Subject: Re: a presentation of Amphoux's work

From: [email-masked] (Jean Valentin)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 05:00:59 +0100

>
>Having read Vaganay/Amphoux, and seen its preference for the "Western"
>text, I would ask here a question.
>
>To me, D/05 shows clear signs of editing. The obvious example is
>Luke's genealogy of Jesus, where Bezae gives Matthew's genealogy
>in reverse. I have never seen any advocate of the "Western" text
>address this oddity. Do you know how Amphoux views it?
>

Hmmm... I don't remember having seen anything of him about this passage in
particular, or having spoken with him about it (I studied under him for a
while). But I think this is one of the case where he would consider the
text of Codex bezae to be harmonized, and he would emend it following the
later witnesses.

I have been searching in his manual (as you have it, may be you will
remember the place) for this passage where he speaks about harmonization in
D. To put it shortly, he _usually_ considers Codex Bezae to represent the
oldest edition of the text, but, it's true, in a corrupted way (there are
some centuries between 135, the supposed date of this first edition and D),
especially in terms of harmonization. The sentence I was searching is
something like "except for its harmonizations, Codex Bezae...". Or maybe
it's in one of his articles? I'll check.

In fact, we shouldn't call it a champion of codex Bezae but of its
archetype! He uses D like many editors of greek classical texts when they
prepare their editions (and, remember, classical, not theological, studies
are his background - I noticed that the Greek of the classical authors is
just a living language for him!): usually they follow what they consider
the best ms, but not hesitating to make an emendation when it's required.
In his edition of Mt-D, I notice a few examples of this method. If you can
find it (unfortunately, it's a quite confidential publishing house) see for
an example his note on 24.31.

I have noticed that his trust in the superiority of codex Bezae as a
representant of the oldest text is all but blind or uncritical. Yes, D is
harmonized, D is corrupted, it has lacunae and was carelessly transcribed,
but nevertheless it gives quite a good picture of what the "Smyrna edition"
must have been.

I think he would answer you something like the above (and with a better
argumentation based on the mss!) - but in order to make it sure I should
ask him!

shlomo w-shayno!

Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium

Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable.
What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable.

---

From: DC PARKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 09:35:52 GMT

Amphoux has presented his own summary of his position in _New 
Testament Textual Research Update_ Vol. 3 (1995), 41-46.  I have 
offered a reply in the same journal, Vol. 4 (1996), 41-45, and hope to 
continue the exchange with him.  His views may also be found in the 
collection which he and I have jointly edited, _Codex Bezae.  Studies 
from the Lunel Colloquium, June 1994_ (NTTS 22), Brill, 1996, 337-54.

I also feel that the handbook is too persuasive of a particular school 
to be fair.  In addition, the section on palaeography is unchanged from 
Vaganay, and therefore very out of date.  Nevertheless, the distinctive 
character of French work is important, and Duplacy is a giant in our 
discipline.

David Parker
DC PARKER
DEPT OF THEOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
TEL. 0121-414 3613
FAX  0121-414 6866
E-MAIL [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Jean Valentin)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 15:42:58 +0100

>-The full reference for the Amphoux is PHILOLOGIA SACRA Biblische und

THANK YOU!

shlomo w-shayno!