Subject: a presentation of Amphoux's work

From: [email-masked] (Jean Valentin)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 01:17:00 +0100

For those of you interested in European textual criticism, here's a little
summary of the work of the Frech textual critic, Mr Christian-bernard
Amphoux.

First a little summary, then I give you some bibliography. Amphoux's work
rests on a careful investigation of the ecclesiastical history of the early
centuries, and on all the oldest citations available.

Amphoux (born in 1943) is a searcher of the great french institution, the
"centre national de la recherche scientifique" (CNRS). He teaches in
several faculties (mainly in Letters at Aix-en-Provence) and directs his
own center for the study of NT manuscripts in Lunel, near Montpellier
(France).

Amphoux sees Codex Bezae as the oldest edition of the NT. He calls it the
edition of Smyrna and is associated with Ignatius and Polycarp. This first
text of the NT needs to be read like wisdom, initiatic literature. It needs
a careful study, attentive to the smallest grammatical details, also to the
structure (number plays, rhetoric structure). Even the order Mt-Jn-Lk-Mk is
significant. The "rhetorical center" is the pericope "de adultera", and the
"long ending" of Mk serves as a conclusion of the whole tetraevangelion.
The structure of the material is very elaborated.

In 135, with the events around Bar Kokhba, came a "cultural break", and
such a text was not understood any more. So there was a need for adaptation
and the D-text was revised by the masters of the roman schools in the IInd
century: Marcion, Tatian, Valentine and others. These revisions are known
from quotations from the Church fathers.

You will notice that for Amphoux, there is no "western text" as he sharply
differenciates between D which is older, and old-latin and old-syriac,
younger.

The D-text was no longer understood, and the roman revisions were seen as
too extreme, as their authors ended their lives in break with the Church.
So at the end of the IInd century, a mixed recension was produced: the
B-text, which had an immense influence on the subsequent history.

Latin and syriac versions, palestinian greek text all represent a
compromise between the B-text and the earlier texts. The B-text survived in
Egypt, and, slightly revised in the IVth century, became the text of codex
vaticanus, the Alexandrian text.
In the Antiochian patriarchate, another recension was created form the
B-text and several paelstinian texts. This became the Byzantine text, that
became the official text of the Constantinopolitan church.

Etc.. etc... here we get back to the history of the text as it is known.

The point by Amphoux is that he (1) has put together and interpreted all
the ancient evidence about the history of the text, (2) has a global
literary and theological explanation for the shift from D to B, (3)
approaches each text-type with respect for its inner coherence and tries to
interpret it as the result of a definite project (in place of being the
fruit of the hazard of the scribes' mistakes).

A few things to read from the pen of this outstanding scholar and hellenist
(yes, he doesn't come from the theological faculties):

First, his revision of the Vagany manual has been translated into english
(and updated when compared to the french edition, you english-speaking guys
are lucky):
Leon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux, An introduction to New
Testament textual criticism (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991).
Chapter 3, "The history of the written text", is especially important as it
incorporates the latest of Mr Amphoux's dicoveries.

The following is in french:
C.-B. Amphoux, La parole qui devint Evangile (Paris, Editions du Seuil, 1993).
This is a popular exposition of his theories. Part 1 of the book describes
the history of the text in a way that Mr Amphoux recognizes to be quite
"romanced", but which rests for the essential on his discoveries. Part 2
gives the scholarly foundation of the hypothese.

C.-B. Amphoux, L'Evangile de Matthieu, Codex de Beze (84800
L'Isle-sur-la-Sorgue, L'oree de l'Isle, 1996).
A very important book. The Gospel of Matthew from the Bezae codex (accented
and normalized orthography), with a french translation. A long introduction
presents the views of the author about the history of the text, and an
interpretation of the D-text is presented in the footnotes. This book shows
that Amphoux's theories have come to maturity, as he is able to show the
global interpretation of a whole Gospel in his theory.

Two important articles about the Parable of the two sons must be mentioned:
C.-B. Amphoux, La parabole matthenne du Fils prodigue, la version du Codex
Bezae (D05 du NT) in LOAPL 1 (1988), 167-171
C.-B. Amphoux, Les contextes de la parabole des deux fils (Matthieu
21.28-32) in LOAPL 3 (1991), 215-248

LOAPL = Langues orientales anciennes, patrologie et linguistique. An annual
of the CNRS.

I hope this all can be useful for your work in the discipline,

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: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 20:14:55 -0700

>summary of the work of the Frech textual critic, Mr Christian-bernard

[ ... ]

>differenciates between D which is older, and old-latin and old-syriac,

[ ... ]

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?

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 13:57:41 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Jean Valentin wrote:

[summary of Amphoux' theories omitted]

> fruit of the hazard of the scribes' mistakes).

While I will agree that Amphoux has constructed a significantly detailed
theory of transmission of the text, I see the basic problem as being one
of Occam's Razor: the theory is far more complex than I think most
scholars (of any position) would consider historically feasible; and, when
there are simpler options which remain valid and practicable, why would
anyone want to opt for a highly complicated theory?

Assuming all events occurred precisely as Amphoux wishes to claim, the
question then must be asked as to why there is not a shred of historical
or MS evidence to support his contentions, even granting (as I do) that
recensions may have occurred in localized regions.  For such to have
occurred on the grand scale so as to virtually obliterate almost all
traces of the Bezae type of text among the Greek MSS and even among the
"Western" witnesses is little different than Westcott and Hort's theory
that a massive "Syrian [= Byzantine] recension" so totally eliminated the
Neutral [Alexandrian] text from subsequent transmissional history.  

Given that scribes are supposedly more prone to include and insert than to
remove, it would seem that significantly shorter texts than that found in
the Bezae format (whether Alexandrian or Byzantine) would have been
strongly resisted by the bulk of the church, and that the Bezae type of
text should have continued to be perpetuated in quantity, if not in
majority, among the Greek MS witnesses.  In light of these considerations
I personally do not find much that is convincing in Amphoux's theory, any
more than I did with A.C.Clark's view concerning the Western text (though
I do agree with Clark's assertion that the canon of the shorter reading is
faulty).

> Testament textual criticism (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991).

We have this volume in our library.  I personally did not recommend it to
students because it does not seem to provide a reasonably balanced view of
the evidence in the manner of Metzger.

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

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 17:54:51 -0700

On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]> wrote:

[ concerning Vaganay-Amphoux: ]

>the evidence in the manner of Metzger.

I own it, and in some ways I think it valuable (e.g. it gives occasional
information about the work of Duplacy, which appears to be very solid).
I don't think its pro-"Western" bias is all that much stronger than
Metzger's pro-Alexandrian bias.

But I agree that it is not a good manual of textual criticism. There
is too little background information (about manuscripts and editions).
There is little discussion of how to engage in textual criticism (e.g.
no real list of criteria, and not enough examples). And it is not
well organized.

I think there really is an urgent need for a better manual of textual
criticism. Relatively speaking, Metzger is well-written (i.e. it's
readable), but it really does not give enough information, and --
again -- the organization is lacking. I have, I believe, *eight*
introductions to textual criticism (Aland&Aland, Black, Greenlee,
Hammond, Lake, Metzger, Vaganay&Amphoux, Westcott&Hort), plus
books which deal with this in part but not in whole (Comfort, Finegan,
Pickering, and the Text/Canon volumes of Gregory and Souter), and
I don't think any of them present the whole picture. Indeed, all
of them combined leave something to be desired.

On another topic, in another post:

>There still is the terminology matter which needs correction, to avoid
>confusion: As I noted, <<I would suggest you have the items reversed: R/P
>is the "rough draft" of the Byzantine Textform ("original Byzantine
>text"), while H/F is the "rough draft" of the "majority text".>>

Let me give my logic, and then see what comes in response. :-)

This is, honestly, a hard problem for me, because it comes back to
this whole question of stemmatics. And, of course, the only place
H&F really use stemmatics is the Apocalypse. But I cannot judge
their work there, because I have *never* worked in the Apocalypse.
(To date, I've done about 45% of my work in Paul, 35% in the
Catholics, about 18% in the Gospels, and 2% in Acts.)

Still, I think that stemmatics have a place in constructing the
*original* form of the Byzantine text.

On the other hand, I see Maurice's point.

Let's take a hypothetical example in the Gospels. (It has to be
hypothetical, because I can't point to such a reading.) Suppose
that the Byzantine text splits, with A, family Pi, the purple
uncials, and the Lambda and M groups supporting one reading (call
it "X"), while Kx and Kr have another (call it "Y"). The support
for Y is greater -- probably over 60% of the total. "X," however,
has the support of most of the earliest Byzantine witnesses, and
of a large number of groups. Assume that both are equal on all
other grounds (if such is possible).

Pickering would say that " was the original Byzantine reading.
Hodges & Farstad probably would say the same.
Robinson would say ?
I would say that X is the original Byzantine reading.

So, by my standards, the edition that prints X will be the
"Byzantine" reading; the other will be the "Majority" edition.
And, I repeat, both are useful (a ms. like C will have been
influenced by the *earliest* form of the Byzantine text;
a late minuscule like 614 more probably by the majority text).
But they may be different.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 09:22:47 -0500 (EST)

> criticism. 

> of them combined leave something to be desired.

Fully agreed.  What is needed is a single volume which will contain the
best elements of what appears in Metzger, Greenlee, Souter, Gregory,
Aland, Vaganay, etc.  So far such still has not appeared.

> Let me give my logic, and then see what comes in response. :-)

[stemmatics brought up in re: Hodges/Farstad's edition]

> *original* form of the Byzantine text.

The question is not one of stemmatics, but of stated goals and purposes.
H/F nowhere claim to be restoring the Byzantine Textform, and indeed even
with their stemmatic applications, the term "majority text" (even if by
then a misnomer) continues to be used.  In my case, the restoration of the
Byzantine Textform is primary, stemmatics or not.  Therefore, by each of
our own definitions, H/F are concerned only with the "majority text" while
I am concerned with the Byzantine Textform.

Recall also that I am not opposed to a proper use of stemmatics in
research.  My objection to H/F's use of stemmatics is that their entire
system is based upon shared agreement in readings of any type as opposed
to shared agreements in plain and clear error, which is a principle of
traditional stemmatics.

> Pickering would say that " was the original Byzantine reading.

Something got left out after the " ... so I don't know what you think
Pickering or H/F would say.  I think (assuming they had to work
solely from Von Soden here) that H/F and Pickering would support
the "Y" reading with little question.  

Robinson would suggest that the Kx group would remain that from which the
other Byzantine sub-groups most likely derived (i.e. the "Y" group).  It
still would have to be determined whether the reading of the other
Byzantine sub-groups might have arisen from outside the Byzantine Textform
and might thus reflect corruption within those earlier Byzantine witnesses
(certainly in an era where non-Byzantine texttypes have greater strength
the likelihood of corruption from them would be increased over the era in
which the Kx Byzantine group might clearly dominate).  I would not
automatically rule out the possibility of the Ka and Family Pi groups
being original, but I would be cautious in my approach due to the
possibility of outside contamination. 

> I would say that X is the original Byzantine reading.

On the grounds that the earlier testimony is more likely original, or on
stemmatic grounds of some sort?

> "Byzantine" reading; the other will be the "Majority" edition.

These definition I think are reversed from those of H/F and myself, so I
would still suggest following our own terminology on this point.  The
assumption that the Ka or K1 groups might be earlier was already made by
Von Soden.  So far as I know H/F did not accept that assessment, and
neither do I; though I do not think H/F attempt to classify the Ka or K1
groups within any stemmatic line of tradition, whereas I consider them to
be derivatives from Kx.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 10:25:29 -0700

On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]> wrote:

[ ... ]

>the "Y" reading with little question.

I don't know what happened there; it was in my original draft. (I
wonder if I can blame this on my popmail server? It's been acting
strange lately.)

Anyway, Pickering and H/F would call "Y" the original reading of
the Byzantine text.

>stemmatic grounds of some sort?

In this case, early testimony. The support for X begins in the fifth
century and continues through the ninth (and perhaps beyond); Y
does not appear until the eighth.

But I would also argue that it is the reading of the majority of
Byzantine *groups*, and the testimony of groups -- to me -- is
stronger than the testimony of number of witnesses.

I will admit that I do not know enough to engage in firm stemmatic
work on the Byzantine tradition; my feeling based on my own incomplete
work is that Family Pi is generally better and earlier than Kx (and
obviously better and earlier than Kr), and should be followed when
it has support from other Byzantine groups -- but I do not claim
certainty for this, and am willing to listen to counterarguments.

>groups within any stemmatic line of tradition, whereas I consider them to

I'm basing my titles on what *I* would use the editions for. You give
your names on what *you* use the editions for. (And ne'er the twain
shall meet :-)

Under the circumstances, I may have to give up and say, "I'm not sure
which is which. Where they agree, that's the majority text. Where
they disagree, I need to form my own conclusions."

Which is why a critical apparatus would be nice. I agree with an
earlier post that not all manuscripts need to be consulted to
produce a Byzantine edition; we couly get by, e.g., with the data
in the IGNTP. But it will be a *long* time before that will be
complete (and even longer, I fear, before I am in a position to
afford either a copy for home use or the time needed to commute
to check the seminary's copy regularly. :-)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 07:33:09 -0500 (EST)

> stronger than the testimony of number of witnesses.

I would conclude this to fall under the same fallacy as that of Sturz with
his "majority of texttypes" view.  The Byzantine archetype (whatever it
might be) should not be established merely by finding all possible
sub-groups and taking their "majority" testimony.  This again avoids the
question of historically explaining the transmission of the various
components which are part of the Byzantine Textform.  

Certainly if one wants to hold Ka or K1 as original solely because of age
of witnesses, that is a possibility, and a better one than merely counting
up the subgroups;  however, my objection to that method is that I consider
it a fallacy to presume earlier date of witnesses necessarily means an
earlier text, when in fact such might reflect an early Byzantine text with
intrusions from non-Byzantine texttypes, from which the later Byzantine
MSS are free.  Otherwise, one also will be compelled to explain
transmissionally how the readings found in the Ka or K1 types were
rejected and/or otherwise altered so as to produce the "standard" reading
found in the Kx mass of Byzantine MSS.  I continually find it far simpler
to view minority texttypes as well as minority sub-types as localized
deviations from the primary Textform rather than earlier forms of the text
which is dominant.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 09:59:23 -0700

>deviations from the primary Textform rather than earlier forms of the text

I think I missed something here.... I offered as a hypothesis that
Family Pi approximates the original Byzantine text (while wanting
one or two other subgroups to support it, so as to ensure that the
particular reading is not just an error in that group). Apart from
numbers of witnesses involved, how does this differ from assuming that
Kx, or one of its subgroups, is the original Byzantine text? If changes
in the Byzantine text cannot occur, how does one explain the existence
of the three great groups, Kx, Kr, and family Pi?

(Incidentally, I tentatively am accepting Wisse's groupings here,
rather than von Soden's, so I call Ki part of Kx, and refer to Ka
as "family Pi.")

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 20:39:13 -0500 (EST)

> >On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

[Waltz]

> >> stronger than the testimony of number of witnesses.

[Robinson]

> >sub-groups and taking their "majority" testimony.  

> Kx, or one of its subgroups, is the original Byzantine text? 

I am not sure what you or I missed -- my comments were specifically
directed to the above statement of "finding all possible [Byzantine]
sub-groups and taking their 'majority' testimony."

> If changes

Not sure if we are talking past each other here or not.  Certainly the
Byzantine Textform is not rigid or monolithic, else there would be no
sub-groups.  The difference is in how the history of development of those
sub-groups is viewed.  You view a sub-group (Family Pi) for example as the
source from which the later Kx group developed; I view Kx as reflecting
the primary Byzantine Textform, from which the sub-groups Ka K1 Kc Kr
etc.) developed during the course of time, but with none of the sub-groups
being the parent of Kx let alone any other sub-group. 

> rather than von Soden's, so I call Ki part of Kx, and refer to Ka

Which is reasonable, though I still prefer Ka.