Subject: Another set of miscellaneous replies

From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 96 08:45 CDT

I don't know whether to be amazed at how many side discussions this
"Alexandrian Text" thread has thrown off -- or irritated that we still
haven't managed to come to grips with the initial question of "What is
a text-type, and can we prove that B and Aleph do/do not form one in
the gospels?"

But here are some odds and ends of replies, mostly to Maurice Robinson.

First off, I did not mean to imply that Diocletian's persecution was
not severe. It was very prolonged (over a decade of mild persecution,
followed by nine years of intense persecution). It was more extensive
than any previous persecution except the Decian. And -- in the areas
administered by Galerius, at least -- it was thorough.

But there was nothing unique about it. Everything that happened under
Diocletian and Galerius had happened before. So we should not attribute
any extraordinary effects to it.

Also, about scriptures under Constantine. Obviously, since Christianity
was now legal, there would be an increase in demand under Constantine.
I just don't think that production would have risen all that much.
This is only logic, but I think it has a certain validity. Remember
that Constantine did not *enforce* Christianity, merely allowed it.
So many scribes would have remained non-Christians. And I can't speak
for anyone back then, but I wouldn't want a non-Christian copying my
scripture! Maurice has told me he disagrees; he may be right.

Remember also that no one could have been absolutely certain the Edict
of Milan would hold. The Empire had changed its mind about Christianity
several times before (and would change it briefly again, in the time
of Julian). So scribes would have been cautious at first.

Yes, copying of scripture would increase after Constantine. But -- I
think -- only slowly.

Also, I did not mean to imply that Constantine issued an "official
text," or that Eusebius's fifty copies had a particularly great effect
on the text of scripture. I *do not* believe that Constantine had an
official text. My point was simply that, if Constantine's reign had
any direct effect on scripture at all, it was not to promote the
Byzantine text.

Now, on a subject near and dear to my heart....

Robinson:

>> 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"?
>
>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.

Please folks, let's not use analogies to classical music. Classical
music is largely defined by its instruments. Most orchestral instruments
(except piano) can play only one note at a time, and most (except
strings) can only play out of the twelve-tone scale. It is this, far
more than composer's habits, that define classical music. Within
those limits, almost anything prevails (listen to music by Berg or
Hindemith some time and you'll see what I mean).

If we must use musical analogies at all -- and I'd rather we didn't --
we should use analogies to folk music. By which I don't mean the stuff
they played on radio stations in the 1960s, but actual *traditional*
music, handed down from parents to children. In which one can see
significant variations. For example, I just encountered a version
of "Poor Wayfaring Stranger" from the Catskills in which the stranger
became a "Poor and Foreign Stranger." Hymns, if not rigorously
controlled by the printing press, can undergo amazing changes....

Leaving the soapbox now. :-)

>> Robinson again:
>
>>> The lack of genealogical
>>> connection (noted by Lake, Blake and New, HTR 1928) becomes a very
>>> significant factor in evaluating those MSS, and tends to rule out any
>>> mere "local text" aspect regarding them.
>
>> I ask -- purely for information -- how well-established this is? Most
>> minuscules have never been collated; how can we *tell* what they are
>> related to.
>
>The article mentioned (which I have before me) reflects a reasonable
>statistical sampling with significant results.  The article contains a
>collation of a sample chapter (Mark 11) from "all the MSS (excluding
>lectionaries and commentaries) on Mt. Sinai, at Patmos, and in the
>Patriarchal Library and the collection of St. Saba at Jerusalem" [as of
>1928, obviously] (p.339).  They omitted from collation only MS 1241, which
>is treated separately in the Six Collations volume, due to its peculiar
>text. They also omitted 1192 and 1210 because "they seem to us to have
>weak Caesarean texts" (p.340).  Their intention in this particular
>excursus was not to categorize the Caesarean text, but accurately to
>present a Byzantine model.  Just under 100 MSS were collated for this
>particular study, and the results are displayed in the HTR article.
>
>The point is that these MSS, which in the view of Lake, Blake, and New
>were likely copied within the confines of those three widely separated
>monasteries, presented a near-identical Byzantine Textform, yet without
>any indication of genealogical ties, or even descent from within the MSS
>of the same monastery.  They raise some valid concerns, and their
>comments (p.340) are worth quoting in extenso:
>
>   The results are instructive, especially in their negative aspects.
>   This collation covers three of the great ancient collections of MSS.;
>   and these are not modern conglomerations, brought together from all
>   directions.  Many of the MSS. now at Sinai, Patmos, and Jerusalem must be
>   codices written in the scriptoria of these monasteries.  We expected to
>   find that a collation covering all the MSS. in each library would show
>   many cases of direct copying.  But there are practically no such cases.
>   What does this mean?
>
>   Before answering the question, it may be well to put another.  Why are
>   there only a few fragments (even in the two oldest of the monastic
>   collections, Sinai and St. Saba) which come from a date earlier than the
>   10th century?
>
>   There must have been in existence many thousands of manuscripts of the
>   gospels in the great days of Byzantine prosperity, between the fourth and
>   the tenth centuries.  There are now extant but a pitiably small number.
>   Moreover, the amount of direct genealogy which has been detected in
>   extant codices is almost negligible.  Nor are many known MSS. sister
>   codices. . . . Apart from . . . [f1 and f13] there seem to be no groups
>   of MSS. which are conceivably descendants of a single lost codex.  There
>   are cognate groups -- families of distant cousins -- but the manuscripts
>   which we have are almost all orphan children without brothers or
>   sisters.
>
>The data and conclusions of Lake, Blake, and New need to be seriously
>considered in formulating any hypothesis regarding the nature of the
>Byzantine Textform.

I'll admit to being slightly shocked by this. If this is valid, it
implies that less than one manuscript in ten thousand has survived.
Which seems almost unbelievable. What have I missed?

Robinson:

>> I think we need to distinguish here between the Byzantine *textform*
>> (to use Robinson's term), Byzantine *manuscripts*, and the late
>> medieval majority text.
>
>I would distinguish between these, though I would place the late medieval
>Byz text after the 12th century; would you do the same?

Well... "medieval" would imply such a date; I perhaps should have used
a different word. (Come on, people, don't write so fast, so I can have
more time to think about what I'm saying. :-)

I would imagine you are much more expert on this than I am. To me it
seems that the flood of full-blown Byzantine manuscripts that continued
until the time of Erasmus began in the ninth century, and that manuscripts
such as E-F-G-H in the gospels and K-L in the epistles are typical.
But I am open to enlightenment; my knowledge of the Byzantine text in
the Gospel is largely confined to the comments by Wisse and in Paul
is dependent on the "NT auf Papyrus" collations plus Clark's "Eight
Praxapostoloi."

>
>> Gospels:
>>   Earliest substantial witness: Peshitta (IV)
>>   Earliest substantial Greek witness: A (V)
>
>Add to that the clearly Byzantine portion of W (which had to have been
>copied from some previous archetype which also was clearly "Byzantine" in
>character)

Agreed. Though W is of about the same date as A, so it doesn't change
things much.

>> Apocalypse (again, tentative):
>>   Earliest substantial witness: P, 046, minuscules (IX)
>>   Earliest substantial Greek witness: same
>>   Earliest pure witness: same
>
>Since there are two competing "Byzantine" or "majority" texttypes in the
>Apocalypse (Andreas and Q), I would not claim any specific MS as "the"
>substantially Byzantine example.  Leading MSS of the separate An and Q
>categories could be postulated, but little more.

Again, agreed. P and 046 are, as I understand it, the lead witnesses
to those two types.

As an aside to Maurice -- how do you feel about those two types?
Which one do you consider the original Byzantine textform?

>> I agree with whoever it was that said that it's hard to imagine
>> a whole school of scribes with a "mindset"; if a text really does
>> exhibit a particular set of characteristics, recensional activity
>> seems more likely.
>
>Actually, I think almost all scribes had a certain "mindset," and that
>was basically to reproduce the text of their exemplar as accurately as
>possible, correcting errors when known, and checking and correcting
>errors against other exemplars when the situation was doubtful.
>
>Other than that, scribes definitely -did- have certain "tendencies" toward
>specific types of error (accidental omission, dittography, unconscious
>substitution of synonyms, etc., coupled with at times deliberate
>alteration where assumed error was perceived incorrectly, or to strengthen
>orthodox doctrine, etc.).  However, these tendencies were not texttype
>specific, and affected all scribes of all texttype exemplars, though not
>in identical forms or quantity.  My own dissertation study on the
>"Scribal Habits Among MSS of the Apocalypse" tended to show the basic
>fidelity of most all scribes to their task, even with their varying
>degrees of tendency toward error.

When I referred to a "mindset," I meant (say) a tendency to add
superfluous pronouns, or delete them, or fix certain grammatical
constructions. I agree with Maurice that most scribes were doing their
best to copy what was before them, and that each scribe made
idiosyncratic errors. But idiosyncratic errors will hardly create a
text-type!

Carlson:

> 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 once had an extended discussion on this subject with a biologist. We
concluded that there are a number of functions in nature and human
society which followed this "genetic" model.

However, there *is* a way for a new "gene" to be propagated without
a "bottleneck." That is "mutation" to produce a "superior" form.
I won't get into an argument about biological evolution. But I can
cite examples in other areas. It will often happen that a folk song
will exist in various forms, and then someone creates a "superior"
form (e.g. one with an improved melody or an easier set of words).
The "improved" form will then gradually sweep all other forms away.
(I could cite examples, but they probably wouldn't mean anything
to the people on this list.)

It could certainly be argued that this has happened with the NT text
as well. The best example is the ending of Mark. Without saying which
is original, it is clear that two major forms circulated -- with and
without 16:9-20. But the longer form clearly prevailed because it
was *superior* -- i.e. it looked complete.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 11:55:39 -0400 (EDT)

> scripture! Maurice has told me he disagrees; he may be right.

My private reply to Bob was this:

The conversion of Constantine did not exactly make Constantine a 
Christian either *;-)   However, scribes were not necessarily selected 
for their piety, but for the literacy, and grammatical and calligraphic 
ability, so I would not think it peculiar for non-Christian scribes to 
copy NT documents under contract to churches, though I do suspect that 
this rarely had to be the case, so long as scribes who were at least 
nominal church members (i.e. baptized for certain social and political 
benefits) were utilized.  A reading of Gore Vidal's "Julian" gives 
interesting and generally factual insight into the socio-political 
situation of this era.

> of Julian). So scribes would have been cautious at first.

So long as they got paid for legitimate work during a time when such was 
freely permitted, I doubt that they would worry too much.  No one was 
going to persecute a scribe (who would rarely sign his name to what he 
had copied) ex post facto merely because the religious or political 
climate might shift once more.  That type of event might have to await 
the Inquisition or the McCarthy era.
 
> My point was simply that, if Constantine's reign had

I would agree here, adding it was not to promote -any- specific texttype, 
but merely "the" NT text and canon, in whatever form they might assume.

> Please folks, let's not use analogies to classical music. 

I only addressed a faulty analogy, but to make a valid point to some 
degree.  The issue of theme and variations within normative classical 
music would make the same point as Waltz' suggestion to move to folk 
music.  There still has to be an underlying original which gets distorted 
or varied for whatever purposes, and this applies to any text-critical 
theory as well, since the autograph has to be presupposed as a 
stabilizing factor, else the variations would be unrecognizable as the 
text of a particular NT book.

> Hymns, if not rigorously

Too many hymns controlled by the printing press end up dramatically
changed for theological (e.g. the end of "Holy Holy Holy" as sung by the
non-Trinitarian Mormon Tabernacle Choir) or aesthetical reasons ("for
sinners such as I" instead of "for such a worm as I").   But I'll depart 
this soapbox as well.....

> Which seems almost unbelievable. What have I missed?

Lake, Blake, and New said only that there must have been thousands of MSS
existing before the 9th century which are no longer extant.  I would not
necessarily multiply this into tens of thousands.  However, I think that
the conclusions of Lake, Blake, and New are quite reliable and highly
significant.  

There remains an underlying implication (following Hort's "theoretical
presumption") that those non-extant MSS would likely reflect a similar
proportion of Byzantine MSS as is evidenced in the post-9th century era,
and if so, any non-Byzantine views of transmissional history which engage
in the recent "revisionist history" claim that the Byzantine Text was not
in the majority until after the 9th century (e.g. Wallace, Aland), will
have to be seriously re-evaluated.  The conclusions of Lake et al. point
at the minimum to at least the truth of Hort's claims regarding Byzantine
dominance from ca. AD 350 onward. 

> such as E-F-G-H in the gospels and K-L in the epistles are typical.

I will agree that the multiplication of MSS increased dramatically from 
the 9th century onward, and that the uncial MSS cited are typical of the 
Byzantine Textform.  But I would not suggest a sudden or major explosion 
of MS copies at that point, but only a continuing multiplication of what 
had previously been occurring (following the reasoning of Lake et al. on 
this point).

> Agreed. Though W is of about the same date as A, so it doesn't change

But A and W (not the root beer), with their early date and substantially 
Byzantine texts, do imply the existence of earlier complete exemplars (at 
least of the gospels) with a substantially Byzantine text in their 
respective regions of copying (and I see a clear Egyptian hand in A, with 
a more Armenian-style hand in W).

> >substantially Byzantine example.  

> Which one do you consider the original Byzantine textform?

I have a suspicion that the Andreas group might be influenced more by 
certain preferred readings of that Father (whose commentary accompanies 
almost all MSS of that group).  The Q-group of MSS generally is 
continuous text without commentary attached, and I would suspect it to 
likely be closer to the original (but due to the smaller number of MSS in 
the Apocalypse as compared with anywhere else in the NT, there is no easy 
"Byzantine methodology" which can be applied there: readings where An + Q 
agree are obviously "Byzantine," and this covers probably 95% of the 
book; where An and Q differ, there is usually an approximately equal 
quantitative division among the MSS, and internal principles have to 
predominate in such cases).
 
> idiosyncratic errors. But idiosyncratic errors will hardly create a

Most definitely agreed.  This is why I would argue for localized 
variations which would come together in local text forms.  Some of these 
local variations may have arisen from accidental alteration which then 
became perpetuated within that given region; other readings may have come 
about due to deliberate local recensional activity (which I would 
maintain especially in the cases of Alexandria and Caesarea).

> It will often happen that a folk song

Not wanting to get into the music analogy again, but Luther's taking a 
drinking song and turning it into "A Mighty Fortress" or the same 
happening with the tavern tune "Anacreon in Heaven" becoming "The Star 
Spangled Banner" might serve as common illustrations.  This analogy, 
however, still remains outside the realm of NT textual transmission, 
since it moves within the framework of the pre-existing autograph, where 
the basic autograph text is NOT altered beyond recognition.

> was *superior* -- i.e. it looked complete.

The question of "circulated" is debatable.  With only 3 Greek MSS omitting 
the long ending entirely, one has to wonder as to how extensively this 
form ever did "circulate".  Even the forms with the shorter ending appear 
in only a handful of Greek MSS, and then in conjunction with the long 
ending, so it may be questioned whether even that ending (which would 
also have "looked complete") really had much independent circulation 
beyond it-k or possibly some few Old Latin companion MSS.  My view is 
much simpler: the longer form prevailed because it was in fact part of 
the originally-circulated form of Mark, and later competing readings 
never really gained much popularity, let alone any ascendancy.

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

---

From: "Stephen C Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 12:05:45 -0400 (EDT)

I think it is too reductionistic to examine the effects of Diocletian's
persecution as yet another persecution (albeit a longer and perhaps harsher
one) and of Constantine's liberalization without regard to the fact that
they occurred within decades of each other.  We have the collocation of
one of the longest and harshest persecutions (one that did target the
Scriptures) and one of the most permissive legal treatments of
Christianity in centuries.

The two events jointly have a greater impact than what one would
conclude by examining them separately.  In other words, I understand
Diocletian's persecution together with the nearly immediate legalization
of Christianity by Constantine to be part of the same "bottleneck."

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: [email-masked] (Ulrich Schmid)
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 96 19:53:46 +0100

On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote (inter alia):

[quoting Robinson:]

>>Just under 100 MSS were collated for this
>>particular study, and the results are displayed in the HTR >>article. 
>>The point is that these MSS, which in the view of Lake, Blake, >>and New were 
likely copied within the confines of those three >>widely separated
>>monasteries, presented a near-identical Byzantine Textform, yet >>without any 
indication of genealogical ties, or even descent from >>within the MSS of the 
same monastery.  They raise some valid >>concerns, and their comments (p.340) 
are worth quoting in >>extenso:

>>   The results are instructive, especially in their negative >>aspects.
> >  This collation covers three of the great ancient collections >>of MSS.;
>>   and these are not modern conglomerations, brought together >>from all 
directions.  Many of the MSS. now at Sinai, Patmos, and >>Jerusalem must be 
codices written in the scriptoria of these >>monasteries.  We expected to
>> find that a collation covering all the MSS. in each library >>would show  
many cases of direct copying.  But there are >>practically no such cases.

>>   Before answering the question, it may be well to put another. >> Why are 
there only a few fragments (even in the two oldest of >>the monastic
>>   collections, Sinai and St. Saba) which come from a date >>earlier than the 
10th century?

>>   There must have been in existence many thousands of >>manuscripts of the  
gospels in the great days of Byzantine >>prosperity, between the fourth and
> >  the tenth centuries.  There are now extant but a pitiably >>small number.
> >  Moreover, the amount of direct genealogy which has been >>detected in
> >extant codices is almost negligible.  Nor are many known MSS. >>sister 
codices. . . . Apart from . . . [f1 and f13] there seem to >>be no groups of 
MSS. which are conceivably descendants of a >>single lost codex.  There
>>   are cognate groups -- families of distant cousins -- but the >>manuscripts 
 which we have are almost all orphan children without >>brothers or sisters.
>
>>The data and conclusions of Lake, Blake, and New need to be >>seriously 
considered in formulating any hypothesis regarding the >>nature of the Byzantine 
Textform.

>implies that less than one manuscript in ten thousand has >survived.

Well, the first thing we all miss at least from the long quotation from Kirsopp 
Lake (given by Maurice) is the concluding sentence: "(...are almost all orphan 
children without brothers or sisters.) Taking this fact into consideration along 
with the negative result of our collation of MSS. at Sinai, Patmos, and 
Jerusalem, it is hard to resist the conclusion that the scribes usually 
destroyed their exemplars when they had copied the sacred books" (HTR XXI, 1928, 
pp. 348f).
If this had been usual scribal practice, then why do we have more than one 
manuscript now? But, to be serious, if we look at the Vulgate tradition, we have 
similar results.

In 1972 (Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung, vol. 5), Bonifatius 
Fischer published the results from the examination of 32 Vulgate-MSS all 
stemming from the scriptorium of Tours (France) covering a time span from around 
100 years (796 to around 900 AD). These 32 Vulgate-MSS can be pretty well 
arranged by the style of handwriting and the decorations. But, a collation of 
these MSS at 50 Teststellen in the Gospels revealed NO stemmatical arrangement 
of the texts they contain. Shurely, there are some MSS that are more closely 
related than others, but a more precise description of the textual development 
is not possible. Interesting enough, what can be seen is:
(a) When the leadership of the monastery changed to the Abt Adalhard (834 AD), 
there was a textual shift towards the Vulgate text of Reins.
(b) However, a dependence of Tours (Marmoutier) remained at the same time 
conservative (not influenced by the text of Reins).
(c) Towards the end of the leadership of the Abt Vivian (around 850 AD) there 
was a change back to the older text of Tours.
(d) After that there seems to have been taken place a constant change between 
both texts with mixtures involved.

After all, we have to keep in mind that the texts involved are Vulgate-texts, 
i.e. they all belong to the same branche of textual transmission clearly 
distinct from the various Old-Latin texts.

I now may return to the Lake-Blake-New collations from the MSS mentioned above. 
119 (I found the number on p. 342) against Textus Receptus collated MSS in Mark 
11 are involved. 
(a) First, they isolated a textual stratum which they call the "Ecclesiastical" 
text ("the most popular text in MSS. of the tenth to the fourteenth century") by 
meens of identifying four readings were almost all MSS under discussion deviate 
from the Textus Receptus.
(b) Then, they noted another 10 readings which they judge to be regarded as 
variants within the "Ecclesiastical" text.
(c) Some 20 MSS might be connected to (von Soden's) K 1, though Lake shows signs 
of hesitation.
(d) Another seven MSS present a relatively pure K a text, with 16 additional MSS 
representing a mixture of K a and the "Ecclesiastical" text.
(e) Another four MSS appeared to share a common pattern hitherto unknown.
(f) The readings of von Sodens Antiochian commentary (A c) are clearely 
identifiable, but not by meens of a group. 
(g) Within the 33 verses of Mark 11 collated against the Textus Receptus there 
are 23 readings where at least 10 percent of the 119 MSS desert. 

To conclude therefrom, I may say that some 17 to 34 percent of the MSS 
(depending on wether we take K 1 into account or not) out of the 119 could be 
grouped by different patterns of readings. A glance at von Soden revealed that 
some of the readings involved have support from von Soden's various I groups, 
occasionally also from von Soden's H group. But that needs further assessment. 
However, it seems important to me that not few of the readings may have been 
caused independently by assimilation. The whole thing, to my mind is not as 
disturbing as it seems. A huge distinct pattern of readings seems to be fixed 
(i.e the primary Byzantine text stratum ), a few smaller distinct patterns in 
addition to the primary stratum are relatively purely displayed by few MSS. The 
majority of the MSS seems to display mixture mostly within the smaller patterns. 
Therefore, the additional smaller patterns can be seen as representing a broadly 
disseminated and very well known (at least to later scribes) pool of 
variant-readings. If the constant threat of assimilation is taken into account, 
it is to my mind not disturbing what can be found within the libraries 
Lake-Blake-New have examined.   

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 15:37:26 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Ulrich Schmid wrote:

> Well, the first thing we all miss at least from the long quotation from
>Kirsopp Lake (given by Maurice) is the concluding sentence: "(...are
>almost all orphan children without brothers or sisters.) Taking this fact
>into consideration along with the negative result of our collation of MSS.
>at Sinai, Patmos, and Jerusalem, it is hard to resist the conclusion that
>the scribes usually destroyed their exemplars when they had copied the
>sacred books" (HTR XXI, 1928, pp. 348f). 

I left off that sentence since the logical fallacy inherent in such a 
supposition has already been refuted by D.A.Carson in his critique of 
Pickering, and Ulrich's comment notes that same logical fallacy:

> manuscript now? 

However, there is another good and sufficient answer to the situation, and
it revolves around the move from uncial to minuscule script, which
occurred at about the same time as these early minuscules were copied. No
one yet apparently has speculated or commented on the destruction of
-uncial- exemplars once a minuscule copy had been made, but this seems to
be the real thrust of Lake, Blake, and New's claim. 

> But, to be serious, if we look at the Vulgate tradition, we have 
> similar results.

In the Latin tradition the change in handwriting was not so radically
different as that in the Greek tradition.  But the additional points
Ulrich made are indeed significant within the history of that tradition. 

> (a) First, they isolated a textual stratum which they call the
>"Ecclesiastical"  text ("the most popular text in MSS. of the tenth to the
>fourteenth century") by meens of identifying four readings were almost all
>MSS under discussion deviate from the Textus Receptus. 

They noted that the TR was equal to the Byzantine tradition in all but 
four readings, where the vast majority of the 100 or so MSS deviated 
nearly unanimously.  One should not regard merely these 4 readings as the
Ecclesiastical (= Byzantine) text, but the 4 readings plus the 
remaining entirety of the TR text in that chapter.

I will (and Lake would have also, I am certain) readily grant that
intra-Byzantine sub-group readings exist among these MSS; Lake was making
the point that the MSS which comprist this group of around 100 MSS does
remain "Byzantine" to the exclusion of other texttypes. 

>However, it seems important to me that not few of the readings may 
>have been caused independently by assimilation. 

Do you REALLY think this?  Or are you just bringing in a hypothetical
possibility that the sharing of certain variants might be by chance?  I
would allow the chance element were the texttypes clearly distinct, with
only a few isolated readings held in common; but when all MSS are of the
same basic texttype, and the shared readings are often among MSS of the
same sub-type, I suspect something more genetic is reflected, even if we
cannot determine the real interrelationship among the MSS. 

>The whole thing to my mind is not as disturbing as it seems. A huge
>distinct pattern of readings seems to be fixed (i.e the primary Byzantine
>text stratum ), a few smaller distinct patterns in addition to the primary
>stratum are relatively purely displayed by few MSS. The majority of the
>MSS seems to display mixture mostly within the smaller patterns. 

I agree fully with this assessment -- basically this is a good description
of the entire group of MSS comprising the Byzantine Textform. 

>Therefore, the additional smaller patterns can be seen as representing a
>broadly disseminated and very well known (at least to later scribes) pool
>of variant-readings. If the constant threat of assimilation is taken into
>account, it is to my mind not disturbing what can be found within the
>libraries Lake-Blake-New have examined. 

I see the extraneous readings as reflecting "floating" localized variants
which were sporadically adopted, not necessarily a "broadly disseminated"
or even "well known" pattern.  Certainly the readings in question were
known to the specific scribes in any case, but how widespread or
well-known they may have been remains uncertain.  The lack of clear
genealogical connection among these MSS which existed and were likely
copied in those widely-separated monasteries remains the key point within
Lake's findings which should still send some "disturbing" signals to those
within the eclectic camp.

---

From: [email-masked] (Ulrich Schmid)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 96 18:00:37 +0100

On Sun, 9 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

[qoting Schmid:]

>>"Ecclesiastical"  text ("the most popular text in MSS. of the >>tenth to the
>>fourteenth century") by meens of identifying four readings were >>almost all

>They noted that the TR was equal to the Byzantine tradition in all >but 
>four readings, where the vast majority of the 100 or so MSS >deviated nearly 
unanimously.  One should not regard merely these 4 >readings as the 
Ecclesiastical (= Byzantine) text, but the 4 >readings plus the 
>remaining entirety of the TR text in that chapter.

This is definitely correct. I may have stated this more clearely. 

[again quoting Schmid:]

>>However, it seems important to me that not few of the readings >>may have been 
caused independently by assimilation. 

>Do you REALLY think this?  Or are you just bringing in a >hypothetical
>possibility that the sharing of certain variants might be by >chance?  I
>would allow the chance element were the texttypes clearly >distinct, with
>only a few isolated readings held in common; but when all MSS are >of the
>same basic texttype, and the shared readings are often among MSS >of the
>same sub-type, I suspect something more genetic is reflected, even >if we

Again, I may have stated the point more clearly. Assimilation in the Gospels is 
very frequent. This is not text-type specific, but seemingly to be found in 
virtually every MS. Therefore, assimilation may somehow affect clear patterns 
and obcure them to some extend. I only thought of the smaller patterns within 
the Byz. text-type, indicating Byz. sub-divisions. The point was: Assimilation 
_might_ have obscured to some extend the clear genealogical relations between 
MSS of the same text-type.

[again quoting Schmid:]

>>Therefore, the additional smaller patterns can be seen as >>representing a
>>broadly disseminated and very well known (at least to later >>scribes) pool
>>of variant-readings. If the constant threat of assimilation is >>taken into
>>account, it is to my mind not disturbing what can be found within >>the 

>I see the extraneous readings as reflecting "floating" localized >variants
>which were sporadically adopted, not necessarily a "broadly >disseminated"
>or even "well known" pattern.  Certainly the readings in question >were
>genealogical connection among these MSS which existed and were >likely
>copied in those widely-separated monasteries remains the key point >within
>Lake's findings which should still send some "disturbing" signals >to those 

Well, the readings of these smaller patterns (i.e. "broadly disseminated and 
very well known pool of variant-readings") are regularly found in around 10 to 
40 percent of the MSS Lake-Blake-New examined. These MSS stem from three 
"widely-separated monasteries" and therefore, by consequence, if an argument is 
built on the widely-separated monasteries, the smaller patterns are at least 
spread exactly in the same "widely-separated" areas (i.e from Mount Sinai to 
Jerusalem and Patmos). 

I must admit that I do not completely grasp what "'floating' localized variants" 
means. Do they originally belong to some sort of localized Byzantine sub-types 
the local text-type like, or...? I may add that there are 22 of these 
"'floating' localized variants" within the 33 verses of Mark 11. Even if they 
are only "sporadically adopted", they can be found in MSS from "widely-separated 
monasteries". If they are originally somehow "localized variants", the 
probability of genealogical connection increases dramatically. Otherwise, how 
were they spread?   

"Disturbing" signals to whom?

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 21:55:07 -0400 (EDT)

> MSS of the same text-type.

Probably some close analysis of the readings in the Mk.11 collation by
Lake et al. needs to be made to see whether any of the shared readings are
in fact likely assimilations, either to parallel passages or to the near
context, and then to see whether any clear pattern of association results 
among the MSS of these groups.  I myself suspect little or no connections 
in this regard, since this collation data caused Lake et al. to consider 
the MSS actually genealogically unrelated.
 
> spread exactly in the same "widely-separated" areas (i.e from Mount Sinai to 

It might be instructive to see whether any of the patterns are 
monastery-specific, i.e., limited almost exclusively to MSS from within a 
single monastery (which would imply some limitation and restriction upon 
the copying procedure).  If on the other hand, the sub-type readings were 
spread nearly equally among the MSS of all three monasteries, then this 
would imply approximately a same percentage of parallel spread throughout 
the empire of these sub-groups (which well may be the case, even if the 
sub-groups originally began as local-text variants; the significant point 
is that these sub-group readings never gained the ascendancy, but always 
remained in a minority of MSS, even within the Byzantine tradition).

> the local text-type like, or...? 

I suspect originating within a localized tradition, but with a certain 
degree of transmission beyond the local area for some, if not all, of the 
local variants.  

> I may add that there are 22 of these 
> monasteries". 

Perhaps.  This again needs to be checked against the locale of each MS in
Lake's collation to see whether the localized variants in fact do
transcend the single monastery within which they are kept.  This is a
relatively simple task, which could be accomplishing by obtaining the data
from the Kurzgefasste Liste, and then color-coding each MS in the
collation with a different highlighting pen.  Until then, it is unwise to
speculate. 

> "Disturbing" signals to whom?

My guess is to the eclectic school.