Subject: Re: Theories of trans. (#2)

From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 96 07:52 CDT

I'll try to keep this post under control, but I still feel the urge to
talk. :-)

On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, [email-masked] (William L. Petersen) wrote:

>Thanks to the list members for their comments on my question.  I'll try to
>give quick responses to the most obvious points, and then end with an
>example for your consideration.
>
>1) Jim West noted:
>
>>As I have understood it, use of the Fathers is hazardous because we do not
>>know exactly their habits of citation.  Do they cite from manuscript or
>>memory?  Since we do not know, it seems that using them as primary sources
>>for textual reconstruction is a bit risky.
>
>This is indeed the general supposition, but it is false in some instances,
>and I hate to make generalizations unless I have investigated EVERY citation
>in an author, and examined EVERY possible parallel (and, yes, that means
>taking all 5 volumes of Biblia Patristica, and looking up EACH reference for
>a verse...).

[...]

I, at least, did not mean to imply that the fathers *could not* be
critically reconstructed, merely that, for the most part, they
*have not* been reconstructed. Once they are, of course, then they
become very important for criticism.

To give an example of my own, there is at least one place in Paul
where I would adopt a reading supported by only two minuscules plus
an assortment of fathers. (Admittedly the two minuscules are 1739
and 6.) The reading is Eph. 5:31, where UBS/GNT reads KAI
PROSKOLLHSETAI PROS THN GUNAIKA AUTOU. This text, however, occurs
in *four* different forms in the manuscripts (parallelling variously
LXXmss+Mark 10:7, LXXA, and Matt. 19:5), while the short text is read
by 1739 6 and (according to various authorities) Cyprian Jerome
Marcion Origen Tertullian. Given that the short reading best explains
the others, and that none of the others has good ms. support (B 1175
1881 Byz vs. A P 33 81 vg vs. 01* vs. D* F G), the short reading is
obviously to be preferred.

>2) Vincent Broman noted:
>>I think the 2d-3d cent. evidence is well-trod ground that we are all taking
>>for granted.  It is useful, but substantially biased as a sample, and
>>it doesn't solve the problem of explaining the history of the text.
>
>He then goes on to give a hypothetical, which I will not repoduce here.
>
>I am not sure how "well-trod" this is, for many contemporary scholars seem
>to have no idea of what has been done by people like Alfred Resch, Bousset,
>Schmidtke and others in the last century.

[...]

With this I am inclined to agree... though once again I stress the need
for critical editions before we proceed too far.

>
>I know that these empirical findings clash with the pet theories of the
>Westcott-Hort crowd, as well as the Byzantine crowd...on the other hand,
>facts are facts.
>
>As for the Fathers being a "biased sample," I cannot see how they are any
>more biased than the preserved manuscripts.  Both have been selectively
>preserved (not a fragment of the Judaic-Christian gospels survives, nor does
>a fragment of Marcion--all we have are quotations...), selectively revised
>and edited, etc.

I agree.

>3) Bob Waltz wrote:
>
>>First, most authors did not cite precisely. This is particularly true of
>>the earliest: Ignatius, Justin, etc. But Tertullian wasn't overly precise,
>>either. And even Origen suffered occasional lapses of memory.
>
>We've already handled that;  see #1 above, and we'll close with a concrete
>example.  Note also:  we only charge "loose citation" when the Father
>("particularly...the earliest"!!) doesn't agree with OUR text;  do the later
>Fathers cite "more accurately" because they actually cite more accurately,
>or just because they have a text which is closer to ours?  (This is too cute
>a circular argument:  let the evidence be your guide.)

Examples, unfortunately, don't prove a rule one way or the other. Each
father must be examined individually, and *thoroughly*, before we can
cite a rule. I'm willing to concede that people have often dismissed
this or that work too easily -- but your argument cuts both ways.
We must examine everything on a case-by-case basis.

>>Second, the writings of these authors are often badly preserved. Irenaeus
>>and Origen, for instance, wrote in Greek but are preserved primarily in
>>Latin. And in the case of Origen, at least, Rufinus's translation was more
>>than a little biased.
>
>This too is a common supposition, and is undoubtedly true in SOME instances.

So it's a matter of figuring out which cases.

>However, I remember a paper in the NT TC seminar at the SBL some 5 or 7
>years ago, in which F. Stanley Jones compared Rufinus' Latin translation of
>the Pseudo-Clementine "Recognitions" with the Syriac of the same, and found
>that Rufinus was a VERY ACCURATE translator, all things considered (Syriac
>grammar vs. Latin grammar, idioms, etc.).

The only instance in which I've studied the matter at all it Origen.
But in that case it is clear that Rufinus adapted Origen's text
significantly -- probably to conform to an Old Latin version, though
it might have been to conform to Rufinus's own prejudices. In any case,
the difference between the surviving Greek fragments and Rufinus's
Latin is very large.

I'm willing to concede that this may be exceptional, though.

[remainder omitted]

[email-masked] (Ulrich Schmid) wrote:

>I too think that the earliest witnesses to NT text are highly significant "to
>the issue of how the text originated and was then transmitted". Since a good
>deal of the citations from the early fathers (and some of the early Papyri) do
>not fit very well to the framework of text-types, I suspect their significance
>is ruled down by most scholars (exceptions are for example Amphoux,
>Boismard/Lamouille, and those devoted to Diatessaron studies). I personally
>refrained from taking this type of evidence into account, because the
>discussion
>started with "text-types" and how to describe them. Nevertheless,
>encouraged by
>W.L. Petersen, I my express some textual criticism "heresy" (cf. Bob Waltz).
>
>1.) The obstacle (in our actual discussion already emphasized by Waltz,
>Robinson, and West) concerning the reliability of citations, to my mind, is
>overemphasized. It is true that there was an uncritical use of church father
>testimonies without taking into account context, style, preferrences, etc.
>to an
>extend that one may well call this kind of use an abuse. But nevertheless,
>things change, and there are recent methodological contributions in order to
>evaluate the reliability of this kind of evidence (cf. for example B. Aland,
>Petersen, Clabeaux, Schmid).
>
>2.) When reconstructing Marcion's Corpus Paulinum (mid second century, our
>oldest witness!), I found, though few, but striking _textual_ evidence
>(conflate
>readings!) indicating that Marcion's text antedates all our known
>text-types at
>least in their actual state of appearence. Our extant textual transmission of
>the Pauline epistles in fact testifies to early contamination from two
>distinct
>letter editions affecting all our known "text-types" ("Western", Alex.,
>Byz.).
>Those heavily focused on text-types should take notice that for the Pauline
>epistles we are most probably NOT dealing with ONE archetype of textual
>transmission.
>
>3.) Therefore, theories of textual transmission based on the assumption
>that one
>of the "text-types" must somehow equal the autograph, or that text-types
>are the
>one and only decisive features do not hold water (at least not for the Pauline
>epistles). Granted this situation, the focus on "text-types" will lead us
>nowhere, at least not to the autographs. The initial stages of textual
>transmission are found beyond the "text-types".

I will concede that all text-types are more or less removed from the original
(although the cases of p66-p75-B and p46-B show that they are often not very
far removed from the original; for these manuscripts, all of a common text-type,
to have diverged as much as they have shows that the *types* were almost
certainly in existence by the mid-second century).

However, text-types serve a very important function: they allow us to *control*
manuscripts. That is, they give us a hint as to which readings go back to the
remote exemplar of the manuscript, and which are the result of recent copying.

I agree that, once fathers have been critically edited, they become important
witnesses. But only single witnesses! And I, for one, am troubled by the idea
of basing my text too strongly on intermittent witnesses such as the fathers.
If we had a *truly* complete text of Origen's commentaries on Paul, for
instance, I would give it great weight. Given the state of the evidence,
though, I can only consider those commentaries as a supplement.

As for the independence of the fathers from existing text-types, I would
ask a question: How much of this independence is found in the Greek fathers
(as opposed to the Latin)? It seems to me that the Greek fathers often
conform to text-types (e.g., in Paul, Origen and family 1739 are fairly
close; in the Catholics, Didymus goes largely with the Alexandrian witnesses).
It's the Latin fathers that often have the wildest texts -- e.g.
Ambrosiaster agrees most regularly with D-F-G, but has a strong tendency to
swing over to p46-B (but *not* Aleph-A-C-I-33-bo). Now I think those
p46-B-Ambrosiaster agreements important -- but it just seems to me (and I
could be wrong) that these mixed-up sorts of patristic texts are usually
in Latin.

My $1.98, or whatever this is worth.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]