Subject: tc-list More to M. Robinson, correction

From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:36:47 -0700

Alas,

    I did not check my charts before I sent the last post. MS 1875 was
probably written in Macedonia, by a monk who was familiar with Slavic,
however it is still a sister MS to 1874. Minuscule 1837 is the one which was
written in Calabria (not 1875 as I wrongly declared earlier).

MS 1319 agrees with MS 1837 at 73 % that is in 118 out of 225 readings in
just I Corinthians. (This according to my original research, and my own
charts). This is a relatively high agreement for this manuscript (1319) made
in Jerusalem, but it also agrees with P15 at 77 percent (10 out of 13
readings).  1319 agrees about 65 % with the Byzantine standard and 62 % with
codex 06.  Hence it is very mixed, but this is typical of this group from
Jerusalem.  I would like to be able to compare it with a Caesarean text-type
but have not gotten that far along yet.

Finally, my theory is that the Byzantine Standard Ecclesiastical text-type
was enforced early on in most areas of the Byzantine empire. This assured
unity. After the Arab invasions, outlying monasteries remained true to this
standard, but did (apparently) refer to old MSS in their possession when
copying or preserving them. Some of these preserved MSS could actually give
us a window into the EARLY Byzantine text-type, before it was standardized
in Constantinople. This early text should probably be referred to as the
proto-text, the one behind all of the 3 or 4 major text-types.

I believe this better answers your question, and I apologize for the error
concerning MS 1875.

at your service,
Mr. Gary S. Dykes    [email-masked]

---

From: "Maurice A. Robinson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:55:28 EDT

On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:36:47 -0700 "Mr. Gary S. Dykes"
<[email-masked]> writes:

>Finally, my theory is that the Byzantine Standard Ecclesiastical 
>text-type was enforced early on in most areas of the Byzantine empire. 
>This assured unity.

Of course, as Colwell asked, "who imposed controls, and when?" And if so,
why was not a greater uniformity produced by the elimination of
non-Byzantine readings? I suspect the concept of  "control" is a nebulous
term which in practice really did not exist, except in its psychological
form as a result of reproducing basically the text which was familiar
from personal and liturgical reading and hearing. The weakness of this
line of argument, however, lies in the numerous cases where the
lectionary form of the text differs dramatically from that found in the
continuous text MSS. This leads me to suggest that the "real" text which
should be termed "Byzantine" is that which predominates in the lectionary
and liturgical material rather than what is found in the continuous-text
MSS. The relation of such to the actual text of the Byzantine archetype
(which then should be reconstructed primarily from the continuous-text
MSS) is quite a different matter.

> After the Arab invasions, outlying monasteries remained true to 
>this standard, but did (apparently) refer to old MSS in their possession

>when copying or preserving them.

Not exactly, since we find generally-Alexandrian MSS being copied in the
12th century at Sinai (e.g. MS 1241), with little or no attempt to
"standardize" its text by alteration from whatever had been its exemplar.
Either a standard is a standard or it is not; if the scribes were free to
bring in readings from any other "old MSS" then in fact there was _no_
standard which consciously had to be preserved.

>the EARLY Byzantine text-type, before it was standardized
>in Constantinople. This early text should probably be referred to as 
>the proto-text, the one behind all of the 3 or 4 major text-types.

One then wonders what this "proto-Byzantine" type looked like. Was it
like Codex Alexandrinus (which was not apparently tied to
Constantinople)?  Or more like that found in the Byzantine portions of MS
W (also without ties to Constantinople)?  In fact, what MSS can with any
degree of certainty be claimed as proto-Byzantine rather than as a
Byzantine MSS with a mixture of non-Byzantine readings?  It well may be
the case that the Kx group categorized by von Soden can better serve as
the source from which all sub-Byzantine varieties arise, since it often
is easier to explain readings in the so-called K1, Kc, or Kr groups as
localized revisions away from the Kx standard which tended in its various
degrees to dominate the Eastern Empire.

All this however strays far afield from Bob's discussion of the Arab
Conquest, so I will try to refrain from further speculation at this
point.   

==============================================
Maurice A. Robinson
Professor of NT and Greek
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina