Subject: Re: "Western" text of Paul

From: Curt Niccum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 07:19:18 -0500

>I would agree that there is an urgent need for good work on the Old Latin
>and its relation to the "Western" text. But I don't think this is quite
>as urgent in Paul as in the Gospels or Acts. In Paul, the "Western"
>text is relatively well-represented in Greek (with D F G and a handful
>of readings in 629, though these likely come from the Latin). It is
>also a much less wild edition; there are very few insertions of more than
>a word or two. I think it perfectly possible to control the "Western"
>text of Paul.
>
>Bob Waltz

I question how "well-represented" the "Western" text of Paul is in Greek.
First, D F and G are so closely related genetically, they can rarely be
viewed as more than one witness. Furthermore, they represent, along with a
number of Latin witnesses, a North Italian (i.e., "local") text. Only when
these North Italian readings of D F G are isolated can one then speak of
their attestation of the "Western" text. Zuntz's requirements for
establishing a "Western" reading, although not consistently followed even by
Zuntz, will have to be the default until we have a better grasp of the
history of the Latin text; which brings us back to the Vetus Latina Institute.

Curt Niccum

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:17:37 -0700

>I question how "well-represented" the "Western" text of Paul is in Greek.

You'll note that I said *relatively* well-represented. It's better
represented in Paul than in any other part of the Bible. (Not that
that's saying much....)

Put it this way: Of the five discernable text-types in Paul (Alexandrian,
Byzantine, family 1739, p46/B, and "Western"), the "Western" text is
third in the strength of its representation. We have no fewer than
six substantial witnesses: D F+G a b d m (the Vulgate is not purely
"Western," and r is at once fragmentary and much more Alexandrian than
the rest of the Latins).

You'll note that I list more Latin than Greek witnesses. So I agree
that work on the Old Latin must proceed. All I am saying is that,
even in the present state of our knowledge, we're in much better
shape for the "Western" text than for, say, p46/B/sa.

>viewed as more than one witness.

This is simply not true. Yes, F and G can be treated as a single witness.
But D and F+G are quite distinct. They aren't first cousins, as someone
suggested. There are at least hundreds of differences; I suspect (based
on sample passages) that there are thousands.

It even appears that there are differences in character between the
two. D has fewer small differences from the Alexandrian witnesses,
but more major changes. F+G are much more prone to exchange of
prepositions or conjunctions or synonyms, but rather less likely
to have large alterations. (Note: I have not formally tested this.
It is my impression in working from the collations.)

>Furthermore, they represent, along with a
>number of Latin witnesses, a North Italian (i.e., "local") text.

I ask this in complete seriousness and ignorance of what you're talking
about: What is a text-type if not the local text of somewhere?
It may be that D/F/G are the local type of somewhere (I'd be interested
in the evidence that it's nothern Italy), but I don't see how that
reduces their authority. It just means that we don't *have* the local
text of, say, Carthage.

>Only when
>their attestation of the "Western" text.

By "isolated" do you mean "set aside"? If so, why need they be set aside?
If not, what do you mean?

>Zuntz's requirements for

I agree that Zuntz's procedures simply were not rigorous (I would have
to say that he focussed to much on p46. He was right to start with the
papyrus. But all too often he stopped there...). I wonder, though, if
we can go beyond that. Is there really enough Latin evidence to construct
the history of the Latin versions? I'm rather inclined to doubt it.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:14:34 -0400 (EDT)

*Zuntz* was not rigorous?!?   Sigh...

-- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

---

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:19:33 -0400 (EDT)

Let me say for the record that text-types are decidedly *not* "local
texts" for obvious reasons (a ms copied in one location can be the
exemplar of another copied hundreds of miles away).

-- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:48:54 -0700

>exemplar of another copied hundreds of miles away).

I think this is a matter of definition. If by "local text" one means
"the only text used in a particular area," then of course there is
no such thing as a local text. And it is obvious that a manuscript
of a text-type can be found anywhere (as witness that the four
leading manuscripts of the Alexandrian text in the Gospels -- p75
Aleph B L -- are in Cologny, London, Rome, and Paris).

But I was using "local text" to mean the text which evolved and
was dominant in a particular area. In this sense, a text-type
can be a local text -- as the Alexandrian text may have been
the local text of Alexandria. If D+F/G are in fact the text
of northern Italy (and I'd still like to see evidence on that),
then they too could be a local text.

If this is not the sense in which Ehrman uses the term, then it's
probably time we reached a consensus on the meaning. If we can do
so, I'll post it at my web site, and then we can all at least
have something to start from when the next argumentative person
comes along. :-)

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

---

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 12:09:15 -0400 (EDT)

Pretty soon R. Waltz and I are going to be arguing about which of us is
more arumentative.  :-)

   It's true of course that the Alexandrian text-type was to some extent
"localized" (Alexandrian!); but even here I'd have to say that we have to
be careful.  How do we *know* for example, where P75 was produced?  Let
*alone* Codex Vaticanus!  This "local" text may have been extremely
widespread -- it's just impossible to say.  (This by the way is why the
Patristic analyses, such as those embodied in SBLNTIGF are so absolutely
critical.)  (Some of Epps socio-historical probings into the dissemination
of ancient literature and the ancient postal system, btw, while old hat
for a lot of classicists, is quite fruitful for this kind of discussion.)

   With other "texts" though we can't even say this.  Where, e.g., was the
so-called "Western" text localized?  (NB: this *is* one area that I think
Zuntz can be critiqued: he used  the designation Western in a strictly
*geographical* sense rather than as an expression of textual
consanguinity; it's important to bear this in mind when considering his
claims about the strength of Western and Byzantine agreements.)

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 15:41:41 -0700

>   Pretty soon R. Waltz and I are going to be arguing about which of us is

Sigh -- no, I fear I am the more argumentative. I don't like it -- but
I am in the situation of trying to reform textual criticism in two areas
(in the list of text-types we use and in the way we use them). That
inherently makes me more argumentative. If there is a crown at stake
here, I fear that Maurice Robinson and I are the leading contenders.

>for a lot of classicists, is quite fruitful for this kind of discussion.)

I will concede all the points above. Indeed, I think there is a
desperate need to study some of the more obscure writers (such as
Didymus -- hats off to Ehrman), because we have a lot of texts that
we cannot pinpoint.

This still doesn't give us a definition of a local text, though.
Anyone? Is mine acceptable, or do we need something else?

>claims about the strength of Western and Byzantine agreements.)

I'm inclined to agree. Zuntz is immensely detailed (frankly, so detailed
that I reached the point where I was skipping paragraphs), and thoroughly
rigorous -- but I'd have to say that even he was assuming some of his
conclusions. He *assumed* the "Western" text, and *assumed* the
Alexandrian text, and then compared them with p46. I think his results
would have been slightly different had he started without assumptions.
Of course, going back to first principles means a *lot* of work -- I know
I would never have done it if I hadn't had the computer to help....

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 17:15:46 -0400 (EDT)

> exemplar of another copied hundreds of miles away).

Let me also say for the record that I consider texttypes "local", but
perhaps the term "regionalized" might be preferable.  I do not question
that a MS copied in one location can be used as an exemplar in a totally
different location, but I would suggest that such did not occur to such a
degree that the regionalized nature of the various texttypes became
obscured in any degree; rather the likelihood would be that the extraneous
MS used as an exemplar might itself be corrected toward a text more
current in the locality in which it found itself, and the same would apply
to any copies made from that exemplar in the process of time by comparison
and correction with whatever texttype happened to be dominant in that
given region.  In the interim, "mixed" texts which would appear in many
exemplars would reflect that initial clash of texttypes by "extraneous"
exemplars.

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