather
hastily (the disadvantage of e-mail). I should, perhaps, have argued for
five levels of agreement (I still feel that *that* is correct) without
mentioning
the Byzantine text.

But I also think that, in *most* cases, it *is* the degree of Byzantine
influence that separates family or "tight" tribe members.

To take an example from family 1739: I did a detailed comparison of 1739 and
1881 (1881 being the closest relative of 1739 cited in Nestle). In a set of
404 readings, the two differed 89 times. But in 80 of these 89 instances,
either 1739 or 1881 (usually the latter) was Byzantine. Clearly, almost
the entire difference between the two is caused by Byzantine influence.

>If we do not subscribe to a pro-Byzantine viewpoint, which I shurely do not
>intend to up to now, even slight Byzantine influence on P46 would be ruled
>out.
>But the same is also true with supposed
>"Western" influence, for the Old Latin does not seem to attest all of the
>shared
>near singular agreements of P46 and D F G. Therefore it seems to me that all I
>can say is, P46 and D F G share some rare readings which represent an early
>stratum of readings presumably belonging to a common ancestor.
>
>Shurely P46 in Romans is closely connected to B, but it deviates sometimes and
>some of these deviations are shared by other MSS.  (One part of these MSS,
>sharing P46 deviations from B, are commonly called Byzantine, another part
>"Western".) This may seem purely descriptive, but the advantage is that it
>avoids anachronistic misconceptions of Byzantine and/or "Western" influence on
>MSS which seem to antedate both Byzantine and "Western" texts at least in
>their
>actual state of appearance.

With the above I have no argument. I thought it was obvious.

>Tough I do not say that the concept of Byzantine influence may not be
>valid for
>some parts of (later) MS tradition, I hestitate to give it the
>significance Bob
>does. Especially the crucial fact of the Harklensis Vorlage (family 2138)
>gives
>us some hints, for, believe me or not, even the Harklensis (616 AD) opposes
>occasionally readings shared by all members of family 2138 (11th to 14/15th
>centuries) by giving Byzantine readings.

I agree completely. In fact, if my figures are correct, the Harklean is the
*worst* witness to the developed text of family 2138.

Although in assessing the Harklean version, one thing that *must* be remembered
is the marginalia. This is only a feeling -- I have not studied the matter in
detail -- but it appears to me that the Harklean is based on *two* texts -- one
Byzantine and one belonging to family 2138. Where the two manuscripts disagreed
on an add/omit reading, Thomas put the longer reading in the text in asterisks.
Where there was a substitution, one or the other reading went into the text
and the other (sometimes) in the margin.

>But, does this imply that a full blown
>Byzantine text in its actual state of appearance existed for the General
>epistles prior to around 500 AD to serve as deus ex machina for our influence
>theories? At least there is NO manuscript evidence to a full blown Byzantine
>text prior to the 9th century.

Agreed -- although Byzantine manuscripts appear in large numbers in that
century (K, L, 049, assorted minuscules). That would seem to imply that the
text is at least somewhat older than that century.

This is perhaps not as important as it sounds; so far we have discussed only
one family (family 2138) and one loose tribe (tribe B in the gospels) that
have members that are possibly older than the Byzantine text.

If we return to the original subject of the discussion (the relationship between
the B tribe and the Aleph tribe), the question of Byzantine influence does not
arise, since these are both loose tribes.

>Generalizing influence theories tend to introduce
>texts (text-types) at times when the evidence therefore is not clearly
>settled.
>So, I plea for caution.

Conceded. The fact that Byzantine influence seems to appear everywhere, or
almost
everywhere, does not mean that we can assume it is always so.

Which reminds me of an interesting phenomenon I noticed in the Catholic
Epistles.
I can't prove this, but I offer it for what it is worth.

In general the Byzantine text is conservative; there are relatively few readings
of the text that are not found in some group of non-Byzantine witnesses. Sturz
has argued this, and this conclusion (alone among those he offers) I accept.

Except in the Catholics.

Take L, the earliest of the substantially complete Byzantine manuscripts of the
Epistles. In my sample, it has *no* semi-singular readings in Paul. In the
Catholics, out of far fewer readings, it has *eighteen.* K has six
semi-singulars
in Paul. In the Catholics, the number is *nineteen.* 049 has 21
semi-singulars in
the Catholics. And so forth.

What I am calling "semi-singular" readings are readings with no significant
support
outside of the text-type. From the above, it would appear that the
Byzantine text
usually agrees with *something* in Paul, but often stands alone in the
Catholics.
This is not proof, but it's interesting. Thoughts, anyone?

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 19:24:07 -0400 (EDT)

[Responding to both Waltz and Schmid on a pertinent point]:

[Waltz:]

> influence that separates family or "tight" tribe members.

Even though we have a semantic difference over the term "influence" 
(which I would here term "alignment percentage" or something similar), 
I think Bob is correct on this point

[Schmid:]

>>text prior to the 9th century.

[Waltz:] 
 
> text is at least somewhat older than that century.

I also would differ with Schmid on this point, along with Westcott and 
Hort, who were quite willing to admit a generally developed ("full-blown" 
probably is a question-begging term) Byzantine text from at least AD 350 
onward.  The new claims stemming from the Alands' Text of the NT volume 
(and picked up on by Wallace) regarding the Byzantine as "developed" 
and/or the "majority text" only beginning with the 9th century is simply 
revisionist history, held hitherto by no one.  I will at the very least 
side with Westcott and Hort on this point; and Waltz is also clearly 
correct that 9th century Byzantine uncials certainly imply a much earlier 
existence of the "developed" Byzantine Textform, which in no way 
contradicts Westcott and Hort's own thesis on this point.

[Waltz:] 

> The fact that Byzantine influence seems to appear everywhere, or
> almost everywhere, does not mean that we can assume it is always so.

Maybe not; but a prior question is WHY does the Byzantine influence tend 
to appear almost everywhere, and what are the causes of this permeating 
influence?  I still doubt that modern eclecticism has a sufficiently 
valid transmissional history which will account for this phenomenon.

[Waltz:]

> In general the Byzantine text is conservative; there are relatively few 
> readings of the text that are not found in some group of non-Byzantine 
> witnesses. Sturz has argued this, and this conclusion (alone among those 
> he offers) I accept. 

Another interesting point, which can be taken in two primary ways: either 
the Byzantine Textform is a composite, pieced together from scattered 
readings found in various texttypes or other minority groupings, by some 
unknown method (since mere "conflation" will not account for all the 
Byzantine readings, nor even a large percentage of them); or the presence 
of Byzantine readings in nearly every other texttype or smaller group of 
MSS implies an extremely strong Byzantine "influence", which is quite 
difficult to explain without either imposing an official promulgation of 
that text or an official revision which produced that text -- unless of 
course, such Byzantine concurrence in non-Byzantine MSS and texttypes is 
actually a result of preservation of the autograph text itself (which 
latter I would naturally maintain).

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

---

From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 10:04:19 -0500 (CDT)

> latter I would naturally maintain).

Maurice (and others):  If you imagine that the only way "Byzantine 
readings" can have made their way into mss is through the "influence" of 
a "Byzantine text-type" (i.e., a relatively matured type of text such as 
we have in the primary Byzantine mss reps.), then, yes, readings in early 
mss would suggest that this text-form might be there.  But, if (as I see 
it) "text-types" are basically the result of scribal copying/transmission 
habits/tastes/objectives, etc. (shaped of course by ecclesiastical 
concerns etc.), then what becomes the "Byzantine text-type" is basically 
a matured form/degree (late, so the evidence) of scribal/editorial 
tendencies observable quite early in their initial operation.  So, the 
"Byzantine text" is basically an "ecclesiastical" text, that reflects a 
few centuries of transmission with readability, inoffensiveness, 
harmonization, etc. operational.  These tendencies began very early, so 
they show up ad hoc in such early witnesses as P45, P46, etc.  But a more 
programmatic operation of these tendencies gathers force over time.

Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 12:52:29 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Larry W. Hurtado wrote:

> mss would suggest that this text-form might be there.  

Which falls within the range of my own reconstructed transmissional
history.  Note, however, that I do not think this is the "only way" that
such could occur, but rather that it would be the "primary way", following
my theory of transmission.  Certainly, there is always room for the
independent scribal creation (or re-creation) of various Byzantine
readings without any necessary genealogical connection; but I would
suspect this type of instance to be in the minority. 

> But, if (as I see 
> tendencies observable quite early in their initial operation.  

> So, the 

As Fee has well noted, the Byzantine Textform, or any texttype, is really
comprised of a _pattern_ of readings, which pattern distinguishes it from
any other pattern, even if the patterns remain otherwise relatively
similar. What you state above reflects the opinion of most eclectic
scholars on this point, and supposes a "process" methodology whereby the
Byzantine Textform is slowly pieced together over a long period of time
into the basic "pattern" which it eventually assumes in the later uncials
or in most minuscules. 

But again, the problem with that "process" scenario goes back to the
statement made by Hodges (which basically reflects K.W.Clark's critique 
of Colwell on this point) that I quoted in the introduction to my Greek NT: 

   No one has yet explained how a long, slow process spread out over many
   centuries as well as over a wide geographical area, and involving a
   multitude of copyists, who often knew nothing of the state of the text
   outside of their own monasteries or scriptoria, could achieve this
   widespread uniformity out of the diversity presented by the 
   [supposedly] earlier [Western and Alexandrian] forms of text....An
   unguided process achieving relative stability and uniformity in the
   diversified textual, historical, and cultural circumstances in which the
   New Testament was copied, imposes impossible strains on our imagination.
      
  (Hodges, from Pickering, _Identity of the NT Text_, p.168; cited in my
   Greek NT introduction, p.xxv).

If modern eclecticism wishes to maintain a "process" view (which it
obviously prefers), then some serious grappling with this problem must
occur.  There is no difficulty in imagining that scribes might opt for
certain types of readings, but the truth is that virtually ALL scribes, of
ALL texttypes individually and sporadically opted for precisely the _same_
kind of readings which supposedly typify the Byzantine Textform (you admit
as much regarding certain of the early MSS); the only difference is that
they did not happen to recreate the "pattern" of that Textform as they
chose such readings. 

The mystery question par excellence is _how_ did the Byzantine-era scribes
consistently and harmoniously tend independently and sporadically to
choose "Byzantine-like readings" (to use Fee's term) and to do so in
precisely the _same_ pattern, without any collusion or certain knowledge
that other scribes were similarly selecting nearly-identical patterns? 

The Hodges/Clark critique of Colwell's process method really needs to be
addressed more seriously by the eclectic school before making a final
supposition as to how the Byzantine mindset supposedly functioned.  (I
will note once more that my own transmissional reconstruction does not
suffer from this particular problem).

---

From: Nichael Cramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:18:31 -0400 (EDT)

> that other scribes were similarly selecting nearly-identical patterns? 

???

I don't think anyone has seriously argued that Byzantine scribes developed
identical harmonizations independently or without collusion -- or at least
certainly not in a way that is implicit in this characterization. 

Certainly various harmonizations (etc) occurred independently, finally
resulting in the "final" Byzantine text as it evolved over six or so
centuries.  But it is also likely that many "Byzantine-like" variations
came and fell by the wayside, losing out to those emendations that
finally congealed into "standard form" of the text-style as we have it
now. 

Nichael Cramer
[email-masked]
http://www.sover.net/~nichael/

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:52:04 -0400 (EDT)

> certainly not in a way that is implicit in this characterization. 

On the contrary, this is precisely the assumption of the "process" model, 
that Byzantine-like changes were being made and almost without question 
being adopted by later scribes, and henceforth perpetuated into future 
generations, thus producing the final stages of the Byzantine Textform in 
the period from the 9th century onward.  If the choice of these readings 
was _not_ made independently and haphazardly, evidence of serious collusion 
needs to be forthcoming (W-H recognized this and were compelled to 
postulate a formal revision process whereby the Byzantine Textform was 
created and officially promulgated).  Most eclectic scholars today have 
moved away from the formal recension theory, as well as official 
promulgation of certain readings (especially in a particular pattern), so 
what remains as an option beyond the haphazard and independently-created 
model which I critiqued?
 
> finally congealed into "standard form" of the text-style as we have it

The problem with the first sentence above is precisely what I was
addressing by citing the Hodges quote.  Independent creation of
"Byzantine-like" readings certainly can and did occur.  I previously noted
that many of those same type of readings _did_ fall by the wayside during
the "process".  However, the question of precisely -how- the specific
pattern of readings which characterizes the Byzantine Textform tended to
come about by such a method, without collusion or imposition of specific
textual authority still remains a mystery which process theorists seem
unable to resolve.

---

From: Nichael Cramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 14:16:53 -0400 (EDT)

> textual authority still remains a mystery which process theorists seem

But it seems to me that the flow of logic here is precisely backwards.  
We now have a Byzantine text-type which evolved over several centuries, 
which we now see has features which we characterize as "Byzantine" but 
acknowledging this is certainly not the same as insisting that those who 
created those peculiar variations were governed by some "hidden hand".

Rather the logic here, it seems to me, would be the same as asking how
could Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn and all the rest, working independently,
have come up with a style of music which we (now) call "Classical"?  Or
how, separated by vast geographical areas and long stretches of time, our
ancestors could have come up with our present English language? 

As in these examples, there were certainly conventions and a certain
enviormental "ambience" (as it were) which would tend to reinforce certain
aspects and to drive out certain others.  The development of these
creations might _tend_ to be driven in certain direction --that is the
nature of such enterprises.  But to insist that there must have been a 
central guiding force is to look through the wrong end of the telescope. 

Nichael Cramer
[email-masked]

---

From: "Stephen C Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 15:58:34 -0400 (EDT)

It seems to me that once there exists a certain mass of documents, it
should be very difficult for once scribe's deviation from his exemplar
to be adopted by a large number of texts.  If there is no cross-checking,
then the unique reading would only descend to those MSS copied from it.
If there is cross-checking, then the probability that the variant would
continue to exist seems diminished.

The analogy to biological genetics seems apt.  The main way for a large
number of variants that constitute a text-type to be adopted is for the
transmission process to go through a bottleneck (i.e., reproductive
isolation).  Apparently the Lucian recension that had been proposed but
now largely abandoned as one such bottleneck, and I think the
conversion from uncial to minuscule is another.  Although, there could
be a textual analog to "genetic drift," it seems quite unlikely that a
majority text-type can coalesce at a late stage without going through a
transmissional bottleneck.

I understand that Diocletian's persecution had targetted and destroyed
many Christian manuscripts, and shortly thereafter Constantine legitimized
Christianity.  Obviously, more Bibles had to be produced at an increased
pace, and the local text around Constantinople would be the most prestigious
base.  This bottleneck can adequately account for the rise and dominance
of the Byzantine text-form, in a way that the sporadic process model can't.
Its corollary implies that a Byzantine-type text existed in the third century
(or was created rapidly in early fourth).

Is this reasonable or mad speculation?

Stephen Carlson
-- 
Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE
[email-masked]              : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs
http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/     : chant the words.  -- Shujing 2.35

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 20:40:49 -0400 (EDT)

> But it seems to me that the flow of logic here is precisely backwards.  

It is backwards only if a presupposition regarding the "late" nature of 
the Byzantine Textform predominates.  From my perspective, there is no 
backward reasoning necessary.

> created those peculiar variations were governed by some "hidden hand".

My own transmissional history of course begins with a presumption of
Byzantine originality, from which individual and independent variations can
readily be distinguished.  Over 90% of the text of all MSS basically
remains identical at all times, regardless of texttype, and this 90% most
certainly stems from the autograph.  My own theory merely applies the same
logic to the remaining 10% of the text. There is no need to read this as a
retrogressive superimposition of later characteristics upon pre-existing
documents, nor is there any need to postulate any "hidden hand" governing
the process (which in my reconstruction follows quite natural means). The
final resultant text still has to come from somewhere, and if a Byzantine
originality is not presumed, the question of -how- the result ended up in
precisely that form still remains unanswered. 

> have come up with a style of music which we (now) call "Classical"?  

This analogy fails, since it does not deal with the same thing.  Rather,
allow a given of the hymn tune "Amazing Grace" and note that in virtually
all hymnbooks of all denominations, the rendition remains basically
identical, and usually even the key in which it is written remains
unchanged.  Various classical composers, with styles as diverse as Bach,
Beethoven, and Ives might deal in a quite different manner with that hymn
tune, but the "original essence" of it (which preceded any of the
classical variations) would still remain, even though altered by those 
composers, sometimes in a dramatic manner.  

The text of the NT first has to be postulated from the point of the 
autograph, and it is the essence of the autograph which permeates all 
MSS, versions, and patristic quotations.  That essence may be altered to 
varying degrees, but it cannot be destroyed, else the result will no 
longer be the NT text per se.

> Or

Again, this is a supposition without presupposing an autograph.  Putting
it in a proper analogy, is there not a close connection between the Middle
English of Chaucer and a modern prose or verse rendition of his Canterbury
Tales?  Or biblically, cannot Tyndale's English have a recognizable and
readily traceable connection to its later English descendants, whether in
the form of the Geneva Bible, the Bishop's Bible, or the King James Bible? 
Any analogy presented -must- be one which postulates an autograph which
undergoes certain alteration, but without removing or destroying the
-essence- of that autograph. 

> aspects and to drive out certain others.  

Even allowing your hypothesis, what were these factors?  Every item
generally cited by eclectic scholars (a preference for easier readings,
longer or fuller readings, substitution of synonyms, harmonizing readings,
etc.) can be shown to have occurred repeatedly and on numerous occasions,
even among MSS which are not of the Byzantine type.  However, the vast
bulk of such "secondary"  readings -- probably 99% of such -- even though
clearly reflecting the supposed "Byzantine mindset", were either NOT
perpetuated or tended to have a very short span of perpetuation.  Yet
those particular readings which just "happened" to have the Byzantine
"pattern" -were- perpetuated on a continually widening basis.  Why should 
this be so, save for the overarching influence of the autograph?

The question for eclectic theory is to account for precisely what caused
that pattern of readings to be perpetuated to the point of dominance,
while the vast bulk of other readings supposedly appropriate to the
"Byzantine mindset" were not perpetuated. From my own perspective, I have
no problem answering this point; I suspect modern eclectic theory will
find this particular matter difficult if not insurmountable. 

> But to insist that there must have been a 

If the autograph text itself is not considered a significant "guiding 
force," I do not know what else remains.  Do note that I am not claiming 
anything more than normal transmissional practices in regard to a 
pre-existing autograph text; such is perfectly adequate to account for 
the data we possess in our extant MSS, versions and Fathers.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 21:47:03 -0400 (EDT)

> continue to exist seems diminished.

I would note that Carlson is in perfect agreement with my own views on
this point (though we differ slightly near the end of the message).  He
asks later whether his view is "reasonable or mad speculation," and I
would insist that it is eminently reasonable within a normal
transmissional model, as even Hort noted (W-H, Introduction, p.45) with
his "theoretical presumption" that a majority of existing documents should
reflect a majority of pre-existing documents at any stage of transmission
-unless- some dramatic event or occurrence would render the "normal"
transmissional model null and void.  W-H of course proposed the hypothesis
of formal Byzantine revision and official promulgation of the
formally-revised text to eliminate this problem.  Remove this possibility
and substitute Colwell's or Aland's "process" model, and the eclectic
hypothesis does not function properly. 

> transmissional bottleneck.

I see three main "bottlenecks" which influence textual transmission: 
(1) the legitimization of Christianity under Constantine;  (2) the change 
of writing material from fragile papyrus to long-lasting vellum; (3) the
change of script from uncial to minuscule.  None of these, however, can 
account satisfactorily for an alteration of a non-Byzantine autograph 
into the later dominant Byzantine Textform; all of these, however, can 
fit in readily with an assumption of an autograph which resembles the 
Byzantine Textform to a high degree.
 
> Christianity.  

I could have added the Diocletian persecution as a fourth bottleneck, but 
in the absence of data to the contrary, I would consider that, all things 
being equal, MSS of any and all texttypes would be seized and destroyed 
in approximately the same percentage as their pre-persecution numbers 
would reflect. The end result of such would be a new beginning from MSS 
in the same texttype proportions (unless someone would want to argue that 
only or primarily non-Byzantine MSS were targeted for seizure, which 
would be purely an argument ex silentio).

> Obviously, more Bibles had to be produced at an increased
> base.  

The problem here is that MSS were not exactly dispatched Empire-wide from
Constantinople to replace those which previously existed in various
churches and monasteries.  The evidence mentioned from Lake, Blake and New
regarding MSS possessing a nearly identical Byzantine Textform yet without
evidence of genealogical connection in locales as diverse as Patmos,
Jerusalem and Sinai illustrates this point quite well.  Personally, I 
have no problem in assuming a "local text" of Constantinople, as well as 
of Caesarea, Alexandria, Carthage, or Rome; however, I would suspect 
that the Ka or perhaps the K1 sub-group of the Byzantine Textform would 
reflect that local text of Constantinople, and would have little or no 
bearing upon the otherwise predominant Kx text throughout the Empire.

> (or was created rapidly in early fourth).

Since the likelihood of rapid creation in the fourth or any century would 
be weakened by its growth to dominance without official recognition or 
promulgation, the implication of this statement would be that the 
Byzantine Textform actually has roots which reach much further back, 
perhaps even to the autograph. *;-)