Subject: Re: Manuscripts

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 13:19:42 -0400

Jim West wrote:

>In Theology we are constantly told that we must deal directly with the
>sources themselves.  In text criticism this is particularly important.
>Yet, if the manuscripts are not widely available, how can we do our own
>collations? 

I have heard this question asked a number of times, but I have never been
sure why. Are the collations we have in the apparatus of UBS4 and NA27 not to
be trusted? I have talked to people to imply this. Or is it that they are not
complete enough?

Bill Combs
Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary

---

From: Vincent Broman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 96 11:43:35 PDT

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[email-masked] asked:
>     ... Are the collations we have in the apparatus of UBS4 and NA27 not to
> be trusted?

NA27 et al are trustworthy enough as far as they go, but they are tightly
constrained by space, by editor's theories, etc, to give one narrow viewport
out onto the mass of data available.  Compare NA27/IGNPT/Swanson on a verse or
two in Luke and you quickly find out how much selection and simplification has
to be done to produce a "hand edition" of the NT.  It's a lot.

I'm happy to use acccurate transcriptions and collations instead of
manuscript images, as long as the transcription is reporting on the aspects
of the text of interest to me.  You'd need a very detailed transcription
to learn much about mis-spellings, nomina sacra, and the like.  From NA27
you could only gain a rough impression of how closely different witnesses
are related to each other and no clear idea at all of how reliable any
one witness (even a "constant" witness) is in terms of faithful copying.

Vincent Broman             Email: [email-masked]                    =   o     
2224 33d St.               Phone: +1 619 284 3775                  =  _ /- _   
San Diego, CA  92104-5605  Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W     =  (_)> (_)  
___ PGP protected mail preferred.  For public key finger [email-masked] ___

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 15:49:56 -0700

>one witness (even a "constant" witness) is in terms of faithful copying.

To give an example of VIncent Broman's point, let me take Philippians 4
as an example. I have done an edition that cites all meaningful (i.e.
non-rothpgraphic) variants in about two dozen manuscripts (checking a
dozen or so others at certain points). In this chapter, NA27 cites
fourteen variants (plus 1 conjecture). My text cites *ninety-eight.*
And this, be it noted, is based on only a handful of manuscripts, and
in a book that has fewer variants than most, in a part of the corpus
that has relatively few variants.

But I personally have an even bigger complaint with NA27: The selection
of witnesses. If you look at the Greek "constant witnesses," three are
"Western" (D F G). Four are predominantly Byzantine (K L; also Psi and
1241, which are much more Byzantine than anything else). One stands
apart (1505). Other than that, *every witness cited in NA27 is what
Aland would call Alexandrian.*

Now I'm very glad to have most of those Alexandrian manuscripts; I'd hate
to be without a reference for 33, or 81, or 1175, or 1506, or 1881. (I
have access to a collation of 1739, so I don't need that.) But the NA27
list includes some really rather minor manuscripts (104, 1241, 2464)
and omits some *key* texts -- 330/451/2492, which form a unique manuscript
family; 1611, the best text of a Syriac-flavoured group; 2127, 1962, and
442, which *may* hold the key to unravelling the history of the late
Alexandrian text and Von Soden's I group (365 is close to 2127, but not
as good).

Obviously not all of us can afford all the volumes of the IGNTP (even if
they were available), or the equivalent work from the Munster Institute.
What is desperately needed is a volume about three times the size of
NA27, with perhaps half again as many manuscripts (of all sorts!),
twice as many readings -- and a *good* determination of which readings
are the true majority readings. (I once made a very big fool of myself
because NA26/27 list the wrong reading as the majority text in 2 Cor. 2:17).

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 16:04:26 -0400 (EDT)

> because NA26/27 list the wrong reading as the majority text in 2 Cor. 2:17).

Seems the onus of foolship rests on those who wrongly determined one or
the other reading in that variant unit was "the" Byzantine.

This variant is an interesting case, since according to the Text und
Textwert data, there is _no_ dominant Byzantine/Majority reading here. 

The "loipoi" reading has 315 MSS in support, plus 8 others which would
obviously also support that reading, while "polloi" has 280 MSS in
support, plus 1 other which would support that same reading.  The small
numerical difference between 323 MSS vs 281 MSS (53% vs 47%) is not
sufficiently significant (e.g. Colwell's 70%) to establish either reading
as "Byz" in this case.

The UBS and Nestle editions _are_ in error in claiming either "Byz" or "M" 
support for only the "polloi" reading (which also happens to be that of
the TR).  Von Soden, on the other hand, is just as much in error by
claiming "loipoi" is "the" bold-faced K (Byzantine) reading while
asserting that "polloi" is "the"  bold-faced H (Alexandrian) reading. 

Although the wrong variant (whichever it may have been) certainly arose
accidentally from metathesis ("loipoi" is a phonetic anagram of "polloi"),
there simply is _no_ clear Byzantine reading here.  

"Loipoi" was chosen in my edition on the basis of internal grounds (it is
the "more difficult" reading, not generally being used in the Pauline
epistles in the masculine nominative, but more normally in the phrase "to
loipon"). 

Metzger of course defends "polloi", but primarily, I suspect, on external
grounds of favored MS support (Aleph A B C K P Psi 88 1739) rather than
real internal evidence, since his claim that "loipoi" is "too offensive
for Paul to have used" doesn't seem to cut it in light of other Pauline
strong language (e.g. Gal.1.8-9, 1 Cor 3, 5, etc.) where he has few
scruples concerning whom he might offend. 

It is of significant passing interest that only _one_ MS out of the entire
divided "Byzantine/Majority" group actually follows the alleged "typical" 
Byzantine practice of "conflation" and combines both readings into "loipoi
polloi."  Seems that under current eclectic theory well over 80% of those
MSS should have conflated in this place, since Metzger clearly stated
that, when confronted with more than one variant reading, both of which
made sense, "MOST SCRIBES" [sic, with emphasis added] would choose to
combine both opposing readings into a single unit.  Here in a requisite
case, they chose not to do so.  Should anyone be surprised that neither
would the same Byzantine scribes elsewhere go and do likewise. 

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

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 16:18:47 -0700

>asserting that "polloi" is "the"  bold-faced H (Alexandrian) reading.

Exactly. The NA apparatus *should* have marked *both* "loipoi" and
"polloi" as "pm."

>there simply is _no_ clear Byzantine reading here.

I agree. Which, based on my critical principles, is important. You see,
loipoi is supported by 6 630, two weak witnesses of family 1739, while
polloi is supported by 1739 1881, the two lead witnesses of the family.

If one believes that "polloi" is the Byzantine reading, then it would
appear that 1739 1881 had both been corrected toward that reading,
and that "loipoi" is the true reading of family 1739. Since, however,
there *is* no Byzantine reading, it looks as is "polloi" is the
family 1739 reading.

That fact threw off a major portion of an exposition in the only
text-critical paper I ever dared/was allowed to expose to the wide world.

>scruples concerning whom he might offend.

Exactly. I think it clear that internal evidence favors "loipoi" as the
harder reading. It also has strong manuscript support (p46 and the
"Western" text). On that basis, I also read "loipoi," though my
critical approach obviously differs completely from Robinson's.

Whereas the UBS people can generally be relied upon to print the
reading of Aleph+B whatever the other evidence says.

>would the same Byzantine scribes elsewhere go and do likewise.

It seems to me that the theory that scribes conflated when confronted with
two variants has been pretty well demolished. Westcott and Hort's examples
are far too few to mean anything. I would say that scribes, when faced
with conflicting readings, will tend to choose the reading they think
*most appropriate* -- but how they decide what is "most appropriate" is
frequently beyond *my* understanding. :-)

See, folks, even Maurice Robinson and I agree on some things. In this
instance, we agree at all points.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 22:09:17 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> are far too few to mean anything. 

However, my citing of Metzger is from his Text of the NT, and still is
maintained in print by him, as well as other eclectics such as D.A.Carson
and Gordon Fee, so the news of any "demolition" of such a concept
apparently still needs to be communicated to at least some modern
eclectics. 

> I would say that scribes, when faced

I would agree, depending on what the definition of "most appropriate" 
might be in any given case.  If transmissional history were merely
haphazard and purely chance-oriented, there would be a 50-50 chance of any
reading being perpetuated at any given time, but of course in most variant
units where conflation _could_ have occurred, such in fact did _not_
occur, including the 2 Cor.2.17 passage noted, where only a single MS
actually conflated the two readings.

I suspect most times that the scriptorium/scribal solution to the problem
of exemplar document 1 reading one way and the correction (diorthotes)
document 2 reading the other way would be to call for a document 3 and
simply go with the 2 out of 3 reading (which of course will generally
tend toward the Byzantine Textform, since it would have the best odds of
being the "majority" reading in most such cases in the era following the
legitimization of Christianity under Constantine.

Only in cases where the corruption would have occurred extremely early
would the results tend to closely approximate 50%-50% as in the "loipoi"
vs "polloi" case of 2Cor.2.17.

> instance, we agree at all points.

But certainly for _very_ different reasons! *;-)