Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text

From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 96 08:05 CDT

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

[I'll omit most of this, since I either agree with it or am in such
fundamental disagreement that it's not worth wasting bandwidth over.
I leave it to you to guess which parts are which. :-) ]

>
>> And, more to the point, I do not consider that text to be final
>> 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.

No, I will never consider my text final. (If nothing else, there
is the possibility that, for certain books, *all* extant manuscripts
derive from some early copy which contained errors, rather than the
autograph.)

Also, I would draw a distinction. I am not using a statistical method
to determine the text. I am using statistics to determine manuscript
relationships. (Though, as noted, *even here* there must be examination
of collations before final judgment is passed.) The goal of examining
the relationships of the manuscripts is to determine the theory of
the text.

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. We differ in how
serious we think that problem is (I think the UBS/GNT text only
mildly defective; he would find it thoroughly bad), but clearly
agree on the nature of the problem.

[...]

>
>>> 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.
>
>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.

Question: Why "must [local texts] have come about as a deviation from
the autograph"? Conceded, where they differ, no more than one of the
local readings can be original. But surely we would all agree that
all texts -- even the "Western" -- are *generally* correct.

[...]

>
>> 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)?

It occurs to me that I should add that I compiled those numbers *very*
hastily. Don't quote them, folks! I ignored a lot of places with one
or two mansucripts, and those could affect my totals.

>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.

Agreed. All I am saying is that we don't *know* much about local
texts, since almost all known manuscripts are, or could be, derived
from Byzantium and the patriarchy of Constantinople.

Though I must concede that the one other local text we know something
about (that of Egypt) *did* gradually grow closer to the Byzantine
text -- and that, interestingly, most of the change took place
*after* the Islamic conquest cut Egypt off from Constantinople. It's
a small point, but it argues in your favour.

>> >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.

Thanks. If I know the journal and the era, I can certainly find it.

>> 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"?

My apologies. You're right.

And since I'm apologising, I should apologise again for not knowing
more about your theory. My (sort of) local seminary doesn't seem
to have any of your writings. So I'm learning as I go along.

>> 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.

:-)

Incidentally, an aside to the lurker whose e-mail address is
[email-masked]:

You certainly won't hear any complaints from me about people coming out
of lurking. If we need scholarly qualifications to address this list,
I'd have been kicked out long ago. I'm just a guy with a B.A. (yes, a
B.A.; my school didn't grant the B.Sc.) in physics and math, a poor
knowledge of Greek, a poorer knowledge of Latin, and an even poorer
knowledge of German, who happens to be fascinated by textual criticism.
I still (dirty confession) haven't learned to read most minuscule
scripts, though I'm pretty good at reading uncials by now....

But nobody has told me to shut up yet. We'll see how long it takes.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Ulrich Schmid)
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 96 21:28:51 +0100

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: 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).

>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. 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. 

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. 

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. 

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

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 17:24:27 -0400 (EDT)

> agree on the nature of the problem.

I think you will find that, though I consider modern eclectic theory
basically defective (not necessarily "bankrupt") at its presuppositional
core, I do not really think the resultant text is "thoroughly bad", since
over 90% of it would agree with the Byzantine Textform or any other
texttype in the first place.  I would consider the UBS/Nestle text and
even the W-H text as "adequate" for virtually all purposes.  The fact 
that I do not consider "adequate" to mean equivalent to the autograph text 
does not prevent the profitable use of that text or of tools based upon 
it; I simply propose a different model which (in my own opinion) 
transcends the concept of mere adequacy.

> all texts -- even the "Western" -- are *generally* correct.

This is the point raised above under "adequate".  I would ask in return, 
from where do the local texts derive if NOT as deviations from the 
autograph?  If they derive from another existing text which today no 
longer exists (which puts us into the realm of pure speculation), that 
text had to originally be created or come into being as a deviation from 
the autograph, else there would not be the ca.80-90% identity with the 
autograph text within any MS of any texttype.  I thus see no problem in 
explaining local texts as deviations from the autograph; the real 
question is whether one chooses to treat the Byzantine Textform as a mere 
"local text" (Constantinople or Antioch or otherwise), or as the 
overarching archetype from which all other texttypes and sub-types have 
derived.

> from Byzantium and the patriarchy of Constantinople.

I would concur this point with regard to the minuscules.  I cannot concur 
the same in regard to the uncials (even the Byzantine-text uncials).  
However, the problem in this regard is the almost total lack of 
genealogical connection between the MSS which were copied in the region 
from the Greek monasteries spanning the geographical gamut from Meteora 
through Sinai, most of which present a near-identical Byzantine-type of 
text, yet without collusion or even significant cross-comparison between 
those monasteries in the post-9th century era. 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.

> a small point, but it argues in your favour.

I take this as a mixed blessing: in Egypt itself, following the Islamic
conquest, the Coptic versions continued to be reproduced and disseminated,
and they remained (and remain today) highly Alexandrian in character.  
The Greek MSS of the Alexandrian local text certainly decline in number 
following the Islamic conquest, but they were already in decline from 
century IV through VI anyhow, as part of the increased communication 
between diverse parts of the Empire after Constantine, and the inevitable 
consequences of cross-comparison and correction which ensued.

> to have any of your writings. So I'm learning as I go along.

Neither do many others, save those who receive papers distributed at ETS 
meetings.  Other than that, only my Greek NT edition introduction is 
available.
 
> scripts, though I'm pretty good at reading uncials by now....

Get Van Gronigen as a tool -- minuscule is not that hard to read.

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