Subject: tc-list Ms provenances

From: Timothy John Finney <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:03:40 +0800 (WST)

In reply to some questions:

Ulrich Scmid asked whether it was possible to exclude vertical changes
(i.e. spellings from different eras) from horizontal changes (i.e.
spellings from same era). The answer is yes, but then there would not be
enough mss to compare with each other. The thing about multivariate
analysis is that you need to compare groups of things with each other. As
things stand I am only working with about fifteen mss in a typical map.
This is only just enough to begin to show group structure.

Anyway, this is a good point Ulrich. All I can say is that it would be
good to have more fully transcribed mss (with spelling intact).
Unfortunately there are not enough early mss to allow large groups of,
say, the same century to be compared.

Bob Waltz said that I need to include more mss such as M33, M81, M1739,
M1881, M2127. I have done this for the textual perspective using
information from the UBS4 apparatus. However I need full transcriptions to
include the spelling, and I don't have a year up my sleeve in order to do
the complete transcriptions. You are right Bob, this needs to be done for
more mss.

Andrew Payne mentioned dependence on visual contact with the exemplar. As
far as the comparison of spelling goes, the maps show that some
manuscripts have similar spellings to others. The full picture only
emerges when all kinds of spelling transformation are considered.

Best regards,

Tim Finney.

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 09:50:15 -0600

> emerges when all kinds of spelling transformation are considered.

I cant help but think of C. Sinaiticus where two of the three scribes
whose hand is evident were not such good spellers while "scribe A" seems
not to have made many mistakes at all.  How do multiple scribes at work
on a ms with varying competence in spelling fit into this paradigm?
How does the transmission of spelling errors from various source
exemplars of unknown provenance fit in?

Jack

-- 
______________________________________________

taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

Jack Kilmon
[email-masked]

http://www.historian.net

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 09:46:39 -0600

Timothy John Finney wrote, in part:

[ age vs. location ]

>say, the same century to be compared.

Which is why we need a similar study of late manuscripts -- preferably
manuscripts whose dates and places of origin are known. The sad fact
is, what we have here is an uncontrolled experiment. :-(

>the complete transcriptions. You are right Bob, this needs to be done for

On second thought, 33 is probably out. Too hard to read! The good
news is, two of the most important manuscripts have been published.
1739 is collated in Lake & New, _Six New Testament Manuscripts_
and 330 (near-sister of 451, except -- sadly -- in Hebrews) in
Davies's work on 2344. (I don't have bibliographic information at
hand, but I can get it if need be.)

1739, at least, is interesting in that it has a lot of *major* differences
from the Received Text (as one would expect of such a manuscript), but
the number of small deviations, such as spelling, is very slight (comparable
to the number in Omega, which tells you something). This fact, in itself,
probably tells us something about the history of scribal habits....
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        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)