Subject: Re: "Western" text of Paul

From: Curt Niccum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 17:39:30 -0500

>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).
>
I unfortunately do not have the time to spare clarifying the issues I
brought up, and I apologize for that. It seems to me, however, that the
"Western" text of Paul needs to be re-evaluated, especially since five of
your "six substantial witnesses" attest (at least in part) a northern
Italian text. For the evidence, you may consult my article "The Voice of the
Manuscripts on the Silence of Women: The External Evidence for 1 Corinthians
14.34-5" coming out later this year in NTS.

Curt Niccum

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 20:02:47 -0700

On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Curt Niccum <[email-masked]> wrote:

[ ... ]

> We have no fewer than

Can you at least tell us which of the six substantial witnesses is the
"odd manuscript out," and what it is if it isn't the same as the other
five?

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

                            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)