Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text

From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 96 07:54 CDT

On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]> wrote:

>I appreciate Bob Waltz' attempts to list the five major categories of
>textual relationship.  I think he did a fine job of categorization.  I do
>have one significant point of difference, however, and this naturally is
>based upon my own transmissional theoretical perspective:

Now if I only had names for the five categories!

>On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>
>> 5) The "text-type." These are related manuscripts that *do not* derive
>> directly from a single common ancestor (other than the autographs).
>
>By my own definition this would exclude the Byzantine from being a
>texttype, which is indeed why I use the term "Textform" to describe the
>Byzantine text.

I think I missed something here.... If I read this correctly, you are
claiming that all Byzantine manuscripts derive from one archetype which
is *not* the autograph. If so, what is its superiority?

>> Another thing that needs to be noted in using these definitions is the
>>role of
>> the Byzantine text. No matter what one thinks of the origin of that text,
>> Byzantine mixture is the single most important element in the history of the
>> text.
>
>The problem here from my perspective is the use of "Byzantine mixture",
>when if looked at from a Byzantine-priority hypothesis, there is no real
>"mixture" occurring, but merely cases where either (a) certain MSS did not
>deviate from the Byzantine Textform itself or (b) such MSS were corrected
>back to the reading of the Byzantine Textform.  Certainly cases of the
>first category would not reflect any real "mixture," but merely a refusal
>or resistance to departure from the Byzantine Textform standard.  Cases
>of category (b) would not reflect "mixture" as much as "restoration"
>based upon cross-comparison and correction in the normal course of events.

This is only a difference in terminology, but I think we should clear it
up.

"Mixture" is not a measure of value, only of ancestry. When a manuscript
like 424 is corrected from a Byzantine type toward family 1739, I do
not refer to it as "restoration" -- even though in almost every case
I believe that this correction restores the original reading.

Mixture is just that: Mixture. It can go in any direction (as 424 proves.
I also suspect that the pair 630/2200 were originally Byzantine and
corrected toward other texts). 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.

If I place a low value on the Byzantine element of the mixture, it is
not because I think we should ignore the Byzantine text, or automatically
assume that the Byzantine text is late. It's just that there are *so many*
Byzantine texts available that we do not need the testimony of mixed
manuscripts. For all other text-types, we *do* need mixed mss.

>> 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.
>
>This is a good assessment.  I would add to this that the errors and
>peculiarities of scribes do not account for all the family
>idiosyncracies, but usually there is some influence exercised by a
>non-Byzantine tradition involved as well.  Bob may differ with me on
>this, but I suspect much of the non-Byz influence comes from Alexandrian
>readings as found in the Vulgate, with slight Alexandrian influence from
>other non-Greek versions.
>
>By the time most of these late MSS are copied, there is little question
>that Alexandrian Greek MSS are any longer predominant, even in regional
>locations, and I suspect therefore versional or patristic/versional
>influence.  This will account not only for certain idiosyncracies of the
>"tight" families, but also for those later minuscules which are
>consistently cited in the UBS edition as presenting a text which at times
>differs significantly from the remainder of the Byzantine tradition.

I honestly can't say. I don't think this is true in Paul or the Catholics,
but I haven't done enough work in the gospels to have an opinion.

>The one thing that I would not want to claim in such situations is
>"Byzantine mixture" when it appears the REAL "mixture" is that which
>comes in at such a late date from wholly extraneous sources.

Whereas, from my perspective, mixture is commutative (to speak mathematically).
It doesn't matter whether the manuscript is Byz+f1739 or f1739+Byz; the
result is a mixed text.

>> We've already noted the classical work by Colwell. It does a
>> good job of describing the problem and what needs to be done -- but then
>>gives
>> us the useless 70% definition.
>
>Certainly Colwell's 70% criterion is hypothetical and selected basically
>at random, but I would not concur that it is useless.  There really should
>be SOME basic criterion by which to assess texttype alignment, but it
>might have to differ with each accepted texttype.  For the Byzantine
>Textform, Waltz is correct that really a 90% cutoff level would be
>preferable.

Did I say that? I agree that the number has to be high... but 90% might
exclude family Pi, which most people consider Byzantine.

Maurice has hinted elsewhere that he does *not* consider family Pi Byzantine.
I would welcome his (or anyone's) thoughts on that.

>Pickering and Hodges/Farstad lowered that to 80%; my own edition merely
>accepted Colwell's 70% (which I still think is reasonably valid).  But for
>the Alexandrian texttype, one needs to lower the standard even further,
>into the 60%-70% base, with some cases dropping into the high 50% range.
>The Western text (or non-texttype) is in even worse shape, with often a
>51%-53% amount of agreement to establish a reading as belonging to that
>texttype.
>
>I suspect in the case of the Western that some readings in the 40%-50%
>range are still clearly of the "Western type" (whatever that might mean),
>but in dropping below 50% tend to indicate that such were only
>sporadically perpetuated rather than maintaining a dominant position
>within the type.

The *basic* reason I cannot accept Colwell's 70% rule is because of
mixture. Since I keep mentioning 424, let's mention it again. Even
after correction, 424 is probably 70% Byzantine. But the remaining
30% is pure family 1739, and we can easily identify those readings
(since they are corrections). Any definition we come up with *must*
allow for 424's kinship with family 1739. Colwell's rule doesn't.

In fact, by Colwell's rule, *only one* minuscule (33) qualifies as
Alexandrian in Paul, and one other (1739) qualifies as independent.
A few others (1175, 1506, 1962, 2127) are mixed. Everything else --
including such important and/or well-known witnesses as 104 326 330
1505 1611 -- is Byzantine!

>> To sum up: If there is *any* reliable modern definition of a text-type, I
>> can't find it. Basically people are still saying, "I know one when I see
>>one."
>
>I know the Byzantine when I see it.  I know in general the Alexandrian
>when I see what remains of it.  I know the Western from some of its
>individual readings, and I know the Caesarean only in certain patterns of
>mixture between Alexandrian and Byzantine readings.  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. :-)

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 think we need help!

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:12:36 -0400 (EDT)

> is *not* the autograph. If so, what is its superiority?

Not at all; I use "Textform" to indicate the original autograph from which
all other MSS, families, tribes, and texttypes derive; thus the "Byzantine 
Textform" takes on the superiority of autograph originality, and is not 
itself a "texttype" in the normal sense.

> 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.

> Of course, given the dominant nature

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. 

> > For the Byzantine Textform, Waltz is correct that really a 90% cutoff 
> > level would be preferable.

> exclude family Pi, which most people consider Byzantine.

You may not have said that; someone mentioned that amount.  This is why I 
would tend to err on the side of caution, and keep the cutoff percentage 
lower than necessary, in which case Colwell's 70% works quite well.

> 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)

> Any definition we come up with *must*

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).

> >I'm not sure that we

I do to a point.  Obviously we deviate beyond that point, and quite 
dramatically at that.

> Without a definition of a text-type, how can we possibly formulate a theory

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." 

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

?6;0c

[