Subject: tc-list Manuscript provenances

From: Timothy John Finney <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:10:16 +0800 (WST)

Sorry for my brief answers, but here goes...

Ulrich Schmid asked why I think that the groups in my spelling maps
reflect geography rather than date. My answer is that two of the groups
(the later two) cover roughly the same time period (C4 to C10). Therefore,
their separation must be due to something besides time. One manuscript
from the earliest group (U16 = I) is dated fifth C., and so is
contemporary with the earliest members of the other groups. I think all
this is enough to eliminate time as a possible explanation of the
grouping. I have also done a correlation test between manuscript dates and
the map axes. There is little if any correlation.  (Bob Waltz asked about
this, but I neglected to answer him last post.) 

Ulrich suggests comparing the spelling of Alexandrinus in the Gospels and
in Hebrews. Great idea! Maurice Robinson also raises this point, and asked
whether I have any information. The answer is no. This analysis requires
complete transcriptions. It took me three years to transcribe the thirty
papyrus and uncial mss of Hebrews, and only half of those contain all of
Hebrews. To do the same for the Gospels requires complete transcriptions
of not just Alexandrinus but of the other important mss as well (the more
the better). In short, I haven't got the transcriptions so I can't do the
analysis to answer this important question. Even with the transcriptions,
spelling and textual variations have to be separated from each other. This
is also a time-consuming task.

My intuition tells me that the spelling of Alexandrinus will stay the same
but its text will change from the Egypt group it occupies in Hebrews to
the Constantinople group expected for the Gospels. If it does not then my
theory that textual peculiarities are preserved but exotic spellings are
not will be sunk. Alexandrinus will prove to be a telling test. By the
way, one of the more surprising results in the maps is that the text of
Alexandrinus is virtually identical to the text of scribe A of Sinaiticus
for Hebrews. These two are as close together as any of the near neighbours
in my maps. Scribe D of Sinaiticus (who copied a folio of Hebrews) is not
in the same textual place. 

Jack Kilmon asked how transmission of spelling errors from different
exemplars fits in. After looking at the different groupings in textual and
spelling maps, I thought up a hypothesis that might explain why the maps
behave in the manner they do. My hypothesis is that strange texts are more
likely to be conserved than strange spellings when a manuscript is copied.
Therefore, if a manuscript is transported from one country to another, its
textual peculiarities will be more likely to survive copying than its
spelling peculiarities. A case in point is U243. Its spelling is in the
group I (tentatively)  associate with Constantinople, but its text is in
the same group as P13, P46, U1, U2, U3, U4, and U16. 

Best regards,

Tim Finney.

P.S. Pray for me! I'm trying to complete my thesis by Friday!! (If I
wasn't laughing I'd be crying.)

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:05:20 -0600

>the same group as P13, P46, U1, U2, U3, U4, and U16. 

That last pretty well tears it. I have to say, you have a problem.

Reason: You've got *three* text-types in that last group.

Let's start at the beginning.

Known fact (from Zuntz): P46 and B are not the same type as Aleph
A C I. He calls P46/B "proto-Alexandrian" and the others "Alexandrian,"
and I disagree with that conclusion, but the point is, they aren't
the same type. They are closer to each other than they are to D --
but that doesn't make them one.

It is interesting to observe that U243 uses the orthography of
Constantinople. Of course, this would be expected, because
0243 is a very close cousin of 1739 -- which also uses
Byzantine orthography but has a non-Byzantine text. However,
the text of 1739/0243 is *not* that of Aleph-A-C-I. Zuntz
puts it with P46/B; I say it is its own type. But it *must*
be distinguished from Aleph et al.

And it is simply not valid to draw any conclusions about 0243
if your manuscript base does not include 1739.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        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)