Subject: This and That

From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 96 13:31 CDT

I was hoping that I could take a day off from controversy (it's a very
busy day today), but I guess I'd better start writing before I get left
behind. This is a mish-mash of responses to previous posts.

Robinson:

>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.

Once again, I suppose I overspoke. Modern textual scholarship should
probably not be called "bankrupt"; people are proposing new ideas
(e.g. Dearing, Robinson) or modifications of old ideas (e.g. Sturz).
It's just that we are not reaching consensus on new ideas.

And I suppose I must agree that there is no "thoroughly bad" NT text
in circulation. At least, there's no one I'd label a heretic just
because of that person's NT. Let's just say that both Robinson and
I see some defects in the current NT editions, and that he would
probably view them as graver than I.

Robinson again:

>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.

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.

Let's take an example. Wisse, page 93, reports that there are 59
minuscules that have a "perfect" Kr profile. So these manuscripts
would have to be considered candidates for genetic relationship.

Now the number of collating operations needed to cross-collate a
group of manuscripts goes as the order n squared. For 59 manuscripts,
that's 1711 cross-collations. For 700 Kx manuscripts, it's 244650.
And so on. Have we *really* tried to see which of those manuscripts
are directly related? I don't think it's possible without the
help of a computer. And even then, someone has to enter in the
59, or 700, or 3000 collations....

Robinson again, quoting others:

>[Schmid:]
>
>>>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.
>
>[Waltz:]
>
>> Agreed -- although Byzantine manuscripts appear in large numbers in that
>> century (K, L, 049, assorted minuscules). That would seem to imply that the
>> text is at least somewhat older than that century.
>
>I also would differ with Schmid on this point, along with Westcott and
>Hort, who were quite willing to admit a generally developed ("full-blown"
>probably is a question-begging term) Byzantine text from at least AD 350
>onward.  The new claims stemming from the Alands' Text of the NT volume
>(and picked up on by Wallace) regarding the Byzantine as "developed"
>and/or the "majority text" only beginning with the 9th century is simply
>revisionist history, held hitherto by no one.  I will at the very least
>side with Westcott and Hort on this point; and Waltz is also clearly
>correct that 9th century Byzantine uncials certainly imply a much earlier
>existence of the "developed" Byzantine Textform, which in no way
>contradicts Westcott and Hort's own thesis on this point.

I think we need to distinguish here between the Byzantine *textform*
(to use Robinson's term), Byzantine *manuscripts*, and the late
medieval majority text.

In all cases, witnesses which are substantially Byzantine (say 75%
Byzantine) which occur long before "full-blown" Byzantine texts.
Curiously, these are often versions. But let me list what I think
are the earliest witnesses in each class, with dates, and then see
what others think.

Gospels:
  Earliest substantial witness: Peshitta (IV)
  Earliest substantial Greek witness: A (V)
  Earliest pure witness: E (VIII)

Acts (tentative; I haven't worked with these manuuscripts much):
  Earliest substantial witness: (E in part/VI) Psi (VIII/IX)
  Earliest substantial Greek witness: same
  Earliest pure witness: L, P, minuscules (IX)

Paul:
  Earliest substantial witness: Harklean (VI)
  Earliest substantial Greek witness: Psi (VIII/IX)
  Earliest pure witness: K, L, 049, minuscules (IX)

Catholics:
  Earliest substantial witness: K, L, 049, minuscules (IX)
  Earliest substantial Greek witness: same
  Earliest pure witness: same

Apocalypse (again, tentative):
  Earliest substantial witness: P, 046, minuscules (IX)
  Earliest substantial Greek witness: same
  Earliest pure witness: same

Parker:

>On Tuesday 4 June Robert Waltz wrote that 'our knowledge of local
>texts, especially in the western half of the Roman empire, is very
>slight'.  As a matter of fact, palaeography helps us much further than
>this.  If, for example, you look at the introduction to the Supplement of
>Lowe's _Codices Latini Antiquiores_, you will find an excellent
>discussion of the distinctive hands of North Africa (surely the origin of
>Bobbiensis (k).  There is a discussion of Cavallo's _Maiuscola
>biblica_ of a hand which he believes to be distinctive of the Nitrian
>Desert (p. 87f).  There are plenty of other examples.
>
>The present location of MSS is not necessarily of any use -
>provenance may tell us nothing about origin - nor should the Vatican
>collection be treated as more significant in this regard.  Devreesse's
>_Les Manuscrits grecs de l'Italie meridionale_ is another example of
>palaeography providing grounds for identifying local texts, and
>illustrates the growth of collections such as the Vatican's.

Without denying this point, I fail to see how it affects things. Taking,
again, North Africa, the fact that we can identify (Latin) manuscripts
as coming from there does not mean that we *have* identified a
significant number of such manuscripts. Despite this, to my knowledge
the only North African texts we have are k, e, and h, plus quotations
from Cyprian and a few others. We have *no* Greek witnesses (I concede
that there were few greek manuscripts used there, but the Old Latin
had to be translated from *something*). Even the Latin witnesses are
fragmentary. So our knowledge of that local text is weak.

As for the Vatican collection -- I am aware that manuscripts from
there generally come from the east. But a manuscript in the Vatican
*may* have been there all along, whereas a manuscript in, say, Ann
Arbor *cannot* have been there since its writing.

I still believe that our knowledge of local texts, except in areas
that belonged to the Byzantine empire, is slight.

>The whole discussion on this theme stirs up in me a thought on one
>point.  It is being assumed (I suggest) that local texts had acquired all
>their own characteristics from the very beginning of their existence,
>and that therefore all members of the group must be, as it were, fully
>paid up members.

With this I have no argument. Also, I think local texts can evolve.
Hort noticed a bit of this when he spoke of "Neutral" and "Alexandrian"
texts. I do not view these as separate texts. But (to use Epp's
terminology, even though I hate it) the "trajectory" can change shape
as it moves along. In Paul at least, the Alexandrian text seems to
have phases. In Aleph/A/C/I/33/Bohairic we see one text. In later
Alexandrian texts (e.g. 81 436 1175 f2127) we see something which
is *mostly* early Alexandrian and/or Byzantine, but with a slight
mixture of something else.

Hurtado, on Robinson:

>> Another interesting point, which can be taken in two primary ways: either
>> the Byzantine Textform is a composite, pieced together from scattered
>> readings found in various texttypes or other minority groupings, by some
>> unknown method (since mere "conflation" will not account for all the
>> Byzantine readings, nor even a large percentage of them); or the presence
>> of Byzantine readings in nearly every other texttype or smaller group of
>> MSS implies an extremely strong Byzantine "influence", which is quite
>> difficult to explain without either imposing an official promulgation of
>> that text or an official revision which produced that text -- unless of
>> course, such Byzantine concurrence in non-Byzantine MSS and texttypes is
>> actually a result of preservation of the autograph text itself (which
>> latter I would naturally maintain).
>
>Maurice (and others):  If you imagine that the only way "Byzantine
>readings" can have made their way into mss is through the "influence" of
>a "Byzantine text-type" (i.e., a relatively matured type of text such as
>we have in the primary Byzantine mss reps.), then, yes, readings in early
>mss would suggest that this text-form might be there.  But, if (as I see
>it) "text-types" are basically the result of scribal copying/transmission
>habits/tastes/objectives, etc. (shaped of course by ecclesiastical
>concerns etc.), then what becomes the "Byzantine text-type" is basically
>a matured form/degree (late, so the evidence) of scribal/editorial
>tendencies observable quite early in their initial operation.  So, the
>"Byzantine text" is basically an "ecclesiastical" text, that reflects a
>few centuries of transmission with readability, inoffensiveness,
>harmonization, etc. operational.  These tendencies began very early, so
>they show up ad hoc in such early witnesses as P45, P46, etc.  But a more
>programmatic operation of these tendencies gathers force over time.

It's interesting how often scholars have accused particular scribes
of a certain "mindset" -- e.g. Hort thought the "Alexandrian" scholars
were conservative but concerned with grammatical niceties; Aland,
Metzger, and others have called the "Western" copyists "wild" (without
having much evidence to go on); many people accuse the Byzantine
recensors of striving for a "smooth" text.

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.

I think that, to decide between "influence" and "scribal tendency,"
we must examine the nature of the proto-Byzantine texts (A, Peshitta,
N-O-Sigma-Phi, P, Q, R, the early correctors of Aleph, etc.). Do they
share the same Byzantine readings? Do they share the same *type* of
Byzantine readings? Are Byzantine readings occurring in the same
contexts?

I don't know if this has been studied. Anyone?

***

I hope that covers everything I'm responsible for. Next?

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 21:25:29 -0400 (EDT)

[Answering a selection of items from Waltz' lengthy response]

On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> Let's just say that both Robinson and

Probably less gravely than you think, since the bulk of the texts of all 
editions remains identical. 

>> The lack of genealogical

> minuscules have never been collated; how can we *tell* what they are

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. 

> would have to be considered candidates for genetic relationship.

It is generally agreed since Voss that Von Soden's Kr group is a
distinctive sub-type of the Byzantine Textform, and that MSS of this
sub-type do have some genetic links, though none of the links are direct. 
 
> 59, or 700, or 3000 collations....

Which is why the Alands chose to use the 1000 selected readings as a 
gauge of a MS's textual affinity.  It may not be a perfect system, but, 
given the geometrically-increasing alternatives noted above, it probably 
remains a reasonable approach.

> (to use Robinson's term), Byzantine *manuscripts*, and the late

I would distinguish between these, though I would place the late medieval 
Byz text after the 12th century; would you do the same?
 
>   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)

>   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.

> exhibit a particular set of characteristics, recensional activity

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.

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