Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text

From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 96 14:59 CDT

On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]> wrote,
in part:

>
>> This is only a difference in terminology, but I think we should clear it
>> up. Mixture is just that: Mixture. It can go in any direction
>
>I agree with this point, but semantically I still would maintain that
>such "mixture" when correcting a text BACK to the reading of the
>autograph is not properly "mixture" per se, but still "restoration."
>This may be merely a semantic quibble, but I think a distinction needs to
>be maintained between restoration of the autograph reading by
>cross-comparison and correction versus true "mixture" whereby the
>original reading is corrupted by influx from other non-autograph readings.

I suppose it depends on which problem one is attacking. In using the
terminology you do, you are working from a particular theory: Byzantine
priority.

Now it's obvious that I don't agree with this theory, but that's not
the point.

My goal is to start without *any* assumptions. If I construct a
textual theory, I want to do it from the bottom up. *Any* assumption
about the relationship of texts can lead to invalid results.

The obvious example is Richards. In his study of the letters of
John, he isolated three non-Byzantine groups. Well and good;
Duplacy found the same groups, and so did I.

But, because Richards assumes that the only text-types in the
General Epistles are the Byzantine and Alexandrian, he proceeds
to label *all three* of those groups Alexandrian. It is possible
that he is correct in the case of the 1739/1241 group (though I
question it), but it is absolutely certain that family 2138 is
*not* Alexandrian.

If it be objected that elsewhere I have constructed a theory of the
text, and even attempted to reconstruct the original text based on
it, I will concede that this is true. But that reconstruction is
tentative, based on what I know about the manuscripts. It might
change if I knew more.

And, more to the point, I do not consider that text to be final
until the textual complexion of all manuscripts is known.

So I maintain that, until we have fully examined that manuscripts,
we must refer to the process of adding Byzantine readings to
non-Byzantine manuscripts as mixture.

Once we've established our text-types, then you can call it
what you will. :-)

>> Of course, given the dominant nature
>> of the Byzantine text at the time most manuscripts were copied, it
>> follows that most of the manuscripts were corrected to be closer to
>> the Byzantine text. And that most of them derive from something that
>> is significantly less Byzantine.
>
>I obviously would not concur on this point.  I do agree that the tendency
>would be for localized texts to move steadily toward a Byzantine form as
>they begin to be corrected by comparison with MSS from outside their local
>region.  I also agree that the localized variations were themselves
>movements to varying degrees AWAY from the Byzantine Textform.  But I do
>not concur that most MSS within the wider scope of MS transmission would
>derive from a non-Byzantine or less-Byzantine model.  If this were so,
>what factors would legitimately, within any normal "process" view, cause
>non- or less-Byz MSS to become Byzantine?  Barring a major textual
>upheaval, the normal patterns of MS copying and correction would tend to
>maintain the text which was dominant at any given point of time.

I must admit that I don't understand that paragraph. So I may be missing
the point.

But how much do we really know about local texts? We know a little about
the text of Egypt from the papyri. But other than that, it seems to me
that our knowledge of local texts, especially in the western half of the
Roman Empire, is very slight.

Looking at the statistics for collections in the (old) Kurzggefasste Liste
and in Aland/Aland, it would appear that 40% are in Greece and nearby
areas -- areas which would belong to the Patriarchy of Constantinople.
Another 40+% are in libraries to which they must have been moved (e.g.
London, Oxford, Ann Arbor). Most of the rest are either at Rome or
Sinai. So how can we claim to know *anything* about the local text
of, say, North Africa (except from patristic writings)?

[...]
>
>> Maurice has hinted elsewhere that he does *not* consider family Pi Byzantine.
>> I would welcome his (or anyone's) thoughts on that.
>
>I don't think I said actually that: rather, Family Pi would be a
>sub-Byzantine category.  The MSS within that family are certainly
>"Byzantine" enough.  I would not, however, consider that family nor the Ka
>group or K1 group as the archetypes of the Byzantine Textform (as, e.g.,
>Von Soden or Lake), since this would imply that the later Kx group was a
>lesser descendant of one of these smaller families, which is again open to
>the question of how the normal copying processes could end up producing
>such a result.  I rather opted for the Kx group as more closely reflecting
>the archetype Byzantine Textform, with the smaller groups being localized
>variations of the Kx group (the smaller groups obviously affected by
>"mixture" from otherwise extraneous readings)

Understood. That makes your earlier statement much clearer.

>> Any definition we come up with *must*
>> allow for 424's kinship with family 1739. Colwell's rule doesn't.
>
>This is why I supplement the Colwell rule with Griffith's "Near-Neighbor
>Clusters" concept.  I find that approach works admirably well, and allows
>a MS like 424 to be "generally" Byzantine, but equally part of a
>distinctive fam.1739 (and there is no reason why both cannot be true,
>just as with Family Pi).

That sounds reasonable -- though I do not know the work you mention.
Can you tell me was it published? (Thanks in advance.)

>> >I'm not sure that we
>> >can move quantitatively beyond the qualitative in the search for the
>> >definition of a texttype.
>>
>> I'm glad somebody agrees with me as to the problem. :-)
>
>I do to a point.  Obviously we deviate beyond that point, and quite
>dramatically at that.

We disagree on results. Method is another question.

>> But if we cannot even agree on how to define a text-type, I have to think
>> that Epp is right and we are still in an "interlude" in textual criticism.
>> Without a definition of a text-type, how can we possibly formulate a theory
>> of the text?
>
>I agree with Epp insofar as Epp is describing modern eclectic theory.
>Once a wholly different model comes into play (which Epp basically calls
>for, following up on K.W.Clark in this regard), the "interlude" motif no
>longer applies.
>
>The problem is that those within the eclectic fold are themselves
>unwilling to consider what Clark called for: the "new angle" or new method
>of approach, because (as Colwell stated) they have "blinders on their
>eyes" and "the dead hand of Hort" still weighs heavily upon them.
>
>My own Byzantine-priority model does "work", and it works quite
>consistently and logically (given the constraints of my own hypothesis and
>model of textual transmission), but -- just as with the rejection of other
>text-critical hypotheses (e.g., those of A.C.Clark, Dom Henri Quentin,
>Vinton Dearing, Von Soden, and others), I do not expect or intend to make
>any inroads within the "normal" fold of modern eclecticism, even
>supposing that my claim of better support for my own theory might be
>true.
>
>Too many cherished presuppositions would be trampled to death by the
>imposition of a substitute theory for any real abandonment or capitulation
>of modern eclecticism to occur; in this Epp remains correct within a
>modern eclectic context:  "We know too much to believe the old; we know
>too little to create the new."

It sounds like you and I may suffer from the same degree of frustration,
even if for wholly different reasons. As long ago as Lake, people were
calling Westcott-Hort a "failure," yet no one has proposed a substitute.

Why do you think I started this discussion? Remember, I was offering a
deliberate unorthodoxy -- even though I was not sure it was true.

Of course, the discussion has now taken a completely different course.
But I still maintain that everyone needs to look at our fundamental
assumptions -- in this case, the definitions of text-types.

In saying this, I can only think of the history of science. At (admittedly
irregular) intervals something comes along and completely overturns
everything. On that analogy, textual criticism is overdue for a revolution.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 16:57:45 -0400 (EDT)

> terminology you do, you are working from a particular theory: Byzantine

Admitted. *;-)
 
> about the relationship of texts can lead to invalid results.

I suspect that any attempt to start from the bottom up with no 
assumptions regarding textual groupings or theory will lead to jumbled 
and inconclusive results (just as you are noting).  Since textual 
criticism cannot be done in a vacuum, I do not think it unreasonable to 
begin with theories regarding transmissional history before attempting to 
evaluate the interrelationship among MSS based upon percentage 
agreements; but this may only be a peculiarity of my own approach.  I do 
not think the results are skewed by my method, nor do I think 
they are necessarily improved by your method.

> tentative, based on what I know about the manuscripts. It might

My own textual theory and reconstruction is also based upon what I know 
about the MSS and copying habits of scribes etc., but it does not require 
the determination of what I consider the minutiae of MS 
interrelationships in order to function.  Even if the results remain 
tentative in any reconstruction, the theory still must exist in order to 
explain the interrelationships.
 
> until the textual complexion of all manuscripts is known.

And if such were indeed known, would you REALLY consider your text 
"final" and/or inviolate as a representation of the autograph?  I 
certainly would not claim such in regard to the Byzantine Textform even 
were we to possess full collations of all MSS, since the places where the 
Byzantine MSS are divided would still remain tentative in light of both 
internal and external evidence.  I simply remain skeptical of being able 
to approach any total level of certainty merely by statistical methods.

> non-Byzantine manuscripts as mixture.

Which, from your perspective, I can understand.  From my perspective, I 
would prefer to maintain the semantic distinction previously mentioned.

> I must admit that I don't understand that paragraph. So I may be missing

Let me rephrase simplistically: if local texts existed (and they did),
they must have come about as a deviation from the autograph.  What was the
autograph remains the question.  If the autograph were basically the
Byzantine Textform, then the local texts in process of time would tend to
slowly disappear and become re-amalgamated within the Byzantine Textform
through the process of cross-comparison and correction against MSS from
other portions of the Greek-speaking Empire.  This is a logical and
natural conclusion from within my own text-critical perspective. 

On the other hand, if the local texts were deviations from an autograph
which itself was non-Byzantine in character, some other explanation needs
to be given as to how and why the deviant local texts did not eventually
return to the theoretically "predominant" autograph text which supposedly
permeated the Greek-speaking portion of the Empire hitherto, but instead 
gravitated inexorably toward a Byzantine Textform. 

> Roman Empire, is very slight.

I really have no problem with the concept of local texts. The Western
text, even though fragmentary and scattered, still seems to be quite
clearly divided into European and African forms.  The local text of
Alexandria can be seen not only in the Greek MSS in varying degrees, but
also in the national Coptic texts of that locality; the "Caesarean",
though also questionable in nature and essence, still seems to stand
midway between the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts, and does seem, from
patristic evidence, to have an locale of origin in and around Palestine,
with possible spreading from there into the Georgian and Armenian
versions.  Even some of the Byzantine sub-families likely reflect texts 
current in a given locality, and that possibly a monastery or even 
Constantinople.

> of, say, North Africa (except from patristic writings)?

I'm not sure what your point is here: the present localities of MSS have 
no bearing on the "local text" question, since that goes back to the 
venues wherein they were originally copied, and the resultant textual 
alignments which can be discerned among the existing MSS.  Of course, if 
you are starting from scratch and reject the alignments, then nothing is 
certain.
 
> Can you tell me was it published? (Thanks in advance.)

John G. Griffith, "Numerical Taxonomy and Some Primary MSS of the 
Gospels," JTS, n.s. 41(?) 1969.  Not completely sure of the reference; 
that was off the top of my head, but the article is definitely in the 
fall 1969 fascicle.

> calling Westcott-Hort a "failure," yet no one has proposed a substitute.

Excuse me?  I thought _I_ had done that *;-)  Maybe you mean "within the 
modern eclectic fold"?

> deliberate unorthodoxy -- even though I was not sure it was true.

I recall that quite well.  I also offer a heterodoxy to the common 
eclectic position, though I am more convinced that my model has validity.
 
> everything. On that analogy, textual criticism is overdue for a revolution.

On this I fully concur.

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 96 11:53:43

In
<[email-masked]>,
on 06/04/96 
   at 04:57 PM, Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
said: I tried to input some comments of my own into this thread
since I am only a lurker but then it got to be more and more
difficult thus back to lurking and someday when I "grow up"
enough then I can jump in all the way..... <grin> I suggest that
more lurkers join once in a while.......

---On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

---> I suppose it depends on which problem one is attacking. In
---using the > terminology you do, you are working from a
---particular theory: Byzantine > priority.

---Admitted. *;-)
--- 
---> Now it's obvious that I don't agree with this theory, but
---that's not > the point.
---> 
---> My goal is to start without *any* assumptions. If I
---construct a > textual theory, I want to do it from the bottom
---up. *Any* assumption > about the relationship of texts can
---lead to invalid results.

---I suspect that any attempt to start from the bottom up with no
--- assumptions regarding textual groupings or theory will lead
---to jumbled  and inconclusive results (just as you are noting). 
---Since textual  criticism cannot be done in a vacuum, I do not
---think it unreasonable to  begin with theories regarding
---transmissional history before attempting to  evaluate the
---interrelationship among MSS based upon percentage  agreements;
---but this may only be a peculiarity of my own approach.
Beg my pardon since I am only a lurker   ;)
But this is precisely the point that Maurice is trying to make
and as far as my TC reading goes so far I wholeheartedly concur
with his opinion  --  Starting with a theory sounds wonderful --
But which one??  Hort?  Aland?  Kilpatrick?  Colwell? For much
too long I think that many of the theories have not influenced my
thinking as much as Maurice has done.
Of course I am not a heavyweight and rarely post in here  due to
that fact.... Thus this is why I state that I have not been
greatly impressed or influenced by the trad. approaches

  I do 
---not think the results are skewed by my method, nor do I think 
---they are necessarily improved by your method.

---> If it be objected that elsewhere I have constructed a theory
---of the > text, and even attempted to reconstruct the original
---text based on > it, I will concede that this is true. But that
---reconstruction is > tentative, based on what I know about the
---manuscripts. It might > change if I knew more.

---My own textual theory and reconstruction is also based upon
---what I know  about the MSS and copying habits of scribes etc.,
---but it does not require  the determination of what I consider
---the minutiae of MS  interrelationships in order to function. 
---Even if the results remain  tentative in any reconstruction,
---the theory still must exist in order to  explain the
---interrelationships.
--- 
---> And, more to the point, I do not consider that text to be
---final > until the textual complexion of all manuscripts is
---known.
Excuse me I am too familiar with how this theory works  out in
Theological circles thus I would not be surprised  if you were to
conclude that you were correct all a long... <g> Weiss
methodology and Maurice has a lot more going for  it than meets
the eye since many if not most are covertly and overtly opposed
to his system......  This is not true scholarship in my opinion

---And if such were indeed known, would you REALLY consider your
---text  "final" and/or inviolate as a representation of the
---autograph?  I  certainly would not claim such in regard to the
---Byzantine Textform even  were we to possess full collations of
---all MSS, since the places where the  Byzantine MSS are divided
---would still remain tentative in light of both  internal and
---external evidence.  I simply remain skeptical of being able 
---to approach any total level of certainty merely by statistical
---methods.

---> So I maintain that, until we have fully examined that
---manuscripts, > we must refer to the process of adding
---Byzantine readings to > non-Byzantine manuscripts as mixture.

---Which, from your perspective, I can understand.  From my
---perspective, I  would prefer to maintain the semantic
---distinction previously mentioned.

--->> I obviously would not concur on this point.  I do agree
---that the tendency >> would be for localized texts to move
---steadily toward a Byzantine form as >> they begin to be
---corrected by comparison with MSS from outside their local >>
---region.  I also agree that the localized variations were
---themselves >> movements to varying degrees AWAY from the
---Byzantine Textform.  But I do >> not concur that most MSS
---within the wider scope of MS transmission would >> derive from
---a non-Byzantine or less-Byzantine model.  If this were so, >>
---what factors would legitimately, within any normal "process"
---view, cause >> non- or less-Byz MSS to become Byzantine? 
---Barring a major textual >> upheaval, the normal patterns of MS
---copying and correction would tend to >> maintain the text
---which was dominant at any given point of time.
--- 
---> I must admit that I don't understand that paragraph. So I
---may be missing > the point.
Me too..... <grin>

---Let me rephrase simplistically: if local texts existed (and
---they did), they must have come about as a deviation from the
---autograph.  What was the autograph remains the question.  If
---the autograph were basically the Byzantine Textform, then the
---local texts in process of time would tend to slowly disappear
---and become re-amalgamated within the Byzantine Textform
---through the process of cross-comparison and correction against
---MSS from other portions of the Greek-speaking Empire.  This is
---a logical and natural conclusion from within my own
---text-critical perspective. 

---On the other hand, if the local texts were deviations from an
---autograph which itself was non-Byzantine in character, some
---other explanation needs to be given as to how and why the
---deviant local texts did not eventually return to the
---theoretically "predominant" autograph text which supposedly
---permeated the Greek-speaking portion of the Empire hitherto,
---but instead  gravitated inexorably toward a Byzantine
---Textform. 

---> But how much do we really know about local texts? We know a
---little about > the text of Egypt from the papyri. But other
---than that, it seems to me > that our knowledge of local texts,
---especially in the western half of the > Roman Empire, is very
---slight.

---I really have no problem with the concept of local texts. The
---Western text, even though fragmentary and scattered, still
---seems to be quite clearly divided into European and African
---forms.  The local text of Alexandria can be seen not only in
---the Greek MSS in varying degrees, but also in the national
---Coptic texts of that locality; the "Caesarean", though also
---questionable in nature and essence, still seems to stand
---midway between the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts, and does
---seem, from patristic evidence, to have an locale of origin in
---and around Palestine, with possible spreading from there into
---the Georgian and Armenian versions.  Even some of the
---Byzantine sub-families likely reflect texts  current in a
---given locality, and that possibly a monastery or even 
---Constantinople.

---> Looking at the statistics for collections in the (old)
---Kurzggefasste Liste > and in Aland/Aland, it would appear that
---40% are in Greece and nearby > areas -- areas which would
---belong to the Patriarchy of Constantinople. > Another 40+% are
---in libraries to which they must have been moved (e.g. >
---London, Oxford, Ann Arbor). Most of the rest are either at
---Rome or > Sinai. So how can we claim to know *anything* about
---the local text > of, say, North Africa (except from patristic
---writings)?

---I'm not sure what your point is here: the present localities
---of MSS have  no bearing on the "local text" question, since
---that goes back to the  venues wherein they were originally
---copied, and the resultant textual  alignments which can be
---discerned among the existing MSS.  Of course, if  you are
---starting from scratch and reject the alignments, then nothing
---is  certain.
--- 
---> >This is why I supplement the Colwell rule with Griffith's
---"Near-Neighbor > >Clusters" concept.  I find that approach
---works admirably well, and allows > >a MS like 424 to be
---"generally" Byzantine, but equally part of a > >distinctive
---fam.1739 (and there is no reason why both cannot be true, >
--->just as with Family Pi).
---> 
---> That sounds reasonable -- though I do not know the work you
---mention. > Can you tell me was it published? (Thanks in
---advance.)

---John G. Griffith, "Numerical Taxonomy and Some Primary MSS of
---the  Gospels," JTS, n.s. 41(?) 1969.  Not completely sure of
---the reference;  that was off the top of my head, but the
---article is definitely in the  fall 1969 fascicle.

---> It sounds like you and I may suffer from the same degree of
---frustration, > even if for wholly different reasons. As long
---ago as Lake, people were > calling Westcott-Hort a "failure,"
---yet no one has proposed a substitute.

---Excuse me?  I thought _I_ had done that *;-)  Maybe you mean
---"within the  modern eclectic fold"?

---> Why do you think I started this discussion? Remember, I was
---offering a > deliberate unorthodoxy -- even though I was not
---sure it was true.

---I recall that quite well.  I also offer a heterodoxy to the
---common  eclectic position, though I am more convinced that my
---model has validity.
--- 
---> In saying this, I can only think of the history of science.
---At (admittedly > irregular) intervals something comes along
---and completely overturns > everything. On that analogy,
---textual criticism is overdue for a revolution.

---On this I fully concur.

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

-- 
Respond to Jim at the following address
----------------------------------------------------
[email-masked]

-----------------------------------------------------------