Subject: tc-list More to M. Robinson

From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:30:52 -0700

Greetings,

    Thank you for your input, it is exciting to meet others who are
specialized in these areas of research. Much work yet needs to be done, and
I would think that the younger scholars will find much room for numerous
life-long projects here!  Much of my work is cutting edge, and I see a
cutting edge in your thoughts and queries as well.  I am not going to begin
a lengthy debate with you on line, but I would like to add a few more
thoughts to your prior posts.

M. Robinson wrote:
Dykes wrote:
> 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.

Dykes replies:

Interesting. First one must determine why a certain minuscule was "copied".
If it was for liturgical purposes then I suggest it adheres to the liturgy
of the folks for whom it was copied.  If it is a copy (for preservation
purposes) then it can contain any type of text at hand. If the copy was one
which was paid for by someone, then they may have imposed stipulations, and
it may then conform to any type or be a complete deviation from any
standard. I find, in my research, that a true standard Constantinopolitan
text reigns supreme at the Sinai monastery. Of course they copy other
materials as well. I present minuscule 1878 and 1879 as a sample of a MS
possibly written at St. Catherine's but preserving the Byzantine standard.
It seems to me (and further research is ongoing) that most surviving
minuscules at St. Catherine's are of this standard.  K. Weitzmann's work  is
a fine initial resource for preliminary investigations in this area.

Manuscripts were also made for training purposes, and numerous manuscripts
show the use of numerous exemplars, such as minuscule 1243, possibly written
at Sinai. In the Pauline corpus, I have discovered that it (1243) radically
changes its "text-type", probably due to using another exemplar. Most of it
is of the Ecclesiastical Byzantine standard.

M. Robinson wrote in part:

Dykes wrote:
>strictly of a Byzantine Ecclesiastical Standard, as yet I have not
>found any MSS circa 900 - 1300 written in Constantinople which are not
>conformed to this standard.

I have not found any MSS copied within this same period which reflect any
such "standard"; so we differ on this point (note that the "general"
Byzantine text found in most MSS of this period is not itself evidence of
any standard being imposed; the differences in the MSS themselves serve
as evidence against such a control ever having been made).

Dykes replies:

Note that I said "written in Constantinople". Careful preliminary research
is required before one can state the provenance of manuscripts which have no
written declarations of origin. In my research I suggest that these
minuscules were written in Constantinople (or Nicaea), others must prove
otherwise:  I present:

minuscule 1315
minuscule 421
minuscule 796
minuscule 712 (at UCLA)
minuscule 1424 (in Illinois) in the Pauline portion, I have not fully
examined its gospel text                         as yet.

This is just a sampling,  these decisions are somewhat tentative, but they
are based upon numerous factors.  Minuscules 1878/1879 and 226 "could" have
been written in Constantinople.

St. Saba, and other Palestinian monasteries did stay in contact with
Constantinople throughout the Arab rule. But they did so by way of Calabria,
Sicily and probably the Grotta Ferrata. Many of the styles seen in numerous
Palestinian MSS suggest a Calabrian influence, even the Sassnian art work
(per Buchthal). So a fresh  influx of Byzantine MSS into the Palestinian
monastery St. Sabas seems to be a real possibility. Yet I am fairly certain
that they also possessed older "proto-Byzantine" materials, which survived
the iconoclast revolt.

The folks at Dumbarton Oaks offer vast resources for Byzantine history, for
texts and illuminations. Henry and Renee Kahane in an article "The Western
Impact on Byzantium" DOP #36, page 133, offer this tidbit as to the lexical
influence of Latin upon the outlying Byzantine institutions (monasteries):

"...the lexicon of this monastic literature displayed a correlation between
the density of Latinisms and the distance of the a text's origin from the
capital: the closer to the Polis, to Constantinople, the fewer the Latin
elements."

They go on to suggest that these implications and others, show that any
standard was more enforced the closer it was to Constantinople. I tend to
agree.

The antiquity of the Byzantine text-type can be validated by careful
research, but as Von Soden pointed out, there are sub-groups, I would term
them as temporal layers. I believe the oldest stratum was the archetype for
the Alexandrine text-type BEFORE the Alexandrine grammarians adjusted it. I
also believe it was the archetype for the Syro-Latin recensions as well.

And finally, yes mediaeval scribes did a fine job, but my research (and
Ehrman's) show that intentional changes were made to the text. Reuben
Swanson's work (his Greek text apparatus) can validate this in many cases.
So a fidelity existed, but so did other factors, and each manuscript needs
careful analysis before it can yield fruit. Hence the need for open
unrestricted access for those who do this laborious research. Recall my
correction, that minuscule 1837 was written in Calabria, and is by the same
scribe as the Ferrar 124. (another revelation stemming from my original
research)  thus minuscule 1837 presents a praxapostolos witness to the
Pauline Caesarean text (so my research indicates). Fascinating.

at your service,
Mr. Gary S. Dykes   (perhaps if you wish to continue this potentially long
dialog and discussion, we could go off-line).

---

From: "Maurice A. Robinson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 11:01:34 EDT

On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:30:52 -0700 "Mr. Gary S. Dykes"
<[email-masked]> writes:

>Interesting. First one must determine why a certain minuscule was 
>"copied". If it was for liturgical purposes then I suggest it adheres to
the 
>liturgy of the folks for whom it was copied.  

Not necessarily. The Kr MSS are specifically those which were customized
for lectionary use, even though continuous text in format, yet they did
_not_ conform or adhere to the "standard" lectionary text pattern, but
generally retained their own "distinctive" (Cf. Voss) continuous-text
sub-type of the Byzantine.

>If it is a copy (for preservation purposes) then it can contain any type
of text at hand. 
Most copies found in monasteries probably qualify under this heading.

>If the copy was one which was paid for by someone, then they may have
imposed 
>stipulations, and it may then conform to any type or be a complete
deviation from >any standard. 

Very doubtful as regards text. The format, handwriting, and decoration of
commissioned MSS certainly differs in magnificence and quality from other
more "normal" MSS, but the text is not itself significantly different
than that found in run-of-the-mill MSS of the same period. Very doubtful
if any one rich enough to commission a copy of the Scriptures (often
intended as a gift to a specific monastic institution) would have had any
say, let alone concern with the type of text or readings to be inserted
into such MSS.

>I find, in my research, that a true standard Constantinopolitan
>text reigns supreme at the Sinai monastery. 

Pray tell then _which_ MS is the "standard" among the Sinai MSS?  Answer:
there is none, despite a general Byzantine Textform seen among most of
the minuscules there. Otherwise, even these differ significantly enough
among themselves to rule out any "true standard" text to which they were
obligated to conform.

>materials as well. I present minuscule 1878 and 1879 as a sample of a 
>MS possibly written at St. Catherine's but preserving the Byzantine 
>standard. It seems to me (and further research is ongoing) that most
surviving
>minuscules at St. Catherine's are of this standard.

If so, then how many other MSS (even at Sinai) _really_ preserve and
conform to such a "standard", and what are the evidences for "control" in
this regard? I doubt that very many other MSS at Sinai or elsewhere will
qualify as "standard exemplars", and if they do, then it remains obvious
that few scribes ever were concerned with maintaining or perpetuating
such a "standard." This basically means there was no _de facto_
"standard," even if a generally Byzantine text is preserved in the
majority of MSS.

>Manuscripts were also made for training purposes, and numerous 
>manuscripts show the use of numerous exemplars, such as minuscule 1243,
>possibly written at Sinai. In the Pauline corpus, I have discovered that
it (1243) 
>radically changes its "text-type", probably due to using another
exemplar. Most 
>of it is of the Ecclesiastical Byzantine standard.

But you think such was only a "training MS" and not a
legitimately-intended product?  I seriously doubt this. Not much
different from the situation of MS 33 in Acts (cf Geer), which also
changes textual alignment midstream, but which certainly was _not_ a
"training" device. Ditto for MS W in the Gospels which leaps back and
forth among texttypes due to different exemplars being used.

>Note that I said "written in Constantinople". Careful preliminary 
>research is required before one can state the provenance of manuscripts
which 
>have no written declarations of origin. In my research I suggest that
these
>otherwise

A suggestion is not proof, and even if the MSS you list were all copied
in Constantinople and have a similar text, what about their differences
among themselves which would negate the concept of a "standard" as well
as what about other MSS copied at Constantinople which would have a
differing text from the ones you list? Since provenance is highly
questionable in the absence of clear proof (via a colophon or other
notation), so will be conclusions based upon supposition.
(Since I am not working with Pauline MSS, I cannot comment further on
your claims; full collations of course would allow interested parties to
examine such, but in their absence I suspect no one can say much in any
direction on this point).

>[re:]  the lexical influence of Latin upon the outlying Byzantine
institutions >(monasteries)

>They go on to suggest that these implications and others, show that 
>any standard was more enforced the closer it was to Constantinople. I
tend 
>to agree.

This is apples and oranges as far as NT text and MS copying is involved,
especially when it concerns Latin usage in Greek speaking areas. Sorry,
but I am not  exactly sympathetic with conclusions drawn from this line
of argument. 

>I believe the oldest stratum was the archetype for
>the Alexandrine text-type BEFORE the Alexandrine grammarians adjusted 
>it. 

I have strong reservations about this as well, especially since I have a
paper in the works on "The Search for the Alexandrian Archetype" which
suggests that such would have to be distinctly different from whatever
had been the archetype of the Byzantine Textform.

>And finally, yes mediaeval scribes did a fine job, but my research 
>(and Ehrman's) show that intentional changes were made to the text. 

Few and far between as compared to accidental causes of variation
(contrary to Colwell's exaggerated claim that "the majority of changes
were made for doctrinal or dogmatic reasons"). Also Ehrman refers
specifically to doctrinal variations as opposed to other intentional
changes such as correcting grammar, resolving difficulties, smoothing
readings etc., which probably predominate over doctrinal changes by a
wide margin. More apples and oranges.

>Mr. Gary S. Dykes   (perhaps if you wish to continue this potentially 
>long dialog and discussion, we could go off-line).

Preferably not; too much to do and too little time....

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

---

From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:21:26 -0700

-----
From: Maurice A. Robinson <[email-masked]>

> sub-type of the Byzantine.

Dykes replies: (briefly)
Apples and oranges, lectionaries were predisposed to sectarian manipulations
much more so that the accepted Biblical text.

> say, let alone concern with the type of text or readings to be inserted

Dykes replies:
Not all MSS written for private use or for sale were commissioned, and you
cite no evidence to verify your theory. Several  MSS produced in Latin
Jerusalem were commissioned, and they had to confrom to a particular
text-type, which was NOT the text-type which was predominate in Palestine, I
present ms Vatican lat 5974, written circa A. D. 1180. You must discount
this proof. I agree that numerous commissioned MSS adhere to the particular
belief system under which they were produced.

Robinson wrote:
   Dykes wrote
> among themselves to rule out any "true standard" text to which they were

Dykes replies:
Your answer gives no proof. I presented 1879 and 1878 as examples of the
Ecclesiastical Byzantine Standard at Mt. Sinai (St. Catherines). This text
served also in many of their liturgical commentaries by monks known to have
spent years at Sinai (John Klimax, was an early one, his works evoke
numerous Byzantine concepts which later became traditions, such as the
necessity for good works, water baptism, yet he also dealt  very little upon
the Virgin Mary). The standard is clearly preserved in numerous MSS still at
St. Catherines. If your study (I am amazed that your study of it proved
otherwise!) of 1878 did not convince you then also study:

ms 1243  (most of its text)
ms. 1245
ms. 2492 (all except I and II Thessalonians which revert to a SL text-type)

After you have carefully studied these, you should come to the conclusion
that a singular text is present in all of these (plus 1878, 1879).
Interestingly, these particular MSS also agree extremely close with many
many other Byzantine era MSS produced in the Stoudious scriptorium, and at
Mt. Athos, and in Jerusalem, and in Cappadocia, and in Macedonia, and on
Crete, et cetera. Are all of these coincidences?

Robinson asks:
> legitimately-intended product?

NO

> direction on this point).

Dykes replies:
The differences are very minor, much like those which exist between the
various editions of the KJ Versions -- some accidental, some editorial, some
in an effort to improve. Without colophon(s), special research is required,
of which you are apparently naive of. The results are not always final, nor
can a complete palaeographical, liturgical, codicological, lexical,
linguistic, gesture/symbol analysis, tachyographical analysis, pigment
analysis, illumination style, atelier ID's, menologians, synaxarion, notes,
stichoi readings, corrections, and many many other factors prove conclusive,
but when they ALL agree, one is rash to ignore the overall evidence.  In
fact I have seen a colophon date written in in the original hand which was
wrong!  This research takes time, and has not been done for many Byzantine
era MSS.  But via my preliminary investigations, your suppositions are
suspect.

Robinson wrote:
   Dykes wrote:
> tend to agree.

Dykes replies:
You apparently failed to make the connection. I used their research (which
you must read before you can grasp it), to show that my research is similar,
for the Byzantine standard text rules supreme, but seems to be subject to
more and more dilution the farther it is away from Constantinople's control
(geographically).  Thus a MS like 1241 could be found at St. Catherine's (if
indeed it is as you say it is), and a MS like 124 can be made in Calabria.
recall that not all peoples and scribes in the Provincial areas were
sympathetic with the Byzantine theology, major disputes often occurred, and
the MS survivors mirror this, in subtle ways.  Also must I inform you that
the surviving monasteries became the places into which many outlying MSS
were later deposited for safekeeping, MSS which may have had very little to
do with that monasteries scribal activities?

> wide margin. More apples and oranges.

Dykes replies:
Doctrinal errors (or intentional changes) are probably more subtle than you
suspect. Often it can be seen as a phonetic error (a simple change in
tense), or a punctuation change, or even a minor accent change. Note I am
NOT saying that all changes are doctrinal, but I am suggesting that more are
than you are apparently aware of.

Yes Ehrman focuses upon doctrinal changes, but they are ALL textual, usually
he points the reader to obvious ones which exhibit omissions and additions.
But Ehrman has just touched the tip of the iceberg. His brief introduction
cannot fully show all of the textual (grammatical et cetera) changes. He
states as much in his conclusion. Ehrman and I agree, scribes did
intentionally alter their texts.  John 1:18 is a good one for practice, by
studying it, you may begin to see a pattern, and after studying thousands of
such variations you may then be able to speak with authority.

I look forward to your new work, how and where and when can I obtain it? I
am not sure where you expertise is (teaching ?), so please inform me of your
specialties. It is hard to share certain new materials with anyone who is
not famaliar with the specialized techniques involved. Knowing more about
your expertise can assist with my answering of your questions, and dealing
better with your input.

And again, my next reply to you will be off-line, as I do not wish to
further bore the TC list with my preliminary researches or specializations.
Though I am always available for questions, or discussion.

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

---

From: "Maurice A. Robinson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:56:25 EDT

On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:21:26 -0700 "Mr. Gary S. Dykes"
<[email-masked]> writes:

>Apples and oranges, lectionaries were predisposed to sectarian 
>manipulations much more so that the accepted Biblical text.

Since my point cannot be grasped, further discussion is futile. The
remainder of this response proves it.

>Not all MSS written for private use or for sale were commissioned, and 
>you cite no evidence to verify your theory. 

The point under discussion concerned commissioned MSS. There certainly
are known commissioned MSS, with no evidence those commissioning such
ever dictated the type of text to be followed. That alone was the
original point, with no evidence extant to support the contrary. 

>Several  MSS produced in Latin Jerusalem were commissioned, and they had
to >confrom to a particular text-type, which was NOT the text-type which
was >predominate in Palestine, I present ms Vatican lat 5974, written
circa A. D. 1180. >You must discount this proof. 

Since this "proof" does not concern Greek NT MSS at all, it is
irrelevant. The transmissional history of the Latin versions, including
the Vulgate, is a wholly different matter.

>> Pray tell then _which_ MS is the "standard" among the Sinai MSS?  
>>Answer: there is none, despite a general Byzantine Textform seen among
most 
>>of  the minuscules there. Otherwise, even these differ significantly 
>>enough among themselves to rule out any "true standard" text to which
they 
>>were obligated to conform.
>
>Dykes replies:
>Your answer gives no proof. 

Actually, I (and who knows who else) despair of ever getting to the point
of providing "proof" which you could recognize or accept. The point was
clear in the statement above. 

>I presented 1879 and 1878 as examples of the
>Ecclesiastical Byzantine Standard at Mt. Sinai (St. Catherines). This 
>text served also in many of their liturgical commentaries by monks known
to 
>have spent years at Sinai

As noted, I am not working with the Pauline MSS, and will not attempt to
address that with which I am not personally familiar. I still would ask 
_why_, if those two MSS were the "Ecclesiastical Byzantine Standard"
(whether at Sinai or elsewhere), other MSS containing the same portions
of text found at those same institutions do _not_ conform to such a
standard, if indeed there ever was such a standard with "controls"
imposed? The MSS simply differ among themselves, and vary widely, from
any supposed enforced  "standard". 

>(John Klimax, was an early one, his works evoke
>necessity for good works, water baptism, yet he also dealt  very 
>little upon the Virgin Mary). 

What this has to do with Byzantine continuous-text MSS and a "standard"
text is beyond me. Do you have a monograph prepared on "The NT text of
John Climacus?" with its textual alignments established by a recognized
method?  I didn't think so.

>The standard is clearly preserved in numerous MSS still at
>St. Catherines. If your study (I am amazed that your study of it 
>proved otherwise!) of 1878 did not convince you then also study:
>ms 1243  (most of its text) ]
>ms. 1245

As I stated (how many times before??), I am _not_ working with MSS in the
Pauline Epistles and thus have _no_ comment to make either way in that
regard.  Thus I have _no_ "study" to cite regarding MS 1878. Let others
comment on this point (if they dare).

HOWEVER, you now add in two MSS which contain the gospels as well as Paul
(MSS 1243, of cent. xi, and MS 2492, of cent. xiv), and I can give you
clear and definite information regarding the performance of those two MSS
in the portion Jn 7:51-8:13:  in that portion of text, these two MSS
differ **significantly** from one another -- even in the portions of text
_surrounding_ and _not_ including the Pericope Adulterae! They simply are
_not_ textually alike or related to each other in _any_ way when their
variant readings are examined in this gospel portion.  So much for
"standards". 

>After you have carefully studied these, you should come to the 
>conclusion that a singular text is present in all of these (plus 1878,
1879).

On the basis of that stated above, I have serious doubts.

>Interestingly, these particular MSS also agree extremely close with 
>many many other Byzantine era MSS produced in the Stoudious scriptorium,

>and at Mt. Athos, and in Jerusalem, and in Cappadocia, and in Macedonia,
and 
>on Crete, et cetera. Are all of these coincidences?

Since I don't concur (on the basis of the hard evidence cited), I doubt
very much that these same MSS agree any more than typical Byzantine MSS
happen to agree as regards a non-enforced common text.  Why didn't those
two agree in the gospel portion cited if they as a complete product were
intended to reflect a standardized text of any sort? Cite any other MSS
which also are extant in that portion of John's gospel, and I can speak
definitively; otherwise, continued discussion of these points as regards
only the Paulines is merely talking past each other, and a waste of time.

>Without colophon(s), special research is required,
>of which you are apparently naive of. 

It seems I already addressed this point, and agreed on the importance of
determining provenance by colophons, palaeography, and a multitude of
other means. Did you miss that point?  *Me* naive?  I suppose I am; I'm
responding to this discussion, right? I give up....

>I have seen a colophon date written in in the original hand which 
>was wrong!  

Amazing. So have I. But many colophons are written by a hand much later 
than that of the original scribe (cf. Clark's _Descriptive Catalog_ for
specific instances). What is the point, except that colophons alone do
not determine either date or provenance, and on this we agree.

>But via my preliminary investigations, your suppositions are suspect.

Good. And by my investigations, so are yours. Welcome to the club.

>Thus a MS like 1241 could be found at St. Catherine's (if

I fail to see the point. As for MS 1241 it has long been available in
collation form (Lake and New, _Six Collations_, 1932), and the
conclusions regarding its text are hardly "my" say-so. That f13 MSS have
an ultimate Calabrian origin is also old news. 

>Ehrman and I agree, scribes did intentionally alter their texts.  John
1:18 is a good >one for practice, by studying it, you may begin to see a
pattern, and after studying 
>thousands of such variations you may then be able to speak with
authority.

Right. Thanks for the tip. One day I hope to actually begin studying some
variants. :-)  

As an aside:  Bart, I'm glad you have a friend on this point, especially
when (as I recall) you defend as original the Byzantine text at Jn 1:18
while other modern eclectics favor the Alexandrian reading. It must have
been your studying those thousands of variants which got you on the right
track at that point. (And yes I _am_ being sarcastic). :-)

>further bore the TC list with my preliminary researches or 

Don't worry. I have ended the off-line discussion before it begins. There
happen to be certain limits, and mine have been reached.

My contribution to this thread is now (mercifully) ended. :-)

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