Subject: Re: tc-list Phi 3.16

From: "Roderic L. Mullen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 22:33:36 -0500

The cautious reader will note that I said 614 is "often considered to be a
secondary Western witness in Acts."  The key word here is SECONDARY.  As a
quick and thus rough guide I checked my data for Cyril of Jerusalem and
found that there are 51 points of variation where Cyril, D, 614, TR, and UBS
all have text and are all non singular.  In those points, 614 agrees with D
about 23 times, 614 agrees with TR about 35 times, and 614 agrees with UBS
about 20 times.  Thus on the basis of this limited sample, 614 in Acts would
appear to be about 68% Byzantine, but with a substantial number of readings
in agreement with D.  Hence its significance as a secondary witness.  
With regard to the possibility of a "Caesarean" text in the Pauline
epistles, the patristic evidence is thus:  Origen is definitely Alexandrian
in the Paulines,  Eusebius appears to be Alexandrian in Romans and I
Corinthians at least, and Cyril of Jerusalem's text varies between
Alexandrian and Byzantine.  Three just doesn't seem to be any evidence for a
distinctive text-type of the Paulines around Caesarea.  Ergo, whatever
importance the Armenian version may have for other reasons, it is pointless
to use the Armenian text as witness for a nonexistent Caesarean text of the
paulines.  --Rod Mullen

At 07:56 AM 11/25/98 -0600, you wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, "Roderic L. Mullen" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>With regard to your Manuscript groupings, 614 is often considered to be a
>>secondary Western witness in Acts, but I have no idea what it's character
>>would be in the Pauline epistles.  I don't think there's any evidence for
>>anything  that could be called a distinctive Caesarean text-type in the
>>Pauline epistles, so I'm not sure tht the armenian version is a useful
>>witness at this point.
>>--Rod Mullen
>
>I don't have a collation of 614 in Paul, but the data in UBS3
>makes it clear that 614 and 2412 are sisters there, or nearly
>(as they are in the Acts and Catholics). And Clark published
>a collation of 2412.
>
>On this basis we can say:
>
>- 614 and 2412 are *not* members of Family 1611 (1611, 1505, 2495,
>hark; possibly 2005; also 1022 in the Pastorals)
>
>- 614 and 2412 are almost purely, if not purely, Byzantine
>
>As for the Armenian: It is a useful witness, although it has not
>been classified. Based on the data in UBS3, it is largely non-Byzantine --
>but does not appear to go with Origen, or with Family 1739. So it
>is an open question whether arm is "Caesarean" or not, even if one
>accepts the existence of that text-type.
>
>I hope to have more to say on this thread later; too much to do
>right now....
>-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>                        Robert B. Waltz
>                     [email-masked]
>
>Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
>Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
>(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
>
>

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 08:26:45 -0600

On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, "Roderic L. Mullen" <[email-masked]>

>secondary Western witness in Acts."  The key word here is SECONDARY.

I should offer a clarification. The comments I made (about 614 and
2412 being Byzantine) were meant to apply *only to Paul*. On re-reading,
I realize I didn't say that.

In Acts and the Catholic Epistles, they are *not* Byzantine. They
are members of Family 2138 (Amphoux's name; Wachtel's Hk-gr, etc.)
It may be questioned whether these manuscripts are in fact "Western"
(in the Catholics, they do *not* agree with the surviving Old Latins) --
but that is another story.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]