Subject: Re: Cesarean Text

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 15:40:17 +000

In addition to the specific data about the mss sometimes referred to 
as "Caesarean", summarized briefly by Waltz, we also have to think of 
the associated question:  What do we mean by "text type"?  Waltz 
doesn't like Colwell's emphasis on some kind of minimal quantitative 
agreement criterion, and seems to prefer something like patterns of 
readings.  But it seems to me that Waltz presupposes what he in fact 
needs first to show--that there was a developed "Byzantine" 
*text-type* to "mix" with other influences to produce the "Caesarean 
text-type".  
I've tended to view "text-types" as the varying products of different 
scribal traditions, tendencies & purposes.  Thus, the 
"Neutral/Alexandrian" type of text seems to have been heavily shaped 
by scribes more concerned than many with careful copying, etc. 
(though no ancient scribes were *fully* consistent or infallible!).  
I emphasize the *comparative* nature of any judgment, and this means 
that judgments must be *inductively* arrived at so far as possible.  
For example, we need first to *demonstrate* a text type existed at a 
given period before we can invoke it to explain things.  And to 
demonstrate that a text-type existed, we first have to specify what 
we mean by the term "text-type".
To clarify thinking, I strongly recommend E.J. Epp's essay, "The 
Significance of the Papyri for Determining the Nature of the New 
Testament Text in the Second Century:  A Dynamic View of Textual 
Transmission," in Epp & G. D. Fee, _Studies in the Theory & Method of 
NT Textual Criticism_ (SD 45; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 274-97.

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 10:40:00 -0700

On Fri, 29 Nov 1996, "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>the associated question:  What do we mean by "text type"?

I believe that I asked that question. I also pointed out that there
are several different answers possible -- one of which is Colwell's.
I obviously don't agree with Colwell, but I concede that the
definition exists. The question is, is it *useful*?

For my opinions on this point, I again refer to the article I cited,

http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn

>Waltz 
>readings.

My point is that there are two ways to define the type. One way --
Colwell's -- disbands the "Caesarean" text, because there are no
pure representatives. The other way *probably* preserves it.

Scholars must make up their own mind which they prefer. I am simply
pointing out the alternatives.

>But it seems to me that Waltz presupposes what he in fact 

Let me get this straight: You don't believe in the Byzantine text?

Certainly there can be questions about its date, its origin, its
exact degree of unity. But, surely, no one would deny that there
was such a text-type in the ninth century (which is, after all,
the date of the earliest Greek witness to the "Caesarean" type).

Once a text-type exists, it will start mixing. Once it become
dominant (as the Byzantine text was by the ninth century), it
will inherently become the primary source of mixed readings.

If that isn't obvious, I can't see any point to the discussion.

>scribal traditions, tendencies & purposes.  [ ... ]

This would imply that there is no such thing as mixture. How, then,
does one account for mixed manuscripts?
  
>given period before we can invoke it to explain things.

Again I ask: Are you denying the existence of the Byzantine text in
the ninth century (and after)? If so, let's have a show of hands for
how many agree with you. (I thought so.)

>And to 

With that I have no argument. I would argue merely argue that, to date,
no one has come up with a universally accepted definition.

And that includes Colwell's definition. Even if you ignore me, and
the discussion on this list earlier this summer, I know that Richards
argued against Colwell's definition.

Perhaps I should moderate that a bit. I think that, in general,
Colwell's definition does find text-types. It just does not find
*all* text-types. It is, in mathematical parlance, a sufficient
but not a necessary condition.

What *is* a necessary condition? I don't think anyone has ever
answered the question....

>NT Textual Criticism_ (SD 45; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 274-97.

It perhaps says something that I consider Epp, after Colwell, the
greatest textual thinker of the second half of this century -- and
yet I constantly find both quoted against me, just as I quote them
on my behalf. Sounds like it's time the rest of us try to figure out
what the two of them are saying. :-)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]