Subject: Re: Local text definition (Was: Re: "Western" text of Paul)

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 12:18:23 -0500 (EST)

At 10:48 AM 4/16/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
>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).
>

I don't see how P75 being at a particular modern library helps us in
determining its relationship to other texts.  That has absolutely nothing to
do with its being a "local text".  The texts cited above belong to the
Alexandrian family "because" they were used (!) in a particular location-
i.e., in the vicinity of Egypt, and not necessarily because they originated
there.

>. 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.
>

Right- what matters in determining the use of a text is its locale as well
as its "parent".  It is, for example, more than true that here in the
American South the KJV is the "local text type".  In other parts of the
country there are a variety of translations so that one type does not
dominate; we might call these areas "mixed".
So text critics in the future (unless we are able to answer all questions in
our lifetimes!!!!) may say that the KJV was the dominant type in the ancient
south; while the NASB and NIV were the dominant types in ancient california,
etc.  
This clearly does not mean these text originated in these areas- instead
these are the areas in which these types were used.
  the same was most likely true of the Ancient world as well.  The text
types found in Alexandria are related; as are those found in the Byzantine
empire- etc. simply because of use and not origin.  They were used in a
particular area because of their similarity! and not because they all came
from the same scribal house.

>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. :-)
>

Hope this isn't me!  :)

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology
[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 15:44:11 -0700

On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Jim West <[email-masked]> wrote, in part:

>do with its being a "local text".

Ahem -- that was *my* point. :-)

>The texts cited above belong to the

I don't see that it matters where a local text originates. The crucial
matter is where it's used.

[ ... ]

>>have something to start from when the next argumentative person

Nope, it's a hypothetical person. My second coming, maybe. Or
maybe some KJV-only type.

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

                            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)