Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 96 16:20:29 +0100

On Wed, 29 May 1996, Rober B. Waltz wrote:

>The number of differences between B and Aleph is not really the >point. The 
point is that there are several witnesses tightly >clustered around B (including 
p75 T sahidic). There are also >witnesses clustered (rather more loosely) around 
Aleph.

>We tend to speak of only two levels of textual groupings: families >and 
text-types.
>But there are intermediate levels (I think the term "tribes" has >been used).
>I think the existence of a "B tribe" can be accepted without >question. There 
may well be an "Aleph tribe" as well. But are >these tribes members of the same 
text-type? The question is not >being addressed.

I may again refer to Larry W. Hurtado's point: "Discussion of 'text-types' 
raises the question of what we mean." This point is well taken, though I found 
Larry's referrence to the Epp essay on _The significance of the Papyri..._ not 
very helpful in this respect. If we add further labels ("family", "tribe") the 
same question ("of what we mean") occurs. Colwell defines the labels as follows 
(Hort-Redivivus: A Plea and a Program; Studies in Methodology in Textual 
Criticism of the NT, 1969, pp. 162f):

a.) "The 'family' is a group of manuscripts so closely related to each 
other...that a stemma can be reconstructed and the archetype, or its text, 
reconstructed. Examples are family 1, and family II".
b.) The 'tribe' is a group of families with looser relationships between 
families, yet a group whose interrelationships are relatively close, relative 
-that is- to the looser relationships of the members of a text-type. The tribe 
is thus defined by its position between the family and the text-type...The 
classic example of confusion in the terms applied is the Caesarean Group, called 
Family Theta by Streeter and a text-type by others. It now seems that it is 
neither".
c.) "The 'text-type' is the largest identifiable group of manuscripts. It has a 
longer life span than most families or tribes. Thus it will have some members 
that may be weaker than the members of either of these smaller groups. Examples 
of text-types are Kenyon's Beta (Hort's Neutral), and Kenyon's Alpha (Hort's 
Syrian)".

Therefore, Bob, if you wish, you may identify a "B tribe" and an "Aleph tribe" 
as well. But, as you can see from Colwell's definition, though he describes the 
relationship between tribes and families ("tribe is a group of families"), yet 
he gives no clear description of the relationships between text-types and 
families and text-types and tribes. To my mind, it is not clear therefrom, if 
and how the split of "text-types" (granted their existence) into various 
"tribes" affects the consistency of  "text-types". Or, to take it from the other 
side, if and how the existence of "tribes" precludes, or weakens their grouping 
together under the heading "text-type", or a least makes it irrelevant. 
I suspect, Colwell's definition of "tribe" was almost exclusively inspired by 
the "Caesarean Group", presumably to cope with this problem. The question of 
"text-types", I think, Colwell holds to be settled by his famous 70 percent 
criterion of group support for the existence of text-types.

On Fri, 31 May 1996, Bob wrote:

>I must insert here a strong argument *against* the Colwell >definition of a 
text-type. Two, in fact.

>The first is the use of exact numbers in deciding text-types. >Unless we are 
prepared to examine *all* variations in the >manuscripts involved (as Hurtado,
>to his credit, did), the numbers mean nothing. If we use a >comparison based on 
sampling, the rate of agreement between >manuscripts will depend on the sample 
being taken.
>[...]

>The cut-off line for defining a text-type *must* depend on the >sample.

>But even for a particular sample, I don't think we can fix a >cut-off and say, 
"All manuscripts that meet this criterion belong >to this text-type." The great 
problem with the Colwell definition >is that it ignores mixture.

>Take a manuscript like 424. Even after diligent correction, it is >still more 
Byzantine than anything else. Depending on the sample, >it might well be rated 
as 70% Byzantine. But is it a Byzantine manuscript? Well, maybe...
>but what makes it interesting is not the 75% of the text that is >Byzantine, 
but the 25% that agrees very closely with 1739 6 etc.
>[...]

>Which leads to another problem: Can a text-type be defined without >a "core 
text"? This is precisely the problem of the "Caesarean >text." If one omits p45 
and W (as Hurtado has shown we should), >there is no "core" Caesarean witness. 
Does this mean that the >Caesarean text *cannot* exist? I think that too strong 
an >argument.

>Note that I am not saying that the Caesarean text *does* exist; >that remains 
to be settled. I'm just saying that we cannot use >Colwell's definition to 
settle the matter.

I totally agree with that. I may even add another suspicion: Colwells famous 70 
percent criterion of group support for the existence of text-types was almost 
exlusively inspired by the Aleph-B group support. If one chooses an 80 percent 
group support, Aleph and B would only sporadically reach the limit (if one 
chooses 85 percent, hardly ever), and so by consequence would not belong to one 
and the same quantitatively defined text-type. On the other hand 80 or 85 
percent group support is a relatively poor description of the Byzantine text. 
The vast majority of NT MSS (some 80 percent) have a group support of around 90 
percent.  

To my mind, all the textual complexions commonly labeled as "text-types" reveal 
intra-group alignments of different quantity and different quality. We should 
not even the differences in order to retain our well known "text-types". The 
least we have to do is to honestly make clear the points of difference. If we 
wish to have for example Aleph and B forming a "text-type" or belonging to one, 
we have to admit that this "text-type" is essentially different in quantity and 
quality with referrence to its intra-group alignments than for example a 
Byzantine "text-type". Even if a dynamic element is added to the picture of a 
"text-type" (as Colwell and more strongly Epp emphasize), the dynamisms are of a 
different kind. One simply can not compare the intra-Byzantine textual shifts of 
at least the later strata with the supposed intra-"Alexandrian" ("early" and 
"late") shifts.  

So here I end up where I started: "Discussion of 'text-types' raises the 
question of what we mean" (Larry W. Hurtado). Any proposals what YOU mean, 
Larry, Bob,...?

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: [email-masked] (Ulrich Schmid)
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 96 16:39:20 +0100

On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

>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).

Sorry, my fault. Shure, the alignment in the Generals is 1505 + 
2495 versus 1611 + 2138. I simply can not recall what caused this 
fault.

>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.

It all depends on how far one goes into detailed examination. I in 
fact did not go into very detail, but I commented on the bases of a preliminary 
glance at the edition (Aland/Juckel) with a Rueckuebersetzung of James, 1 Peter, 
and 1 John. With some extra-time I will be able to put the figures together.   

[omitting large parts of Bob's post for the sake of related 
subject:]

>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.

The marginalia of the Harklensis are hard stuff. In the General 
epistles there are roughly speaking two types of marginalia, one of 
the comment like type, and one referring to critical signs 
(asteriscus) within the text itself. Within the comment like 
type there are some presumably only referring to different 
renderings (often the Greek word is written in majuscule), and some 
presumably giving different readings (alike the critical signs type 
marginalia). 

For the General epistles (and Acta) Thomas himself stated that he 
only used one Greek manuscript. He also stated that he used the 
Philoxeniana as collation base. Therfore it seems that the readings 
he comments on in the margin (with or without asteriscus) are 
somehow referring to the (mainly lost) Philoxeniana of the General 
epistles and not to another Greek manuscript. Shure, the Philoxeniana too 
was a translation based on a Greek manuscript, but for the Generals
the marginalia seem to reflect Greek readings through the 
intermediary stage of the Philoxeniana. (BTW in the colophon of the 
Harklensis to the Pauline epistles it is said that Polycarp [the 
translator of the Philoxeniana] checked his Greek Vorlage with an 
autograph of Pamphylus of Caesarea.)

If Thomas in James puts a longer reading in the text in asteriscus 
(nine times), the longer text is only two times a Byz. reading, 
three times the longer text seems to be not (no more?) attested in 
our extant Greek MSS, another three longer readings are near 
singulars (one to four Greek MSS). Interesting, isn't it?

Bob further wrote:

>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.

I totally agree with the description of P46.  

>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.

I should point out that I stressed the influence matter to the 
extreme in order to emphasize the problems involved. Assuming 
influence from (other) text-types implies by consequence the 
assumption of existing text-types. But text-types are exactly what 
we are trying to define. It is by no means clear that we all refer 
to the same "thing". May be you can refrain from the logical 
implications (letting the historical problems aside) of 
"influence", I simply cannot. Text-types, the least one can say, refer to a 
certain distinct _pattern_ of readings. Even within the Byzantine "text-type" 
slightly different patterns are detectable. So, to my mind, the question is what 
distinct _pattern_ of readings makes for example the Peshitta the "earliest 
substantial witness" for the Byz. text of the Gospels (Bob on Thu, 6 June 1996)? 

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster