Subject: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination?

From: Jean Valentin <[email-masked]>
Date: Jeu, 8 Jul 99 02:39:25 +0200

Dear TC-ers,

I hope to find that some of you will react to this question of mine. I am 
led to this by the work I do on Arabic gospel manuscripts, and to the 
necessity in which I am to compare them to a large amount of textual 
witnesses - not only greek, but also versional. The more I collate, the 
more I have the impression that my Arabic version stems from a vetus 
syra. That is, what is called a "western text". And then i realise that 
there are western texts everywhere: in the west where we have the old 
latin and the versions that stems from it in several vernaculars, 
including harmonized ones like the Pepysian and Dutch harmonies. In the 
East, where we have the Syriac versions, but also other versions and 
harmonies in Armenian (though known only through citations), Arabic (the 
version which I study being much more "western" than the Arabic 
diatessaron), Persian, and what else... Even traces of "western" 
influences, if I'm correct were found in several coptic versions.

This leads me to the question: isn't it time to revise the vocabulary 
that we use? When a certain type of text (or a set of associated 
text-types, or variants) are found not only in the West, but also in 
Egypt, Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Arabia, shouldn't we use a more 
appropriate term to refer to that text-type or those remains of a very 
archaic text-type? Why not, after all, choose another adjective that 
better describes the phenomenon we're confronted to? For example, I would 
incline to speak no more of the "Western text", but of the "peripheral 
texts" of the Gospels, as this describes quite accurately the fact that 
they are spread in the periphery of the Byzantine-Palestine-Egyptian 
area, where the great text-types were dominant. Also, the plural would 
help remind the diversity that exists among those texts, which have 
strong affinities and many common variants (which is why we call them, at 
the singular, the western text), but also have each one their own 
coloration. The appellation "peripheral texts" would contain no a-priori 
judgment as to the value of those texts, even though it can imply that 
they are earlier, having pushed away from the "center" by later, 
church-imposed recensions - at least I view them so, but the appellation 
in itself is purely descriptive.

If "Alexandrine" and "Byzantine" are quite good descriptive appellations 
as to the geographical locations of the text-types I'm referring too, 
wouldn't "peripheral" or some other appellation be a better label for the 
so-called "western" text? By the way, when in several years I will put 
the last hand to my doctoral thesis about those Arabic gospels I'm 
studying, if I have to describe them, do you think it's worth a few lines 
in my book to introduce and explain such a new term?

And, if anybody on the list sees any better adjective than "peripheral" 
to fuel the discussion, I'd be very interested!

Jean V.

_______________________________________________________________
Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique
tel. 32-2-280.01.37
e-mail : [email-masked]
_______________________________________________________________

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 08:14:29 -0500

On 7/7/99, Jean Valentin wrote, in part:

[ ... ]

>to fuel the discussion, I'd be very interested!

Since people have been admitting for years that the "Western" text is
not entirely "Western," but still use the name, I don't think that
we're likely to change now. :-) But with that said....

In one sense "peripheral" is a good name, because people have used
the word "Western" for almost everything that is "out there somewhere" --
for any text neither Alexandrian nor Byzantine.

I think this is a severe error, though. Those "remote" texts are not
a unity, and we need to stop using "Western" in the sense "Non-Alexandrian
Non-Byzantine." As long as we allow such sloppy terminology, we will
be unable to identify new text-types. We are assuming the solution.

Personally, I think we need a name other than "Western," though. I
tend to think in terms of versions. For example, the core of the "Western"
text is the Old Latin and the bilingual uncials D/05, D/06, F/010,
G/012. Why not just call this the "Latin" text-type? Then there is
Family 2138 in the Catholic Epistles. This type is close to the
Harklean Syriac -- but *not* close to the Old Latin; it probably is
not "Western" in the sense of "Latin." So call it the "Syriac"
text.

Then, finally, there is the methodological disaster known as the
"Caesarean text." (It's a methodological disaster whether you
believe in it or not, since neither those who believe in it nor
those who try to disprove its existence will allow the others'
definition of the type. :-) Maybe we should be thinking of this
as the "Armenian type" or the "Armenian/Georgian type" -- because
the earliest witnesses are these versions.

Just my thoughts on what is certainly a difficult topic....

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

                        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: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:34:53 +000

Respectfully, I must say that I think that "peripheral" is not a 
heuristically helpful term.  It sounds like (and I think refers to) a 
grab-bag of textual complexions and remains also tied to the 
misleading earlier notion of "local" text-types and geographical 
categories for text-types.  If new terms are to be developed, let us 
attempt concise descriptor terms that give some idea of what it is 
we're referring to, terms that give some idea of the *kind* of text 
we're referring to.  Epp's attempts to categorize earliest text-types 
on the basis of the available papyri point toward what I mean, 
though his own work will likely need further refinements.  For many 
years now I have been siding with the emergent voices who prefer 
to think of "text-types" as representing *textual tendencies*, 
constellations of scribal preferences, or some such category.
Larry Hurtado

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (U.B.Schmid)
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 16:51:13 +0200

The questions raised by Jean are bothering me for quite a while. Although I 
can't come up with a smooth solution, I may add a few comments.

1. In my view the constitution of textual complexions (text-types, clusters, 
etc.) and the names we attach to them should be treated seperately (yet, they 
are not entirely seperate issues).

2. Although we may not agree on the definition of what constitutes various 
levels of textual complexions, we should come to terms with giving names to the 
animals. 
a. In an ideal world, I would propose a positive and a negative condition:
- the names should be as descriptive as possible; 
- we should avoid geographical designations, for we simply don't know enough 
about the geographical offspring, distribution, limitations of any textual 
complexion at any time in order to apply geographical designations properly and 
consistantly.
b. In real life most people tend to use geographical designations ("Western", 
Alexandrian, Cesarean, Byzantine being the most common ones). The only 
concession broadly used is to append inverted commas to the label *Western*, 
indicating that there seems to be something special in this very case. Moreover, 
if we were to use the old (geographical) designations, I would strongly suggest 
to extend the inverted commas to every single geographical label (thus 
"Western", "Alexandrian", "Cesarean", "Byzantine"), indicating some caution not 
to extrapolate from those designations.
c. Probably we should simply stop using geographical labels at all even within 
inverted commas. Jean provided us with a perfect example of re-inventing the 
wheel, because at least as early as the beginning of the 19th century 
(Griesbach) scholars started to realize that "Western" is a misnomer.

3. Finally, a few scatterd observations:
a. Whatever textual comlexion we study, we should restrict our conclusions 
(descriptions as well as designations) to the portions of text we've examined. A 
case for the traditional textual complexions ("Western", "Alexandrian", 
"Cesarean", "Byzantine") can only be made for the Gospels ("Cesarean" only for 
Mark!). Yet, scholars tend to extrapolate too rapidly into other parts of the 
NT. E.g., Ch.-B. Amphoux argued that the Greek Harklensis-Vorlage should be 
viewed as the otherwise missing "Western" text of the Catholic Epistles. But 
why? I'm tempted to say: Because there is a "Western" text in the Gospels as 
well. BTW-- Epp's essay suffers from the same defect. He proposes to deal with 
"The significance of the Papyri for determining the nature of the New Testament 
text in the second century." Yet, he argues his case solely on the basis of 
Gospel manuscripts. 
b. Concerning what Jean wrote (in part):
> And then i realise that 
> including harmonized ones like the Pepysian and Dutch harmonies. 
This is too broad a statement. In a forthcoming essay on the sources of the 
Liege Harmony (the most prominent of the Dutch harmonies), August den Hollander 
and I argue that the concept of an Old Latin Harmony as "the" (or even "a") 
source of the Liege text is both unnecessary and improbable in the light of the 
new evidence we present. (The essay will be published in *Queeste. Tijdschrift 
over middeleeuwse letterkunde* 6/2, 1999.) 
Well, I'd better stop before I get on the wrong track now...

------------------------------------------
Dr. Ulrich Schmid
[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 23:48:35 -0500

>can't come up with a smooth solution, I may add a few comments.

The above fairly well summarizes my feelings, too. :-)

>are not entirely seperate issues).

The first thing we need to settle, it seems to me, is how many levels there
are. It seems to me (and Colwell hints at this, too) that there are
four levels of kinship (the terminology is tentative):

1. The true family: Manuscripts for which an exact stemma can be created.
   These will generally consist of siblings, or of parents and children.
   These are not unknown (e.g. 205 and 205abs; some of the subgroups
   of Family 13; the Kx Cluster 17 manuscripts written by George
   Hermonymos), but they aren't all that common, either.
2. The super-family, composed of manuscripts which can be grouped, but
   not actually placed in a stemma. Family 13 as a whole probably fits
   this description.
3. The sub-text-type
4. The text-type.

Note that, just as in a biological "family tree," any of the lower
orders can also be the sole members of a higher order. For instance,
it appears that Family 2138 in the Catholic Epistles is a super-family.
But the members of the family appear to constitute the *only* manuscripts
within their (Harklean-Syriac-like) text-type. So Family 2138 is, in
effect, a super-family, a sub-text-type, and a text-type.

>complexion at any time in order to apply geographical designations properly and 

I agree with both of these points, in theory. But what do we substitute?
Do we, for instance, call the "Western" text the "Periphrastic" text?
If so, we are passing even more of a judgment than by calling it "Western."
And if we go to Kenyon's a b g d, or Soden't I H K, or the like -- well,
I don't think that's very descriptive. :-)

The one useful alternative appears to be to refer to groups by their
leading representative. But if we are to do this, we *must* refine
our other terminology. If "Family B" refers to the whole Alexandrian
text, and "Family 630" refers only to the siblings 630 and 2200, it
will be very confusing. :-)

Also, what do we do when a new, earlier, better manuscript shows up?

[ ... ]

>(descriptions as well as designations) to the portions of text we've examined.

This would seem self-evident, but history shows that it is not. :-)

>A 
>well.

I think you have described the situation exactly. Amphoux (following Duplacy
and Vaganay, at least in spirit) thinks the "Western" text is best, so it
must exist, so it must be Family 2138 because nothing else is available. :-)

This has several problems. First is a practical one: Family 2138 doesn't agree
with the Old Latin, so how can it be "Western"?

It is logical, in a way, to assume that a text-type that exists in one place
must exist in another. If (say) Alexandria had a text of (say) Paul, the assumption
is that it also had a text of Acts. But this does not mean:

1. That this text has survived
2. That we can identify it

Indeed, who can say that a local text cannot be a text-type in one place and
merely a sub-text-type somewhere else? To take another example, suppose that
there *is* a "Caesarean" text of Mark. There must also be a text of Matthew
used in Caesarea. Does this inevitably mean that this text will also be a
separate text-type? Why? Might not the text of Matthew be, instead, a
sub-type of the Alexandrian text?

This is even more likely to be true as we cross from one corpus to another.
The text of B is, at least arguably, *not* a member of the Alexandrian text
in Paul -- but it is in Acts. Has its text changed? Or is it just that
the B-text is close to the Aleph-text in Acts, and more divergent in Paul?

This, I think, is one of the problems Von Soden had. In the Acts and
Epistles, he broke the "Western" text up into Ia, Ib, Ic types. Now
it happens that *all three of these types* exists in one or another part
of the Acts and Epistles; Ia is the true "Western" text (with the footnote
that Ia3 is something else, including the group Family 2127; it has ties
to the Armenian), Ib is Family 1739, Ic is Family 2138. But Von Soden
treated them as if they were entirely coherent throughout.

Just my casual thoughts. If anyone wants more details on Von Soden
and/or the levels of textual kinship, see the "Text-types" article
on the Encyclopedia web site. See, in particular, the section on
Appendix III: Von Soden's Textual System (especially the summary); 
also The Definition of a Text-Type and footnote 2 under History
of the Study of Text-types

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

---

From: "Dave Washburn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 15:44:53 -0700

> I don't think that's very descriptive. :-)

If we're looking for a way to refer to the "Western" text in the sense 
of anything that is not Alexandrian or Byzantine, I would suggest 
"non-aligned."  Unless we take something like D as a definitive 
baseline for evaluating western-ness, what we're talking about are 
mss that don't align with either the Alexandrian or Byzantine 
traditions.  And even if we do take D as the chief representative of a 
"Western" text-type, mss that depart from it without going in the 
direction of either of the other types can still be classed as non-
aligned.  Just a thought...

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 06:15:33 -0500

>aligned.  Just a thought...

But this has the same problem as the name "Western" -- it implies
a solution. A *manuscript* may be non-aligned; many of them are.
But a text-type? And what if there are two text-types that are
neither Alexandrian nor Byzantine?

We need to answer two things here: First, is this the Bezan
text we're talking about, or is it something more? And second
(and in either case :-), what can we call this that doesn't
assume some sort of solution.

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

---

From: "Dave Washburn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 18:02:52 -0700

> neither Alexandrian nor Byzantine?

I'm talking strictly about manuscripts, not types.  The fact that the 
"Western" type doesn't appear to be a type at all but rather a catch-
all, suggests that there are currently no discernible alignments in 
the manuscripts.  If and when somebody (not me!) were to find 
alignments between/among some of them that could legitimately 
be called a text-type, they would be classified as such.  Until then, 
call them non-aligned.  When used of manuscripts, I suggest that 
the term implies there may be a solution but we don't know what it 
is yet (and it may never come).

> assume some sort of solution.

The answer to the former will likely take us several steps toward 
the answer to the latter.

Dave Washburn

---

From: [email-masked] (U.B.Schmid)
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:48:20 +0200

In the light of Bob's comments on my lengthy post I would like to emphasize 
three points:

1. In my view the geographical designations in general TC use (Western, 
Alexandrian, Byzantine, Cesarean) don't offer any trustworthy results. I would 
like to challenge those who want to keep the geographical framework to make 
their case.

2. Any designation of textual complexions should be primarily related to the 
documents AND the NT books under consideration. E.g., there seems to be hardly a 
"Western text" but there is a Latin-Greek bilingual text of Paul and more than 
one Latin- Greek bilingual text of the Gospels.   

3. One way to define designations for textual complexions could be developped by 
way of comparison with versional evidence. E.g., the group 2138 in the Catholic 
Epistles has a very intimate relation with the *Vorlage* of the Harclensis 
version. We could therefore call it the Harclensis-Greek. 

-------------------------------------
> On 7/9/99, U.B.Schmid wrote:
[...]

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:04:46 +000

Ulrich Schmid's suggestions seem initially congenial to me.  Epp 
tried to sketch new text-type categories (alpha-text, beta-text, 
etc.), which were intended to be "value neutral" labels.  Schmid is 
correct that Epp's categories were almost entirely based on 
gospels mss evidence, and may still be too broad.  But Schmid's 
idea of (a) preferring labels that are not misleadingly geographical, 
and (b) building up group definitions tightly tied to the mss 
evidence, is very congenial to what I think were the aims Epp was 
seeking.  
In my study of Codex W, I proposed that in Mark W and P45 seem 
to have a special relationship and that they might represent some 
kind of text of their own, perhaps of Egyptian derivation.  Thus, in 
Mark we might speak of a P45-W text.  So, Schmid's suggestion 
seems to me to make such proposals a basis for moving ahead.
Any larger categories and labels could/should only be "built up" 
inductively on the basis of evidence.  
The broad point here is that we should treat the traditional text-type 
categories critically, and not force evidence into the categories.
Larry Hurtado

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 18:57:08 -0400

I would agree that the textual complexion of the NT is  more varied (at
least as far as the "Western text") than a strictly geographical model
would allow.  At the same time it seems clear to me that some areas did
have peculiar textual traditions with regard to certain books.  For
example, my own work on Cyril of Jerusalem, with a backward glance at
Origen and Eusebius, suggests that the classical "Caesarean text" of Mark,
which I call "Group Theta" (represented by Koridethi, 565, and 700) had a
rather limited circulation-- chiefly in and around Roman Palestine.  
	To speculate beyond that statement, versional evidence in Armenian and
Georgian that has been noted from time to time for Group Theta readings
suggests to me that pilgrimmage traffic may have played a role in the
spread of that text of Mark.  
	So, I still think that geography plays a role in textual developments,
though  perhaps not such a broad role as Streeter thought.  --Rod Mullen