Subject: Re: "Western" text of Paul

From: Curt Niccum <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 07:31:23 -0500

>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?

The following witnesses share at least one passage in 1 Corinthians which
originated in Northern Italy. 

Greek: D F G
Old Latin: 61, 75, 76, 77, 78, 89
Vulgate: F (only the corrections introduced by Victor from his second
exemplar), R
Patristic: Ambrosiaster, Sedulius Scotus

First, although having done the bulk of the collations, my immediate concern
was with only one passage. Since the Vetus Latina Institut is currently
publishing the fascicles on 1 Corinthians (and I should be working on my
dissertation and not this), I decided to save the larger issues for later
(or let someone else deal with them). Second, I have used the manuscript
designations of the Vetus Latina in order to avoid the ambiguity caused
between the differing systems of the UBS and NA apparatuses. (BTW, any
discrepencies between the above list and the apparatuses of UBS3 and UBS4
are due to errors in the UBS apparatus. If I remember correctly, UBS3
mislabeled certain witnesses as Old Latin and UBS4 is misled concerning the
evidence of the Balliol manuscript of Pelagius.) Third, I have listed the
Greek and Latin sides of the bilinguals separately since they are distinct
witnesses.

Now, back to where this all started. Some of the witnesses listed above have
been identified as "Western." Since they all can be tied to Northern Italy
and the extent of any influence from a Northern Italian text has yet to be
determined, any reading shared by them alone cannot *necessarily* be
considered "Western." Additional witnesses outside of this bloc must also
attest the reading for one to be relatively sure of its "Western" nature,
hence my suggestion that Zuntz's delineations be followed until this is
sorted out.

Curt Niccum

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 08:49:29 -0700

>originated in Northern Italy. 

Are you really basing your results on one passage? I think most will
agree that that is a not a large enough sample set. (I won't even
tell you what my statistics professor would say about a student
who did such a thing).

>Patristic: Ambrosiaster, Sedulius Scotus

In case anyone cares, this translates as

Greek: D F G
Old Latin: a d (76=e not cited in NA27) g f b
Vulgate: fuldensis** regina (I assume)
Patristic: Ambrosiaster, Sedulius Scotus

[ ... ]

>Second, I have used the manuscript
>mislabeled certain witnesses as Old Latin

This is quite true. UBS3 lists at least four witnesses (c, dem, x, z)
which are vulgate with Old Latin readings (z is Old Latin in part of
Hebrews, but is cited throughout Paul).

>and UBS4 is misled concerning the

I agree that d is. f sometimes is. g? I think it can only be listed
where it differs from G.

>considered "Western."

This is a matter of definition. "Western" is not a geographical designation;
it is textual. I would say that a "Western" reading is one shared by the
clear majority of the witnesses listed, because that's how we use the
term.

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

                            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)