From owner-tc-list Sat Jun 1 10:23:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA13383; Sat, 1 Jun 1996 10:20:22 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <9606011417.AA14060@mail.uni-muenster.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 01 Jun 96 16:20:29 +0100 Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 6581 On Wed, 29 May 1996, Rober B. Waltz wrote: >The number of differences between B and Aleph is not really the >point. The point is that there are several witnesses tightly >clustered around B (including p75 T sahidic). There are also >witnesses clustered (rather more loosely) around Aleph. >We tend to speak of only two levels of textual groupings: families >and text-types. >But there are intermediate levels (I think the term "tribes" has >been used). >I think the existence of a "B tribe" can be accepted without >question. There may well be an "Aleph tribe" as well. But are >these tribes members of the same text-type? The question is not >being addressed. I may again refer to Larry W. Hurtado's point: "Discussion of 'text-types' raises the question of what we mean." This point is well taken, though I found Larry's referrence to the Epp essay on _The significance of the Papyri..._ not very helpful in this respect. If we add further labels ("family", "tribe") the same question ("of what we mean") occurs. Colwell defines the labels as follows (Hort-Redivivus: A Plea and a Program; Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the NT, 1969, pp. 162f): a.) "The 'family' is a group of manuscripts so closely related to each other...that a stemma can be reconstructed and the archetype, or its text, reconstructed. Examples are family 1, and family II". b.) The 'tribe' is a group of families with looser relationships between families, yet a group whose interrelationships are relatively close, relative -that is- to the looser relationships of the members of a text-type. The tribe is thus defined by its position between the family and the text-type...The classic example of confusion in the terms applied is the Caesarean Group, called Family Theta by Streeter and a text-type by others. It now seems that it is neither". c.) "The 'text-type' is the largest identifiable group of manuscripts. It has a longer life span than most families or tribes. Thus it will have some members that may be weaker than the members of either of these smaller groups. Examples of text-types are Kenyon's Beta (Hort's Neutral), and Kenyon's Alpha (Hort's Syrian)". Therefore, Bob, if you wish, you may identify a "B tribe" and an "Aleph tribe" as well. But, as you can see from Colwell's definition, though he describes the relationship between tribes and families ("tribe is a group of families"), yet he gives no clear description of the relationships between text-types and families and text-types and tribes. To my mind, it is not clear therefrom, if and how the split of "text-types" (granted their existence) into various "tribes" affects the consistency of "text-types". Or, to take it from the other side, if and how the existence of "tribes" precludes, or weakens their grouping together under the heading "text-type", or a least makes it irrelevant. I suspect, Colwell's definition of "tribe" was almost exclusively inspired by the "Caesarean Group", presumably to cope with this problem. The question of "text-types", I think, Colwell holds to be settled by his famous 70 percent criterion of group support for the existence of text-types. On Fri, 31 May 1996, Bob wrote: >I must insert here a strong argument *against* the Colwell >definition of a text-type. Two, in fact. >The first is the use of exact numbers in deciding text-types. >Unless we are prepared to examine *all* variations in the >manuscripts involved (as Hurtado, >to his credit, did), the numbers mean nothing. If we use a >comparison based on sampling, the rate of agreement between >manuscripts will depend on the sample being taken. >[...] >The cut-off line for defining a text-type *must* depend on the >sample. >But even for a particular sample, I don't think we can fix a >cut-off and say, "All manuscripts that meet this criterion belong >to this text-type." The great problem with the Colwell definition >is that it ignores mixture. >Take a manuscript like 424. Even after diligent correction, it is >still more Byzantine than anything else. Depending on the sample, >it might well be rated as 70% Byzantine. But is it a Byzantine manuscript? Well, maybe... >but what makes it interesting is not the 75% of the text that is >Byzantine, but the 25% that agrees very closely with 1739 6 etc. >[...] >Which leads to another problem: Can a text-type be defined without >a "core text"? This is precisely the problem of the "Caesarean >text." If one omits p45 and W (as Hurtado has shown we should), >there is no "core" Caesarean witness. Does this mean that the >Caesarean text *cannot* exist? I think that too strong an >argument. >Note that I am not saying that the Caesarean text *does* exist; >that remains to be settled. I'm just saying that we cannot use >Colwell's definition to settle the matter. I totally agree with that. I may even add another suspicion: Colwells famous 70 percent criterion of group support for the existence of text-types was almost exlusively inspired by the Aleph-B group support. If one chooses an 80 percent group support, Aleph and B would only sporadically reach the limit (if one chooses 85 percent, hardly ever), and so by consequence would not belong to one and the same quantitatively defined text-type. On the other hand 80 or 85 percent group support is a relatively poor description of the Byzantine text. The vast majority of NT MSS (some 80 percent) have a group support of around 90 percent. To my mind, all the textual complexions commonly labeled as "text-types" reveal intra-group alignments of different quantity and different quality. We should not even the differences in order to retain our well known "text-types". The least we have to do is to honestly make clear the points of difference. If we wish to have for example Aleph and B forming a "text-type" or belonging to one, we have to admit that this "text-type" is essentially different in quantity and quality with referrence to its intra-group alignments than for example a Byzantine "text-type". Even if a dynamic element is added to the picture of a "text-type" (as Colwell and more strongly Epp emphasize), the dynamisms are of a different kind. One simply can not compare the intra-Byzantine textual shifts of at least the later strata with the supposed intra-"Alexandrian" ("early" and "late") shifts. So here I end up where I started: "Discussion of 'text-types' raises the question of what we mean" (Larry W. Hurtado). Any proposals what YOU mean, Larry, Bob,...? Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Sun Jun 2 12:03:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA16740; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 12:02:26 -0400 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 96 10:59 CDT X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 10564 On Sat, 01 Jun 96, schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote, in part: >So here I end up where I started: "Discussion of 'text-types' raises the >question of what we mean" (Larry W. Hurtado). Any proposals what YOU mean, >Larry, Bob,...? Thanks to Ulrich Schmid for reminding me of the *essential* point of this discussion. As I thought about that question, I realized that I was not prepared to answer it. The starting point for defining a text-type is "The largest group of texts that can be recognized as displaying kinship." This is a correct definition, but unfortunately not very useful; it's too vague. We need to look for something better. It seems to me that there are in fact *five* levels of relationship that we can recognize. I don't claim to have proper names for them, but let me outline them so we have some terminology to work with. 1) The "tight" family. These manuscripts are so closely associated that we can prepare an actual stemma. Examples would be 209-205-205abs or certain of the subgroups of family 13. I suspect that there are other examples among the Byzantine text. 2) The "loose" family. This consists of manuscripts that cannot actually be placed in an exact stemma, but among which we can find relationships that can be clearly defined. Families 1 and 13 fall under this category. I would also include family 2138 in the Catholics. For the most part we cannot tell which members of this family are sisters or descendents of one another, but we can group it. For instance, 614 and 2412 go together. So do 1505 and 2495. So do 630 and 1799. For this family we can create a sort of quasi-stemma, knowing that each of the lines of the diagram may represent one manuscript or several. Family 2138 Archetype | --------------------------------------------------------- | | | | ------ ------- ------- ---------------- | | | | | | | | | | 2138 | 1505 | 2412 | 630 1799 | | 1611 2495 614 206 429 3) The "tight" tribe. This consist of manuscripts, all descended from a common archetype, which are too distant from each other to form even the sort of stemma shown above, but which are close enough that we can at least assess relationships to the archetypes. An example of this is family 1739 in Paul. Here we can say, for instance, that 1739 and 0243 are closely related at a level only slightly removed from the archetype (I believe they are first cousins, with their common ancestor being about three removes from the archetype). 6 and 424** are related to each other within the family, but split off at a slightly earlier point and have both suffered extensive Byzantine influence (with 6 receiving more corrections of the late Byzantine type). 1881 split off at about the same point as 1739, but comes from a different family and has suffered more corruptions. And so forth. 4) The "loose" tribe. Consisting of manuscripts descended from a common archetype but which cannot be placed within the structure of the tribe. An example of this would be the "B group" that I described earlier (B, p75, T, Sahidic, L). The five go together, but their exact relationships generally cannot be determined, except to say something like, "B is a good text; L has been corrupted." 5) The "text-type." These are related manuscripts that *do not* derive directly from a single common ancestor (other than the autographs). It is evident, at least to me, that the final definition is the poorest of the three. All I've really said is that a text-type is something looser than a loose tribe. That's not much help. Another thing that needs to be noted in using these definitions is the role of the Byzantine text. No matter what one thinks of the origin of that text, Byzantine mixture is the single most important element in the history of the text. In "tight" families, there is no Byzantine influence at all. Or more correctly, what separates the members of the family is not Byzantine influence; the family text may be heavily Byzantine. But all that separates the family members is the errors and peculiarities of scribes. In "loose" families, Byzantine influence begins to appear. In family 2138, for instance, all members of the family seem to disagree with the (hypothetical) archetype by about 10-20%. But in every case we find that the divergence is Byzantine. Either the manuscript displays the family text, or it displays a Byzantine reading. There are *no* instance of other readings (at least, none that I've noticed). In "tight" tribes, Byzantine influence becomes important, as do the side effects of many generations of copying. Still, there is no sign of influence other than the Byzantine. In "loose" tribes, we see evidence of mixture from sources other than the Byzantine text. Thus L, in the gospels, is mostly a mixture of p75/B readings and Byzantine readings, but has a few readings that seem to belong to a different non-Byzantine strain (perhaps from the Aleph group, or possibly from some later phase of the Alexandrian text -- what the Alands apparently call the "Egyptian" text, though I can't see how this differs from Hort's "Alexandrian" text). Incidentally, I have found that one *cannot* define the exact level of a relationship simply by looking at statistics. One must compare the actual documents over at least a few chapters of text. In cases where I have not been able to do so (e.g. family 2127, where I am largely dependent on Merk's inaccurate collations), I cannot define the precise nature of the family. Family 2127 could, from what I know, be a "loose" family or a "tight" tribe. This system comes out of my own method, which works from the bottom up. Taking Paul as an example, I start by looking for tight families. There aren't many of those -- 1739/0243, 1505/2495, and F/G are about all that spring to mind; for our purposes they can largely be ignored. Then I find the "loose" families. There are many more of those -- e.g. 330/451, 1505/1611/2495, perhaps family 2127. Then come the "tight" tribes -- e.g. family 1739, 330/451/2492. Then "loose" tribes, such as certain phases of the Alexandrian text (Aleph/33, 436/1962). Now comes the hard part. We now have to group these tribes, and all the remaining manuscripts, into types. Some types are easy -- e.g. everyone agrees that D F G OL go together, even though they are not close enough to form tribes. But that classifying types is not always easy is shown by the fact that what Hort called one text type (the Alexandrian), Zuntz calls two (the "Alexandrian" and "proto-Alexandrian") and I call three (Alexandrian, p46/B, and family 1739). I think my results are solid and verifiable -- for Paul. I agree with Zuntz that D/F/G/, Aleph/A/C/I/33, and p46/B are distinct. (Though the Bohairic goes with Aleph, not p46/B!) And since family 1739 is distinct from all three, and closer to the other three than they are to each other, it stands alone and deserves to be considered its own text-type (indeed, it looks on examination to be the closest type to the original. But that is irrelevant to the argument here). This is the part of Colwell's definition that works best: the *gap*. There is a clear gap between *all four* of my proposed text-types and the Byzantine text (if one sets aside mixed manuscripts). There is a slightly smaller gap between D/F/G and the other three groups. And a still smaller, but still very distinct, gap between p46/B, family 1739, and Aleph/A/C/I/33. Of course, this gap needs to be measured only among the non-Byzantine readings of the witnesses. If we allow in Byzantine readings, the gaps become much harder to see. But this sort of technique does not work for the gospels. There the lines are *not* clear. The D type, since it has only one Greek witness, is vague. The "Caesarean" witnesses have a tendency to smear out between B and D. (For instance, family 1 is notably more Alexandrian than Theta or family 13.) Even the later Alexandrian witnesses don't fall into neat categories. The two best-known "Alexandrian" minuscules, 33 and 892, fall generally between B and Aleph (with, of course, a lot of Byzantine influence also). Having come to this non-conclusion, I went to the textbooks -- and found very little. Hort really doesn't say what a text-type is. Turning to the introductory manuals in English, I found that: * Greenlee does not define text-types, just gives a (not very accurate) list of which manuscripts belong to which types * Aland/Aland use the term but never define it (they rarely define anything!) * Metzger devotes a few pages to determining textual relationships, but only at a low level * Vaganay/Amphoux devotes much more attention to text-types -- but in the end defines the text-types *historically* rather than in terms of manuscripts I obviously couldn't check over every book on the subject, or even every book in my library, in two days, but looking through specialized studies was hardly more helpful. We've already noted the classical work by Colwell. It does a good job of describing the problem and what needs to be done -- but then gives us the useless 70% definition. Epp and Fee is devoted mostly to individual readings, not text-types. Epp does devote some attention to the subject -- the well-known "trajectory" theory -- but I could not find any usable definition. Wisse's work on the Claremont Profile Method deals only with low-level relationships. I can't really tell how Richards defines text-types -- but the system is clearly wrong, because he lumps family 2138 with the Alexandrian text! The most recent work I could find -- by Thomas C. Geer in Studies & Documents 46 -- is little more than a plea for complete collations of all manuscripts. To sum up: If there is *any* reliable modern definition of a text-type, I can't find it. Basically people are still saying, "I know one when I see one." So now you can see why I brought up the question of the relationship between B and Aleph. I could, with enough work, state a definition of a text-type that works for Paul or the Catholics, and presumably for Acts or the Apocalypse. I can't yet do so for the Gospels. And, obviously, until I/we do I/we cannot assess the relationship between B and Aleph or among the "Caesarean" witnesses. I welcome anyone's thoughts. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Sun Jun 2 14:05:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA17022; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 14:04:39 -0400 Message-Id: Date: Sun, 2 Jun 96 14:03:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: gor@pop.web.apc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: gor@web.apc.org (Dwight Nelson) Subject: All or some Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1019 TC'ers: This isn't the usual sort of question to end up here, but I'm having trouble getting other NT lists to respond to my queries so I figured I'd give this list a try- seems that I fall between something and something else but no one is quite sure what. If anyone can suggest a list which deals with textual problems etc. of a more literary nature, please let me know, as that is probably where I belong. The question: Does anyone know why it is that in Matthew 28:17b the usual translation is 'but some doubted'. The little I've been able to get hold of regarding this trans. indicates that the inclusion of 'some' is an exception to what would usually be 'but doubted'. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is this a bit of subjectivism/bias on the part of our forebears, or is there an explanation outside of someone not wanting all of the disciples to be cast in a bad light? While from a textual standpoint this may not seem to be much, from a homiletical perspective it's one hell of a problem. Dwight Nelson From owner-tc-list Sun Jun 2 14:27:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA17073; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 14:26:50 -0400 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 14:23:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 5089 I appreciate Bob Waltz' attempts to list the five major categories of textual relationship. I think he did a fine job of categorization. I do have one significant point of difference, however, and this naturally is based upon my own transmissional theoretical perspective: On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > 5) The "text-type." These are related manuscripts that *do not* derive > directly from a single common ancestor (other than the autographs). By my own definition this would exclude the Byzantine from being a texttype, which is indeed why I use the term "Textform" to describe the Byzantine text. > Another thing that needs to be noted in using these definitions is the role of > the Byzantine text. No matter what one thinks of the origin of that text, > Byzantine mixture is the single most important element in the history of the > text. The problem here from my perspective is the use of "Byzantine mixture", when if looked at from a Byzantine-priority hypothesis, there is no real "mixture" occurring, but merely cases where either (a) certain MSS did not deviate from the Byzantine Textform itself or (b) such MSS were corrected back to the reading of the Byzantine Textform. Certainly cases of the first category would not reflect any real "mixture," but merely a refusal or resistance to departure from the Byzantine Textform standard. Cases of category (b) would not reflect "mixture" as much as "restoration" based upon cross-comparison and correction in the normal course of events. > In "tight" families, there is no Byzantine influence at all. Or more > correctly, what separates the members of the family is not Byzantine > influence; the family text may be heavily Byzantine. But all that separates > the family members is the errors and peculiarities of scribes. This is a good assessment. I would add to this that the errors and peculiarities of scribes do not account for all the family idiosyncracies, but usually there is some influence exercised by a non-Byzantine tradition involved as well. Bob may differ with me on this, but I suspect much of the non-Byz influence comes from Alexandrian readings as found in the Vulgate, with slight Alexandrian influence from other non-Greek versions. By the time most of these late MSS are copied, there is little question that Alexandrian Greek MSS are any longer predominant, even in regional locations, and I suspect therefore versional or patristic/versional influence. This will account not only for certain idiosyncracies of the "tight" families, but also for those later minuscules which are consistently cited in the UBS edition as presenting a text which at times differs significantly from the remainder of the Byzantine tradition. The one thing that I would not want to claim in such situations is "Byzantine mixture" when it appears the REAL "mixture" is that which comes in at such a late date from wholly extraneous sources. > We've already noted the classical work by Colwell. It does a > good job of describing the problem and what needs to be done -- but then gives > us the useless 70% definition. Certainly Colwell's 70% criterion is hypothetical and selected basically at random, but I would not concur that it is useless. There really should be SOME basic criterion by which to assess texttype alignment, but it might have to differ with each accepted texttype. For the Byzantine Textform, Waltz is correct that really a 90% cutoff level would be preferable. Pickering and Hodges/Farstad lowered that to 80%; my own edition merely accepted Colwell's 70% (which I still think is reasonably valid). But for the Alexandrian texttype, one needs to lower the standard even further, into the 60%-70% base, with some cases dropping into the high 50% range. The Western text (or non-texttype) is in even worse shape, with often a 51%-53% amount of agreement to establish a reading as belonging to that texttype. I suspect in the case of the Western that some readings in the 40%-50% range are still clearly of the "Western type" (whatever that might mean), but in dropping below 50% tend to indicate that such were only sporadically perpetuated rather than maintaining a dominant position within the type. > To sum up: If there is *any* reliable modern definition of a text-type, I > can't find it. Basically people are still saying, "I know one when I see one." I know the Byzantine when I see it. I know in general the Alexandrian when I see what remains of it. I know the Western from some of its individual readings, and I know the Caesarean only in certain patterns of mixture between Alexandrian and Byzantine readings. I'm not sure that we can move quantitatively beyond the qualitative in the search for the definition of a texttype. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sun Jun 2 14:43:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA17122; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 14:42:07 -0400 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 14:40:59 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Re: All or some Cc: gor@web.apc.org Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1970 Dwight Nelson wrote: >TC'ers: This isn't the usual sort of question to end up here, but I'm having >trouble getting other NT lists to respond to my queries so I figured I'd >give this list a try- seems that I fall between something and something else >but no one is quite sure what. If anyone can suggest a list which deals with >textual problems etc. of a more literary nature, please let me know, as that >is probably where I belong. >The question: Does anyone know why it is that in Matthew 28:17b the usual >translation is 'but some doubted'. The little I've been able to get hold of >regarding this trans. indicates that the inclusion of 'some' is an exception >to what would usually be 'but doubted'. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but >is this a bit of subjectivism/bias on the part of our forebears, or is there >an explanation outside of someone not wanting all of the disciples to be >cast in a bad light? >While from a textual standpoint this may not seem to be much, from a >homiletical perspective it's one hell of a problem. >Dwight Nelson Dwight I'm not sure I understand the question well enough to help directly, but one source that I've found very useful on exactly this sort of question is the series "UBS Helps for Translators". In particular _A Handbook on The Gospel of Matthew_ contains a discussion of about 3/4 of a page on the phrase "but some doubted", discussing various aspects that translators --and by extension those dealing with homiletical matters-- should be concerned with when translating this passage and offering (and evaluating) several alternative translations from several standard modern translations. The books are available from ABS, and although there is one volume per biblical book (although not all books are included) the prices are quite reasonable. Hope this helps Nichael nichael@sover.net __ http://www.sover.net/~nichael Be as passersby -- IC From owner-tc-list Sun Jun 2 16:19:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA17370; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 16:18:13 -0400 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 16:15:04 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: jwest@SunBelt.Net (Jim West) Subject: Re: All or some X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <01I5FTR5N2ZM8X4455@InfoAve.Net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1181 >The question: Does anyone know why it is that in Matthew 28:17b the usual >translation is 'but some doubted'. The little I've been able to get hold of >regarding this trans. indicates that the inclusion of 'some' is an exception >to what would usually be 'but doubted'. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but >is this a bit of subjectivism/bias on the part of our forebears, or is there >an explanation outside of someone not wanting all of the disciples to be >cast in a bad light? >Dwight Nelson > The best place to look is a good commentary on MT. I might suggest Eduard Schweizer's. I would, for my part, say that the translators are grappling with the problem of translating a very simple Greek sentence into an English sentence that makes some sense. Literally the clause reads "the (pl. masc. def. art.) but (postpositive "de") they doubted (3rd plural aorist verb)" "hoi de" seems to serve as a colloquialism for something like our english "some" = "but some doubted". I don't think there is any desire among translators to cover up this doubt- they are just struggling with the everpresent difficulty of making one language make sense in another. Yours, Jim West From owner-tc-list Sun Jun 2 22:18:47 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA18324; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 22:17:36 -0400 From: Harrison88@aol.com Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 22:14:19 -0400 Message-ID: <960602221418_547908711@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: samuel Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 438 hey, does anybody know of anyone who uses the story of Saul and the witch of endor to discuss what happens to the soul after physical death. ive been reading up on the intermediate stage and some soul sleep material. and no one ever mentions that story. i sometimes use that story when talking to annilationists(sp) (mostly jehovah's witnesses) to refute that argument, cuz if saul didnt exist, how could he talk thanx for any help From owner-tc-list Sun Jun 2 22:45:41 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA18460; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 22:44:13 -0400 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 21:46:51 +0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton L. Winbery) Subject: Re: All or some Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1663 Dwight Nelsonwrote; >TC'ers: This isn't the usual sort of question to end up here, but I'm having >trouble getting other NT lists to respond to my queries so I figured I'd >give this list a try- seems that I fall between something and something else >but no one is quite sure what. If anyone can suggest a list which deals with >textual problems etc. of a more literary nature, please let me know, as that >is probably where I belong. >The question: Does anyone know why it is that in Matthew 28:17b the usual >translation is 'but some doubted'. The little I've been able to get hold of >regarding this trans. indicates that the inclusion of 'some' is an exception >to what would usually be 'but doubted'. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but >is this a bit of subjectivism/bias on the part of our forebears, or is there >an explanation outside of someone not wanting all of the disciples to be >cast in a bad light? >While from a textual standpoint this may not seem to be much, from a >homiletical perspective it's one hell of a problem. > The article can be used with MEN . . . DE in the sense of an alternative pronoun. When in the plural, it can mean "some on the one hand and some on the other." On occasion it can be used just with DE in the same way. The two examples in the NT cited in the old Thayers lexicon without MEN are Matt. 26:67 and 28:17. The using of the plural article with DE indicates the need for the translation "some." When the plural article is used in this way the only thing that you can be sure of is that two or more participated in the alternative action. Carlton L. Winbery Fogleman Professor of Religion Louisiana College From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 3 08:59:00 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA19922; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 08:57:53 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 96 07:54 CDT X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 7963 On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: >I appreciate Bob Waltz' attempts to list the five major categories of >textual relationship. I think he did a fine job of categorization. I do >have one significant point of difference, however, and this naturally is >based upon my own transmissional theoretical perspective: Now if I only had names for the five categories! >On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >> 5) The "text-type." These are related manuscripts that *do not* derive >> directly from a single common ancestor (other than the autographs). > >By my own definition this would exclude the Byzantine from being a >texttype, which is indeed why I use the term "Textform" to describe the >Byzantine text. I think I missed something here.... If I read this correctly, you are claiming that all Byzantine manuscripts derive from one archetype which is *not* the autograph. If so, what is its superiority? >> Another thing that needs to be noted in using these definitions is the >>role of >> the Byzantine text. No matter what one thinks of the origin of that text, >> Byzantine mixture is the single most important element in the history of the >> text. > >The problem here from my perspective is the use of "Byzantine mixture", >when if looked at from a Byzantine-priority hypothesis, there is no real >"mixture" occurring, but merely cases where either (a) certain MSS did not >deviate from the Byzantine Textform itself or (b) such MSS were corrected >back to the reading of the Byzantine Textform. Certainly cases of the >first category would not reflect any real "mixture," but merely a refusal >or resistance to departure from the Byzantine Textform standard. Cases >of category (b) would not reflect "mixture" as much as "restoration" >based upon cross-comparison and correction in the normal course of events. This is only a difference in terminology, but I think we should clear it up. "Mixture" is not a measure of value, only of ancestry. When a manuscript like 424 is corrected from a Byzantine type toward family 1739, I do not refer to it as "restoration" -- even though in almost every case I believe that this correction restores the original reading. Mixture is just that: Mixture. It can go in any direction (as 424 proves. I also suspect that the pair 630/2200 were originally Byzantine and corrected toward other texts). Of course, given the dominant nature of the Byzantine text at the time most manuscripts were copied, it follows that most of the manuscripts were corrected to be closer to the Byzantine text. And that most of them derive from something that is significantly less Byzantine. If I place a low value on the Byzantine element of the mixture, it is not because I think we should ignore the Byzantine text, or automatically assume that the Byzantine text is late. It's just that there are *so many* Byzantine texts available that we do not need the testimony of mixed manuscripts. For all other text-types, we *do* need mixed mss. >> In "tight" families, there is no Byzantine influence at all. Or more >> correctly, what separates the members of the family is not Byzantine >> influence; the family text may be heavily Byzantine. But all that separates >> the family members is the errors and peculiarities of scribes. > >This is a good assessment. I would add to this that the errors and >peculiarities of scribes do not account for all the family >idiosyncracies, but usually there is some influence exercised by a >non-Byzantine tradition involved as well. Bob may differ with me on >this, but I suspect much of the non-Byz influence comes from Alexandrian >readings as found in the Vulgate, with slight Alexandrian influence from >other non-Greek versions. > >By the time most of these late MSS are copied, there is little question >that Alexandrian Greek MSS are any longer predominant, even in regional >locations, and I suspect therefore versional or patristic/versional >influence. This will account not only for certain idiosyncracies of the >"tight" families, but also for those later minuscules which are >consistently cited in the UBS edition as presenting a text which at times >differs significantly from the remainder of the Byzantine tradition. I honestly can't say. I don't think this is true in Paul or the Catholics, but I haven't done enough work in the gospels to have an opinion. >The one thing that I would not want to claim in such situations is >"Byzantine mixture" when it appears the REAL "mixture" is that which >comes in at such a late date from wholly extraneous sources. Whereas, from my perspective, mixture is commutative (to speak mathematically). It doesn't matter whether the manuscript is Byz+f1739 or f1739+Byz; the result is a mixed text. >> We've already noted the classical work by Colwell. It does a >> good job of describing the problem and what needs to be done -- but then >>gives >> us the useless 70% definition. > >Certainly Colwell's 70% criterion is hypothetical and selected basically >at random, but I would not concur that it is useless. There really should >be SOME basic criterion by which to assess texttype alignment, but it >might have to differ with each accepted texttype. For the Byzantine >Textform, Waltz is correct that really a 90% cutoff level would be >preferable. Did I say that? I agree that the number has to be high... but 90% might exclude family Pi, which most people consider Byzantine. Maurice has hinted elsewhere that he does *not* consider family Pi Byzantine. I would welcome his (or anyone's) thoughts on that. >Pickering and Hodges/Farstad lowered that to 80%; my own edition merely >accepted Colwell's 70% (which I still think is reasonably valid). But for >the Alexandrian texttype, one needs to lower the standard even further, >into the 60%-70% base, with some cases dropping into the high 50% range. >The Western text (or non-texttype) is in even worse shape, with often a >51%-53% amount of agreement to establish a reading as belonging to that >texttype. > >I suspect in the case of the Western that some readings in the 40%-50% >range are still clearly of the "Western type" (whatever that might mean), >but in dropping below 50% tend to indicate that such were only >sporadically perpetuated rather than maintaining a dominant position >within the type. The *basic* reason I cannot accept Colwell's 70% rule is because of mixture. Since I keep mentioning 424, let's mention it again. Even after correction, 424 is probably 70% Byzantine. But the remaining 30% is pure family 1739, and we can easily identify those readings (since they are corrections). Any definition we come up with *must* allow for 424's kinship with family 1739. Colwell's rule doesn't. In fact, by Colwell's rule, *only one* minuscule (33) qualifies as Alexandrian in Paul, and one other (1739) qualifies as independent. A few others (1175, 1506, 1962, 2127) are mixed. Everything else -- including such important and/or well-known witnesses as 104 326 330 1505 1611 -- is Byzantine! >> To sum up: If there is *any* reliable modern definition of a text-type, I >> can't find it. Basically people are still saying, "I know one when I see >>one." > >I know the Byzantine when I see it. I know in general the Alexandrian >when I see what remains of it. I know the Western from some of its >individual readings, and I know the Caesarean only in certain patterns of >mixture between Alexandrian and Byzantine readings. I'm not sure that we >can move quantitatively beyond the qualitative in the search for the >definition of a texttype. I'm glad somebody agrees with me as to the problem. :-) But if we cannot even agree on how to define a text-type, I have to think that Epp is right and we are still in an "interlude" in textual criticism. Without a definition of a text-type, how can we possibly formulate a theory of the text? I think we need help! Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 3 10:40:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA20359; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 10:39:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 09:36:10 -0500 (CDT) From: "Larry W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3011 As to Colwell's suggested quantitative definition of a "text-type" (70% or better agreement in relevant variation-units), I've always taken his intention as somewhat pragmatic and ad hoc. That is, because the term "text-type" itself begs the question of what the term means, Colwell suggests that we start "empirically" with something and then "inductively" proceed. In this case, he suggested we start with what few will dispute (other than Hoskier?): That if there is anything like "text-type" agreement it is probably manifested/demonstrated in the Aleph-B relation in the Gospels. Now, when Colwell tested out his proposed method of collating a selection of major witnesses against one another, what he got was an Aleph-B agreement consistently in excess of 70%. So, translating the Aleph-B relationship into quantitative categories, he offered 70% agreement. There's nothing inflexible or non-negotiable about this, nor is the 70% figure something that exactly defines, so that 67% for example would somehow "fail". Colwell pointed out that the leading Western witnesses don't have the level of agreement he found in Aleph-B. So he suggested that the "Western text" is not the same relatively more cohesive phenomenon that the Aleph-B relationship seems to represent. I've argued that the incorrectly labelled "pre-Caesareans" (esp. W and P45) are (a) not in fact particularly related to the purported major "Caesarean" witnesses (Theta, 565), and (b) that the W-P45 relationship approaches the Aleph-B relationship in most of Mark, but is not as tight a relationship as Aleph-B. This doen'st mean that W and P45 aren't from a common "text-type" (in my view), but it does suggest that "text-type" has be be a bit flexible in what it means, or else W & P45 are (one or both) a bit more loosely members of whatever "text-type" one imagines them to represent than are Aleph & B. In all the recent discussion here I've wanted to suggest that we look carefully at what "text-type" means for us. To my mind, a "text-type" is empirically represented in measurable and significant agreements between/among witnesesses of such amount and kind as to make some kind of special historical relationship the best explanation. In historical terms, however, "text-type" seems to me to refer to a particular kind of scribal behavior. Each text-type seems to me to be distinguished by scribal practices and approaches to copying/transmitting the NT texts. Of course, once a more freely/loosely copied scribe did his work, a more careful scribe could have diligently & faithfully copied the many variants introduced! But still, that faithful copy would indicate that at the (crucial) earlier stages of this textual tradition, this "text-type" is a more edited, more loosely-transmitted kind of text. Of course also, all such judgments are *comparative*, for no ms seems to be completely free of scribally-produced variants. Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 3 18:30:37 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA23757; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 18:28:42 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 96 15:24:36 PDT From: broman@Np.nosc.mil (Vincent Broman) Message-Id: <9606032224.AA16905@Np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: (hurtado@cc.UManitoba.CA) Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3100 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- hurtado@cc.UManitoba.Ca wrote: > As to Colwell's suggested quantitative definition of a "text-type" (70% > or better agreement in relevant variation-units), I've always taken his > intention as somewhat pragmatic and ad hoc. I agree. The problem I have with the "70%" is that we don't presently have clear, universal agreement on how to arrive at the 70 numerator and the 100 denominator. The count of agreements will depend on how you divide up the units of variation and on how you count subvariants. For example, the Text und Textwert series sets up units of variation which can include many tens of words and for which many tens of variant readings must be listed, page after page. In such a unit of variation, two witnesses might differ by some jot or tittle, or by some major rewriting, and the TuT statistics merely count match=1, miss=0. Any agreement statistics can be inflated or deflated by packing the court, i.e. by being more or less inclusive in one's selection of units of variation. Adding lots of minor variations where almost all the witnesses agree anyway makes everyone look more similar. In the bad old days the selected units of variation were just the differences from the TR. Better analysts counted agreements from among all the variants listed in Tischendorf. Colwell chose a roster of witnesses which sample from all the known groups/families/types and formed variation units from that representative universe, possibly discarding singular readings (acc. to some definition). Others have restricted themselves to variants listed in Nestle-Aland, or even in the UBS editions. All these will come up with different denominators in their percentages, which will then be compared against 70/100. I like Hurtado's thinking in saying: > This doen'st mean that W and P45 > aren't from a common "text-type" (in my view), but it does suggest that > "text-type" has be be a bit flexible in what it means, or else W & P45 are > (one or both) a bit more loosely members of whatever "text-type" one > imagines them to represent than are Aleph & B. It makes sense to me that one can formulate some consistent, repeatable measure of affinity, and then report results in terms like: "MSS X and Y are more closely related than W and Theta in Mark, but less closely than 01 and B". Once this is established, then hypotheses can be discussed as to how close they are in genealogical terms. Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil = o 2224 33d St. Phone: +1 619 284 3775 = _ /- _ San Diego, CA 92104-5605 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W = (_)> (_) ___ PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@np.nosc.mil ___ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMbNlyGCU4mTNq7IdAQHW/gP/ZM/gRI/8e0BZJuDvfWSfLdBKF7Yuqfxi Nz5z9skxFyyyIF3OE9dGCwHHtICIW8zklwqPooFUJb3ExYj7xl+/uVbOOjeRd/Hg yI603R91kLrFqCM3+7CpuOp/HxKQUVDNsliyqC7niA/ufvFtzMKSttce8A6MF7Jd hkwC4EriKi8= =fG3H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list Tue Jun 4 09:58:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA26154; Tue, 4 Jun 1996 09:57:04 -0400 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 4 Jun 96 09:55:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: gor@pop.web.apc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: gor@web.apc.org (Dwight Nelson) Subject: Re: All or some Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 265 >Carlton L. Winbery >Fogleman Professor of Religion >Louisiana College > Carleton, much appreciation. Permanently filed your post in my Matthew directory. Ever need any help with Derrida let me know. Dwight Nelson Melrose Park Presbyterian Church Toronto, Canada From owner-tc-list Tue Jun 4 11:17:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA26712; Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:15:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:12:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 6599 On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > >> 5) The "text-type." These are related manuscripts that *do not* derive > >> directly from a single common ancestor (other than the autographs). > >By my own definition this would exclude the Byzantine from being a > >texttype, which is indeed why I use the term "Textform" to describe the > >Byzantine text. > I think I missed something here.... If I read this correctly, you are > claiming that all Byzantine manuscripts derive from one archetype which > is *not* the autograph. If so, what is its superiority? Not at all; I use "Textform" to indicate the original autograph from which all other MSS, families, tribes, and texttypes derive; thus the "Byzantine Textform" takes on the superiority of autograph originality, and is not itself a "texttype" in the normal sense. > This is only a difference in terminology, but I think we should clear it > up. Mixture is just that: Mixture. It can go in any direction I agree with this point, but semantically I still would maintain that such "mixture" when correcting a text BACK to the reading of the autograph is not properly "mixture" per se, but still "restoration." This may be merely a semantic quibble, but I think a distinction needs to be maintained between restoration of the autograph reading by cross-comparison and correction versus true "mixture" whereby the original reading is corrupted by influx from other non-autograph readings. > Of course, given the dominant nature > of the Byzantine text at the time most manuscripts were copied, it > follows that most of the manuscripts were corrected to be closer to > the Byzantine text. And that most of them derive from something that > is significantly less Byzantine. I obviously would not concur on this point. I do agree that the tendency would be for localized texts to move steadily toward a Byzantine form as they begin to be corrected by comparison with MSS from outside their local region. I also agree that the localized variations were themselves movements to varying degrees AWAY from the Byzantine Textform. But I do not concur that most MSS within the wider scope of MS transmission would derive from a non-Byzantine or less-Byzantine model. If this were so, what factors would legitimately, within any normal "process" view, cause non- or less-Byz MSS to become Byzantine? Barring a major textual upheaval, the normal patterns of MS copying and correction would tend to maintain the text which was dominant at any given point of time. > > For the Byzantine Textform, Waltz is correct that really a 90% cutoff > > level would be preferable. > Did I say that? I agree that the number has to be high... but 90% might > exclude family Pi, which most people consider Byzantine. You may not have said that; someone mentioned that amount. This is why I would tend to err on the side of caution, and keep the cutoff percentage lower than necessary, in which case Colwell's 70% works quite well. > Maurice has hinted elsewhere that he does *not* consider family Pi Byzantine. > I would welcome his (or anyone's) thoughts on that. I don't think I said actually that: rather, Family Pi would be a sub-Byzantine category. The MSS within that family are certainly "Byzantine" enough. I would not, however, consider that family nor the Ka group or K1 group as the archetypes of the Byzantine Textform (as, e.g., Von Soden or Lake), since this would imply that the later Kx group was a lesser descendant of one of these smaller families, which is again open to the question of how the normal copying processes could end up producing such a result. I rather opted for the Kx group as more closely reflecting the archetype Byzantine Textform, with the smaller groups being localized variations of the Kx group (the smaller groups obviously affected by "mixture" from otherwise extraneous readings) > Any definition we come up with *must* > allow for 424's kinship with family 1739. Colwell's rule doesn't. This is why I supplement the Colwell rule with Griffith's "Near-Neighbor Clusters" concept. I find that approach works admirably well, and allows a MS like 424 to be "generally" Byzantine, but equally part of a distinctive fam.1739 (and there is no reason why both cannot be true, just as with Family Pi). > >I'm not sure that we > >can move quantitatively beyond the qualitative in the search for the > >definition of a texttype. > > I'm glad somebody agrees with me as to the problem. :-) I do to a point. Obviously we deviate beyond that point, and quite dramatically at that. > But if we cannot even agree on how to define a text-type, I have to think > that Epp is right and we are still in an "interlude" in textual criticism. > Without a definition of a text-type, how can we possibly formulate a theory > of the text? I agree with Epp insofar as Epp is describing modern eclectic theory. Once a wholly different model comes into play (which Epp basically calls for, following up on K.W.Clark in this regard), the "interlude" motif no longer applies. The problem is that those within the eclectic fold are themselves unwilling to consider what Clark called for: the "new angle" or new method of approach, because (as Colwell stated) they have "blinders on their eyes" and "the dead hand of Hort" still weighs heavily upon them. My own Byzantine-priority model does "work", and it works quite consistently and logically (given the constraints of my own hypothesis and model of textual transmission), but -- just as with the rejection of other text-critical hypotheses (e.g., those of A.C.Clark, Dom Henri Quentin, Vinton Dearing, Von Soden, and others), I do not expect or intend to make any inroads within the "normal" fold of modern eclecticism, even supposing that my claim of better support for my own theory might be true. Too many cherished presuppositions would be trampled to death by the imposition of a substitute theory for any real abandonment or capitulation of modern eclecticism to occur; in this Epp remains correct within a modern eclectic context: "We know too much to believe the old; we know too little to create the new." _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ?6;0c [ From owner-tc-list Tue Jun 4 16:04:14 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA28931; Tue, 4 Jun 1996 16:03:07 -0400 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 96 14:59 CDT X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 8498 On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote, in part: > >> This is only a difference in terminology, but I think we should clear it >> up. Mixture is just that: Mixture. It can go in any direction > >I agree with this point, but semantically I still would maintain that >such "mixture" when correcting a text BACK to the reading of the >autograph is not properly "mixture" per se, but still "restoration." >This may be merely a semantic quibble, but I think a distinction needs to >be maintained between restoration of the autograph reading by >cross-comparison and correction versus true "mixture" whereby the >original reading is corrupted by influx from other non-autograph readings. I suppose it depends on which problem one is attacking. In using the terminology you do, you are working from a particular theory: Byzantine priority. Now it's obvious that I don't agree with this theory, but that's not the point. My goal is to start without *any* assumptions. If I construct a textual theory, I want to do it from the bottom up. *Any* assumption about the relationship of texts can lead to invalid results. The obvious example is Richards. In his study of the letters of John, he isolated three non-Byzantine groups. Well and good; Duplacy found the same groups, and so did I. But, because Richards assumes that the only text-types in the General Epistles are the Byzantine and Alexandrian, he proceeds to label *all three* of those groups Alexandrian. It is possible that he is correct in the case of the 1739/1241 group (though I question it), but it is absolutely certain that family 2138 is *not* Alexandrian. If it be objected that elsewhere I have constructed a theory of the text, and even attempted to reconstruct the original text based on it, I will concede that this is true. But that reconstruction is tentative, based on what I know about the manuscripts. It might change if I knew more. And, more to the point, I do not consider that text to be final until the textual complexion of all manuscripts is known. So I maintain that, until we have fully examined that manuscripts, we must refer to the process of adding Byzantine readings to non-Byzantine manuscripts as mixture. Once we've established our text-types, then you can call it what you will. :-) >> Of course, given the dominant nature >> of the Byzantine text at the time most manuscripts were copied, it >> follows that most of the manuscripts were corrected to be closer to >> the Byzantine text. And that most of them derive from something that >> is significantly less Byzantine. > >I obviously would not concur on this point. I do agree that the tendency >would be for localized texts to move steadily toward a Byzantine form as >they begin to be corrected by comparison with MSS from outside their local >region. I also agree that the localized variations were themselves >movements to varying degrees AWAY from the Byzantine Textform. But I do >not concur that most MSS within the wider scope of MS transmission would >derive from a non-Byzantine or less-Byzantine model. If this were so, >what factors would legitimately, within any normal "process" view, cause >non- or less-Byz MSS to become Byzantine? Barring a major textual >upheaval, the normal patterns of MS copying and correction would tend to >maintain the text which was dominant at any given point of time. I must admit that I don't understand that paragraph. So I may be missing the point. But how much do we really know about local texts? We know a little about the text of Egypt from the papyri. But other than that, it seems to me that our knowledge of local texts, especially in the western half of the Roman Empire, is very slight. Looking at the statistics for collections in the (old) Kurzggefasste Liste and in Aland/Aland, it would appear that 40% are in Greece and nearby areas -- areas which would belong to the Patriarchy of Constantinople. Another 40+% are in libraries to which they must have been moved (e.g. London, Oxford, Ann Arbor). Most of the rest are either at Rome or Sinai. So how can we claim to know *anything* about the local text of, say, North Africa (except from patristic writings)? [...] > >> Maurice has hinted elsewhere that he does *not* consider family Pi Byzantine. >> I would welcome his (or anyone's) thoughts on that. > >I don't think I said actually that: rather, Family Pi would be a >sub-Byzantine category. The MSS within that family are certainly >"Byzantine" enough. I would not, however, consider that family nor the Ka >group or K1 group as the archetypes of the Byzantine Textform (as, e.g., >Von Soden or Lake), since this would imply that the later Kx group was a >lesser descendant of one of these smaller families, which is again open to >the question of how the normal copying processes could end up producing >such a result. I rather opted for the Kx group as more closely reflecting >the archetype Byzantine Textform, with the smaller groups being localized >variations of the Kx group (the smaller groups obviously affected by >"mixture" from otherwise extraneous readings) Understood. That makes your earlier statement much clearer. >> Any definition we come up with *must* >> allow for 424's kinship with family 1739. Colwell's rule doesn't. > >This is why I supplement the Colwell rule with Griffith's "Near-Neighbor >Clusters" concept. I find that approach works admirably well, and allows >a MS like 424 to be "generally" Byzantine, but equally part of a >distinctive fam.1739 (and there is no reason why both cannot be true, >just as with Family Pi). That sounds reasonable -- though I do not know the work you mention. Can you tell me was it published? (Thanks in advance.) >> >I'm not sure that we >> >can move quantitatively beyond the qualitative in the search for the >> >definition of a texttype. >> >> I'm glad somebody agrees with me as to the problem. :-) > >I do to a point. Obviously we deviate beyond that point, and quite >dramatically at that. We disagree on results. Method is another question. >> But if we cannot even agree on how to define a text-type, I have to think >> that Epp is right and we are still in an "interlude" in textual criticism. >> Without a definition of a text-type, how can we possibly formulate a theory >> of the text? > >I agree with Epp insofar as Epp is describing modern eclectic theory. >Once a wholly different model comes into play (which Epp basically calls >for, following up on K.W.Clark in this regard), the "interlude" motif no >longer applies. > >The problem is that those within the eclectic fold are themselves >unwilling to consider what Clark called for: the "new angle" or new method >of approach, because (as Colwell stated) they have "blinders on their >eyes" and "the dead hand of Hort" still weighs heavily upon them. > >My own Byzantine-priority model does "work", and it works quite >consistently and logically (given the constraints of my own hypothesis and >model of textual transmission), but -- just as with the rejection of other >text-critical hypotheses (e.g., those of A.C.Clark, Dom Henri Quentin, >Vinton Dearing, Von Soden, and others), I do not expect or intend to make >any inroads within the "normal" fold of modern eclecticism, even >supposing that my claim of better support for my own theory might be >true. > >Too many cherished presuppositions would be trampled to death by the >imposition of a substitute theory for any real abandonment or capitulation >of modern eclecticism to occur; in this Epp remains correct within a >modern eclectic context: "We know too much to believe the old; we know >too little to create the new." It sounds like you and I may suffer from the same degree of frustration, even if for wholly different reasons. As long ago as Lake, people were calling Westcott-Hort a "failure," yet no one has proposed a substitute. Why do you think I started this discussion? Remember, I was offering a deliberate unorthodoxy -- even though I was not sure it was true. Of course, the discussion has now taken a completely different course. But I still maintain that everyone needs to look at our fundamental assumptions -- in this case, the definitions of text-types. In saying this, I can only think of the history of science. At (admittedly irregular) intervals something comes along and completely overturns everything. On that analogy, textual criticism is overdue for a revolution. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Tue Jun 4 17:01:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA29204; Tue, 4 Jun 1996 17:00:56 -0400 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 16:57:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 8386 On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > I suppose it depends on which problem one is attacking. In using the > terminology you do, you are working from a particular theory: Byzantine > priority. Admitted. *;-) > Now it's obvious that I don't agree with this theory, but that's not > the point. > > My goal is to start without *any* assumptions. If I construct a > textual theory, I want to do it from the bottom up. *Any* assumption > about the relationship of texts can lead to invalid results. I suspect that any attempt to start from the bottom up with no assumptions regarding textual groupings or theory will lead to jumbled and inconclusive results (just as you are noting). Since textual criticism cannot be done in a vacuum, I do not think it unreasonable to begin with theories regarding transmissional history before attempting to evaluate the interrelationship among MSS based upon percentage agreements; but this may only be a peculiarity of my own approach. I do not think the results are skewed by my method, nor do I think they are necessarily improved by your method. > If it be objected that elsewhere I have constructed a theory of the > text, and even attempted to reconstruct the original text based on > it, I will concede that this is true. But that reconstruction is > tentative, based on what I know about the manuscripts. It might > change if I knew more. My own textual theory and reconstruction is also based upon what I know about the MSS and copying habits of scribes etc., but it does not require the determination of what I consider the minutiae of MS interrelationships in order to function. Even if the results remain tentative in any reconstruction, the theory still must exist in order to explain the interrelationships. > And, more to the point, I do not consider that text to be final > until the textual complexion of all manuscripts is known. And if such were indeed known, would you REALLY consider your text "final" and/or inviolate as a representation of the autograph? I certainly would not claim such in regard to the Byzantine Textform even were we to possess full collations of all MSS, since the places where the Byzantine MSS are divided would still remain tentative in light of both internal and external evidence. I simply remain skeptical of being able to approach any total level of certainty merely by statistical methods. > So I maintain that, until we have fully examined that manuscripts, > we must refer to the process of adding Byzantine readings to > non-Byzantine manuscripts as mixture. Which, from your perspective, I can understand. From my perspective, I would prefer to maintain the semantic distinction previously mentioned. >> I obviously would not concur on this point. I do agree that the tendency >> would be for localized texts to move steadily toward a Byzantine form as >> they begin to be corrected by comparison with MSS from outside their local >> region. I also agree that the localized variations were themselves >> movements to varying degrees AWAY from the Byzantine Textform. But I do >> not concur that most MSS within the wider scope of MS transmission would >> derive from a non-Byzantine or less-Byzantine model. If this were so, >> what factors would legitimately, within any normal "process" view, cause >> non- or less-Byz MSS to become Byzantine? Barring a major textual >> upheaval, the normal patterns of MS copying and correction would tend to >> maintain the text which was dominant at any given point of time. > I must admit that I don't understand that paragraph. So I may be missing > the point. Let me rephrase simplistically: if local texts existed (and they did), they must have come about as a deviation from the autograph. What was the autograph remains the question. If the autograph were basically the Byzantine Textform, then the local texts in process of time would tend to slowly disappear and become re-amalgamated within the Byzantine Textform through the process of cross-comparison and correction against MSS from other portions of the Greek-speaking Empire. This is a logical and natural conclusion from within my own text-critical perspective. On the other hand, if the local texts were deviations from an autograph which itself was non-Byzantine in character, some other explanation needs to be given as to how and why the deviant local texts did not eventually return to the theoretically "predominant" autograph text which supposedly permeated the Greek-speaking portion of the Empire hitherto, but instead gravitated inexorably toward a Byzantine Textform. > But how much do we really know about local texts? We know a little about > the text of Egypt from the papyri. But other than that, it seems to me > that our knowledge of local texts, especially in the western half of the > Roman Empire, is very slight. I really have no problem with the concept of local texts. The Western text, even though fragmentary and scattered, still seems to be quite clearly divided into European and African forms. The local text of Alexandria can be seen not only in the Greek MSS in varying degrees, but also in the national Coptic texts of that locality; the "Caesarean", though also questionable in nature and essence, still seems to stand midway between the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts, and does seem, from patristic evidence, to have an locale of origin in and around Palestine, with possible spreading from there into the Georgian and Armenian versions. Even some of the Byzantine sub-families likely reflect texts current in a given locality, and that possibly a monastery or even Constantinople. > Looking at the statistics for collections in the (old) Kurzggefasste Liste > and in Aland/Aland, it would appear that 40% are in Greece and nearby > areas -- areas which would belong to the Patriarchy of Constantinople. > Another 40+% are in libraries to which they must have been moved (e.g. > London, Oxford, Ann Arbor). Most of the rest are either at Rome or > Sinai. So how can we claim to know *anything* about the local text > of, say, North Africa (except from patristic writings)? I'm not sure what your point is here: the present localities of MSS have no bearing on the "local text" question, since that goes back to the venues wherein they were originally copied, and the resultant textual alignments which can be discerned among the existing MSS. Of course, if you are starting from scratch and reject the alignments, then nothing is certain. > >This is why I supplement the Colwell rule with Griffith's "Near-Neighbor > >Clusters" concept. I find that approach works admirably well, and allows > >a MS like 424 to be "generally" Byzantine, but equally part of a > >distinctive fam.1739 (and there is no reason why both cannot be true, > >just as with Family Pi). > > That sounds reasonable -- though I do not know the work you mention. > Can you tell me was it published? (Thanks in advance.) John G. Griffith, "Numerical Taxonomy and Some Primary MSS of the Gospels," JTS, n.s. 41(?) 1969. Not completely sure of the reference; that was off the top of my head, but the article is definitely in the fall 1969 fascicle. > It sounds like you and I may suffer from the same degree of frustration, > even if for wholly different reasons. As long ago as Lake, people were > calling Westcott-Hort a "failure," yet no one has proposed a substitute. Excuse me? I thought _I_ had done that *;-) Maybe you mean "within the modern eclectic fold"? > Why do you think I started this discussion? Remember, I was offering a > deliberate unorthodoxy -- even though I was not sure it was true. I recall that quite well. I also offer a heterodoxy to the common eclectic position, though I am more convinced that my model has validity. > In saying this, I can only think of the history of science. At (admittedly > irregular) intervals something comes along and completely overturns > everything. On that analogy, textual criticism is overdue for a revolution. On this I fully concur. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Wed Jun 5 00:09:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA00699; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 00:06:53 -0400 From: rachel@ms1.hinet.net Message-Id: <199606050404.MAA10197@ms1.hinet.net> Date: Wed, 05 Jun 96 11:53:43 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v1.00 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 10465 In , on 06/04/96 at 04:57 PM, Maurice Robinson said: I tried to input some comments of my own into this thread since I am only a lurker but then it got to be more and more difficult thus back to lurking and someday when I "grow up" enough then I can jump in all the way..... I suggest that more lurkers join once in a while....... ---On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: ---> I suppose it depends on which problem one is attacking. In ---using the > terminology you do, you are working from a ---particular theory: Byzantine > priority. ---Admitted. *;-) --- ---> Now it's obvious that I don't agree with this theory, but ---that's not > the point. ---> ---> My goal is to start without *any* assumptions. If I ---construct a > textual theory, I want to do it from the bottom ---up. *Any* assumption > about the relationship of texts can ---lead to invalid results. ---I suspect that any attempt to start from the bottom up with no --- assumptions regarding textual groupings or theory will lead ---to jumbled and inconclusive results (just as you are noting). ---Since textual criticism cannot be done in a vacuum, I do not ---think it unreasonable to begin with theories regarding ---transmissional history before attempting to evaluate the ---interrelationship among MSS based upon percentage agreements; ---but this may only be a peculiarity of my own approach. Beg my pardon since I am only a lurker ;) But this is precisely the point that Maurice is trying to make and as far as my TC reading goes so far I wholeheartedly concur with his opinion -- Starting with a theory sounds wonderful -- But which one?? Hort? Aland? Kilpatrick? Colwell? For much too long I think that many of the theories have not influenced my thinking as much as Maurice has done. Of course I am not a heavyweight and rarely post in here due to that fact.... Thus this is why I state that I have not been greatly impressed or influenced by the trad. approaches I do ---not think the results are skewed by my method, nor do I think ---they are necessarily improved by your method. ---> If it be objected that elsewhere I have constructed a theory ---of the > text, and even attempted to reconstruct the original ---text based on > it, I will concede that this is true. But that ---reconstruction is > tentative, based on what I know about the ---manuscripts. It might > change if I knew more. ---My own textual theory and reconstruction is also based upon ---what I know about the MSS and copying habits of scribes etc., ---but it does not require the determination of what I consider ---the minutiae of MS interrelationships in order to function. ---Even if the results remain tentative in any reconstruction, ---the theory still must exist in order to explain the ---interrelationships. --- ---> And, more to the point, I do not consider that text to be ---final > until the textual complexion of all manuscripts is ---known. Excuse me I am too familiar with how this theory works out in Theological circles thus I would not be surprised if you were to conclude that you were correct all a long... Weiss methodology and Maurice has a lot more going for it than meets the eye since many if not most are covertly and overtly opposed to his system...... This is not true scholarship in my opinion ---And if such were indeed known, would you REALLY consider your ---text "final" and/or inviolate as a representation of the ---autograph? I certainly would not claim such in regard to the ---Byzantine Textform even were we to possess full collations of ---all MSS, since the places where the Byzantine MSS are divided ---would still remain tentative in light of both internal and ---external evidence. I simply remain skeptical of being able ---to approach any total level of certainty merely by statistical ---methods. ---> So I maintain that, until we have fully examined that ---manuscripts, > we must refer to the process of adding ---Byzantine readings to > non-Byzantine manuscripts as mixture. ---Which, from your perspective, I can understand. From my ---perspective, I would prefer to maintain the semantic ---distinction previously mentioned. --->> I obviously would not concur on this point. I do agree ---that the tendency >> would be for localized texts to move ---steadily toward a Byzantine form as >> they begin to be ---corrected by comparison with MSS from outside their local >> ---region. I also agree that the localized variations were ---themselves >> movements to varying degrees AWAY from the ---Byzantine Textform. But I do >> not concur that most MSS ---within the wider scope of MS transmission would >> derive from ---a non-Byzantine or less-Byzantine model. If this were so, >> ---what factors would legitimately, within any normal "process" ---view, cause >> non- or less-Byz MSS to become Byzantine? ---Barring a major textual >> upheaval, the normal patterns of MS ---copying and correction would tend to >> maintain the text ---which was dominant at any given point of time. --- ---> I must admit that I don't understand that paragraph. So I ---may be missing > the point. Me too..... ---Let me rephrase simplistically: if local texts existed (and ---they did), they must have come about as a deviation from the ---autograph. What was the autograph remains the question. If ---the autograph were basically the Byzantine Textform, then the ---local texts in process of time would tend to slowly disappear ---and become re-amalgamated within the Byzantine Textform ---through the process of cross-comparison and correction against ---MSS from other portions of the Greek-speaking Empire. This is ---a logical and natural conclusion from within my own ---text-critical perspective. ---On the other hand, if the local texts were deviations from an ---autograph which itself was non-Byzantine in character, some ---other explanation needs to be given as to how and why the ---deviant local texts did not eventually return to the ---theoretically "predominant" autograph text which supposedly ---permeated the Greek-speaking portion of the Empire hitherto, ---but instead gravitated inexorably toward a Byzantine ---Textform. ---> But how much do we really know about local texts? We know a ---little about > the text of Egypt from the papyri. But other ---than that, it seems to me > that our knowledge of local texts, ---especially in the western half of the > Roman Empire, is very ---slight. ---I really have no problem with the concept of local texts. The ---Western text, even though fragmentary and scattered, still ---seems to be quite clearly divided into European and African ---forms. The local text of Alexandria can be seen not only in ---the Greek MSS in varying degrees, but also in the national ---Coptic texts of that locality; the "Caesarean", though also ---questionable in nature and essence, still seems to stand ---midway between the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts, and does ---seem, from patristic evidence, to have an locale of origin in ---and around Palestine, with possible spreading from there into ---the Georgian and Armenian versions. Even some of the ---Byzantine sub-families likely reflect texts current in a ---given locality, and that possibly a monastery or even ---Constantinople. ---> Looking at the statistics for collections in the (old) ---Kurzggefasste Liste > and in Aland/Aland, it would appear that ---40% are in Greece and nearby > areas -- areas which would ---belong to the Patriarchy of Constantinople. > Another 40+% are ---in libraries to which they must have been moved (e.g. > ---London, Oxford, Ann Arbor). Most of the rest are either at ---Rome or > Sinai. So how can we claim to know *anything* about ---the local text > of, say, North Africa (except from patristic ---writings)? ---I'm not sure what your point is here: the present localities ---of MSS have no bearing on the "local text" question, since ---that goes back to the venues wherein they were originally ---copied, and the resultant textual alignments which can be ---discerned among the existing MSS. Of course, if you are ---starting from scratch and reject the alignments, then nothing ---is certain. --- ---> >This is why I supplement the Colwell rule with Griffith's ---"Near-Neighbor > >Clusters" concept. I find that approach ---works admirably well, and allows > >a MS like 424 to be ---"generally" Byzantine, but equally part of a > >distinctive ---fam.1739 (and there is no reason why both cannot be true, > --->just as with Family Pi). ---> ---> That sounds reasonable -- though I do not know the work you ---mention. > Can you tell me was it published? (Thanks in ---advance.) ---John G. Griffith, "Numerical Taxonomy and Some Primary MSS of ---the Gospels," JTS, n.s. 41(?) 1969. Not completely sure of ---the reference; that was off the top of my head, but the ---article is definitely in the fall 1969 fascicle. ---> It sounds like you and I may suffer from the same degree of ---frustration, > even if for wholly different reasons. As long ---ago as Lake, people were > calling Westcott-Hort a "failure," ---yet no one has proposed a substitute. ---Excuse me? I thought _I_ had done that *;-) Maybe you mean ---"within the modern eclectic fold"? ---> Why do you think I started this discussion? Remember, I was ---offering a > deliberate unorthodoxy -- even though I was not ---sure it was true. ---I recall that quite well. I also offer a heterodoxy to the ---common eclectic position, though I am more convinced that my ---model has validity. --- ---> In saying this, I can only think of the history of science. ---At (admittedly > irregular) intervals something comes along ---and completely overturns > everything. On that analogy, ---textual criticism is overdue for a revolution. ---On this I fully concur. ---_________________________________________________________________ ---Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and ---New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary ---Wake Forest, North Carolina ---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- Respond to Jim at the following address ---------------------------------------------------- rachel@ms1.hinet.net ----------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list Wed Jun 5 09:10:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA01992; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 09:08:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 96 08:05 CDT X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 8231 On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: [I'll omit most of this, since I either agree with it or am in such fundamental disagreement that it's not worth wasting bandwidth over. I leave it to you to guess which parts are which. :-) ] > >> And, more to the point, I do not consider that text to be final >> until the textual complexion of all manuscripts is known. > >And if such were indeed known, would you REALLY consider your text >"final" and/or inviolate as a representation of the autograph? I >certainly would not claim such in regard to the Byzantine Textform even >were we to possess full collations of all MSS, since the places where the >Byzantine MSS are divided would still remain tentative in light of both >internal and external evidence. I simply remain skeptical of being able >to approach any total level of certainty merely by statistical methods. No, I will never consider my text final. (If nothing else, there is the possibility that, for certain books, *all* extant manuscripts derive from some early copy which contained errors, rather than the autograph.) Also, I would draw a distinction. I am not using a statistical method to determine the text. I am using statistics to determine manuscript relationships. (Though, as noted, *even here* there must be examination of collations before final judgment is passed.) The goal of examining the relationships of the manuscripts is to determine the theory of the text. Despite our disagreements on results, it should be noted that Maurice Robinson and I agree on at least one fundamental point: that current eclectic methodology is theoretically bankrupt. We differ in how serious we think that problem is (I think the UBS/GNT text only mildly defective; he would find it thoroughly bad), but clearly agree on the nature of the problem. [...] > >>> I obviously would not concur on this point. I do agree that the tendency >>> would be for localized texts to move steadily toward a Byzantine form as >>> they begin to be corrected by comparison with MSS from outside their local >>> region. I also agree that the localized variations were themselves >>> movements to varying degrees AWAY from the Byzantine Textform. But I do >>> not concur that most MSS within the wider scope of MS transmission would >>> derive from a non-Byzantine or less-Byzantine model. If this were so, >>> what factors would legitimately, within any normal "process" view, cause >>> non- or less-Byz MSS to become Byzantine? Barring a major textual >>> upheaval, the normal patterns of MS copying and correction would tend to >>> maintain the text which was dominant at any given point of time. > >> I must admit that I don't understand that paragraph. So I may be missing >> the point. > >Let me rephrase simplistically: if local texts existed (and they did), >they must have come about as a deviation from the autograph. What was the >autograph remains the question. If the autograph were basically the >Byzantine Textform, then the local texts in process of time would tend to >slowly disappear and become re-amalgamated within the Byzantine Textform >through the process of cross-comparison and correction against MSS from >other portions of the Greek-speaking Empire. This is a logical and >natural conclusion from within my own text-critical perspective. > >On the other hand, if the local texts were deviations from an autograph >which itself was non-Byzantine in character, some other explanation needs >to be given as to how and why the deviant local texts did not eventually >return to the theoretically "predominant" autograph text which supposedly >permeated the Greek-speaking portion of the Empire hitherto, but instead >gravitated inexorably toward a Byzantine Textform. Question: Why "must [local texts] have come about as a deviation from the autograph"? Conceded, where they differ, no more than one of the local readings can be original. But surely we would all agree that all texts -- even the "Western" -- are *generally* correct. [...] > >> Looking at the statistics for collections in the (old) Kurzggefasste Liste >> and in Aland/Aland, it would appear that 40% are in Greece and nearby >> areas -- areas which would belong to the Patriarchy of Constantinople. >> Another 40+% are in libraries to which they must have been moved (e.g. >> London, Oxford, Ann Arbor). Most of the rest are either at Rome or >> Sinai. So how can we claim to know *anything* about the local text >> of, say, North Africa (except from patristic writings)? It occurs to me that I should add that I compiled those numbers *very* hastily. Don't quote them, folks! I ignored a lot of places with one or two mansucripts, and those could affect my totals. >I'm not sure what your point is here: the present localities of MSS have >no bearing on the "local text" question, since that goes back to the >venues wherein they were originally copied, and the resultant textual >alignments which can be discerned among the existing MSS. Of course, if >you are starting from scratch and reject the alignments, then nothing is >certain. Agreed. All I am saying is that we don't *know* much about local texts, since almost all known manuscripts are, or could be, derived from Byzantium and the patriarchy of Constantinople. Though I must concede that the one other local text we know something about (that of Egypt) *did* gradually grow closer to the Byzantine text -- and that, interestingly, most of the change took place *after* the Islamic conquest cut Egypt off from Constantinople. It's a small point, but it argues in your favour. >> >This is why I supplement the Colwell rule with Griffith's "Near-Neighbor >> >Clusters" concept. I find that approach works admirably well, and allows >> >a MS like 424 to be "generally" Byzantine, but equally part of a >> >distinctive fam.1739 (and there is no reason why both cannot be true, >> >just as with Family Pi). >> >> That sounds reasonable -- though I do not know the work you mention. >> Can you tell me was it published? (Thanks in advance.) > >John G. Griffith, "Numerical Taxonomy and Some Primary MSS of the >Gospels," JTS, n.s. 41(?) 1969. Not completely sure of the reference; >that was off the top of my head, but the article is definitely in the >fall 1969 fascicle. Thanks. If I know the journal and the era, I can certainly find it. >> It sounds like you and I may suffer from the same degree of frustration, >> even if for wholly different reasons. As long ago as Lake, people were >> calling Westcott-Hort a "failure," yet no one has proposed a substitute. > >Excuse me? I thought _I_ had done that *;-) Maybe you mean "within the >modern eclectic fold"? My apologies. You're right. And since I'm apologising, I should apologise again for not knowing more about your theory. My (sort of) local seminary doesn't seem to have any of your writings. So I'm learning as I go along. >> Why do you think I started this discussion? Remember, I was offering a >> deliberate unorthodoxy -- even though I was not sure it was true. > >I recall that quite well. I also offer a heterodoxy to the common >eclectic position, though I am more convinced that my model has validity. > >> In saying this, I can only think of the history of science. At (admittedly >> irregular) intervals something comes along and completely overturns >> everything. On that analogy, textual criticism is overdue for a revolution. > >On this I fully concur. :-) Incidentally, an aside to the lurker whose e-mail address is rachel@ms1.hinet.net: You certainly won't hear any complaints from me about people coming out of lurking. If we need scholarly qualifications to address this list, I'd have been kicked out long ago. I'm just a guy with a B.A. (yes, a B.A.; my school didn't grant the B.Sc.) in physics and math, a poor knowledge of Greek, a poorer knowledge of Latin, and an even poorer knowledge of German, who happens to be fascinated by textual criticism. I still (dirty confession) haven't learned to read most minuscule scripts, though I'm pretty good at reading uncials by now.... But nobody has told me to shut up yet. We'll see how long it takes. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Wed Jun 5 12:13:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA03180; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 12:12:00 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 12:11:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: new TC article by Dave Washburn Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1283 We have a new article in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism: David L. Washburn, "The King Is Weeping: A Textual/Grammatical Note on 2 Sam 19:2" Abstract: The coordination of a participle and an imperfect with waw-consecutive in the report to Joab in 2 Sam 19:2 is unusual, but commentators generally explain it simply as a variation from the norm, if they treat it at all. Others follow the lead of two MT mss, P, and T and repoint the second verb as a participle. However, the lack of any true parallel to this structure elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible raises the possibility of an alternative explanation: the waw-consecutive phrase is not part of the direct speech, but rather continues the flow of the narrative. To see it, visit the TC home page (URL given below). Also, let me encourage the members of this list to submit articles for publication in TC (we could use some NT articles to balance out the OT articles!). For those new to the list, TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism is a peer-reviewed electronic journal with an international editorial board. All proposed articles can be submitted directly to me. Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html <----- From owner-tc-list Wed Jun 5 12:29:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA03321; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 12:28:27 -0400 From: rachel@ms1.hinet.net Message-Id: <199606051625.AAA25112@ms1.hinet.net> Date: Thu, 06 Jun 96 00:25:13 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: new TC article by Dave Washburn In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v1.00 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1772 In , on 06/05/96 at 12:11 PM, "James R. Adair" said: ---We have a new article in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual ---Criticism: Sure Is it okay If I nominate Maurice Robinson to submit some of his stuff? ---David L. Washburn, "The King Is Weeping: A Textual/Grammatical ---Note on 2 Sam 19:2" ---Abstract: The coordination of a participle and an imperfect ---with waw-consecutive in the report to Joab in 2 Sam 19:2 is ---unusual, but commentators generally explain it simply as a ---variation from the norm, if they treat it at all. Others ---follow the lead of two MT mss, P, and T and repoint the second ---verb as a participle. However, the lack of any true parallel ---to this structure elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible raises the ---possibility of an alternative explanation: the waw-consecutive ---phrase is not part of the direct speech, but rather continues ---the flow of the narrative. ---To see it, visit the TC home page (URL given below). Also, ---let me encourage the members of this list to submit articles ---for publication in TC (we could use some NT articles to ---balance out the OT articles!). For those new to the list, ---TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism is a ---peer-reviewed electronic journal with an international ---editorial board. All proposed articles can be submitted ---directly to me. ---Jimmy Adair ---General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ---------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html <----- -- Respond to Jim at the following address ---------------------------------------------------- rachel@ms1.hinet.net ----------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list Wed Jun 5 15:30:00 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA04572; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 15:28:37 -0400 Message-Id: <199606051925.VAA17914@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 05 Jun 96 21:28:51 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 6629 On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >Despite our disagreements on results, it should be noted that >Maurice Robinson and I agree on at least one fundamental point: >that current eclectic methodology is theoretically bankrupt. Please, calm down and let us return to the question Bob initially adressed: What about text-types in relation to various other MSS groupings (families, tribes)? His long post (Sun, 2 Jun 1996) was devoted to define MSS alignments of different quantity and quality. First of all I would like to say that I appreciate every effort to describe MSS alignments in a more sensitive way, without putting them into the Procrustean bed of either text-types or families. After defining five levels of relationship, Bob wrote: >In "tight" families, there is no Byzantine influence at all. Or >more correctly, what separates the members of the family is not >Byzantine influence; the family text may be heavily Byzantine. But >all that separates the family members is the errors and >peculiarities of scribes. Fine point, though the problem to my mind is already lurking behind. >In "loose" families, Byzantine influence begins to appear. In >family 2138, for >instance, all members of the family seem to disagree with the >(hypothetical) >archetype by about 10-20%. But in every case we find that the >divergence is Byzantine. Either the manuscript displays the family >text, or it displays a Byzantine reading. There are *no* instance >of other readings (at least, none that I've noticed). This point is simply not true. At least in the General epistles there are some instances where the family text is split -usually 1505 + 1611 versus 2138 + 2495 (but sometimes only one MS deserts)- _and_ the deviation is NOT Byzantine (cf. B. Aland/A. Juckel, _Das NT in Syrischer Ueberlieferung_, ANTT 7, 1986). >In "tight" tribes, Byzantine influence becomes important, as do >the side effects of many generations of copying. Still, there is >no sign of influence other than the Byzantine. >In "loose" tribes, we see evidence of mixture from sources other >than the Byzantine text. Thus L, in the gospels, is mostly a >mixture of p75/B readings and Byzantine readings, but has a few >readings that seem to belong to a different non-Byzantine strain >(perhaps from the Aleph group, or possibly from some later phase >of the Alexandrian text...). Bob critized repeatedly Colwell's 70 percent criterion for it can not adaequately deal with mixed MSS. To my mind he is quite correct in doing so. Nevertheless, I suspect his grouping method offers only slight improvement. For example, if he only had retained P75-B as belonging to one group, he would have been able to place them under the heading "loose" or even "tight" family. By adding the somehow "mixed" MSS T and L to the gene pool the otherwise presumably "tight" family P75-B is to be removed and placed under the heading "loose" tribe. The same is to be found when looking at Bob's example for a "tight" tribe (family 1739): >An example of this is family 1739 in Paul. >Here we can say, for instance, that 1739 and 0243 are closely >related at a level only slightly removed from the archetype (I >believe they are first cousins, with their common ancestor being >about three removes from the archetype). 6 and 424** are related >to each other within the family, but split off at a slightly >earlier point and have both suffered extensive Byzantine influence >(with 6 receiving more corrections of the late Byzantine type). >1881 split off at about the same point as 1739, but comes from a >different family and has suffered more corruptions. And so forth. If I may add MS 2685 in Romans (cf. _Text und Textwert_), it may well turn out a MS alignment between 6 and 2685 which is closer than between 6 and 424**. Therefore 6 and 2685 may well enter the major league "family", perhaps at the "looser" stage. Though this might look like quibbling on some MSS, to my mind it is essential. In Bob's definition of "tight" and "loose" tribes we are dealing with compound MSS groups, where one or two "pure" member(s) are together with "mixed" members. The only difference between "tight" and "loose" is if there is Byzantine influence (only) or Byzantine and other. But do these definitions by Byz. and/or other influence still hold water, if we look at for example P46-B in Romans? How is their alignment to be described in terms of families, tribes? Harry Sturz gives in Romans two (admittedly not very impressive) alignments of P46 with Byz. contra "Alex." and "Western", from Text und Textwert I know of at least five near singular alignments of P46 and D F G. If we do not subscribe to a pro-Byzantine viewpoint, which I shurely do not intend to up to now, even slight Byzantine influence on P46 would be ruled out. But the same is also true with supposed "Western" influence, for the Old Latin does not seem to attest all of the shared near singular agreements of P46 and D F G. Therefore it seems to me that all I can say is, P46 and D F G share some rare readings which represent an early stratum of readings presumably belonging to a common ancestor. Shurely P46 in Romans is closely connected to B, but it deviates sometimes and some of these deviations are shared by other MSS. (One part of these MSS, sharing P46 deviations from B, are commonly called Byzantine, another part "Western".) This may seem purely descriptive, but the advantage is that it avoids anachronistic misconceptions of Byzantine and/or "Western" influence on MSS which seem to antedate both Byzantine and "Western" texts at least in their actual state of appearance. Tough I do not say that the concept of Byzantine influence may not be valid for some parts of (later) MS tradition, I hestitate to give it the significance Bob does. Especially the crucial fact of the Harklensis Vorlage (family 2138) gives us some hints, for, believe me or not, even the Harklensis (616 AD) opposes occasionally readings shared by all members of family 2138 (11th to 14/15th centuries) by giving Byzantine readings. But, does this imply that a full blown Byzantine text in its actual state of appearance existed for the General epistles prior to around 500 AD to serve as deus ex machina for our influence theories? At least there is NO manuscript evidence to a full blown Byzantine text prior to the 9th century. Generalizing influence theories tend to introduce texts (text-types) at times when the evidence therefore is not clearly settled. So, I plea for caution. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Wed Jun 5 17:29:58 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA05363; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 17:27:44 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 17:24:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4881 On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > Despite our disagreements on results, it should be noted that Maurice > Robinson and I agree on at least one fundamental point: that current > eclectic methodology is theoretically bankrupt. We differ in how > serious we think that problem is (I think the UBS/GNT text only > mildly defective; he would find it thoroughly bad), but clearly > agree on the nature of the problem. I think you will find that, though I consider modern eclectic theory basically defective (not necessarily "bankrupt") at its presuppositional core, I do not really think the resultant text is "thoroughly bad", since over 90% of it would agree with the Byzantine Textform or any other texttype in the first place. I would consider the UBS/Nestle text and even the W-H text as "adequate" for virtually all purposes. The fact that I do not consider "adequate" to mean equivalent to the autograph text does not prevent the profitable use of that text or of tools based upon it; I simply propose a different model which (in my own opinion) transcends the concept of mere adequacy. > Question: Why "must [local texts] have come about as a deviation from > the autograph"? Conceded, where they differ, no more than one of the > local readings can be original. But surely we would all agree that > all texts -- even the "Western" -- are *generally* correct. This is the point raised above under "adequate". I would ask in return, from where do the local texts derive if NOT as deviations from the autograph? If they derive from another existing text which today no longer exists (which puts us into the realm of pure speculation), that text had to originally be created or come into being as a deviation from the autograph, else there would not be the ca.80-90% identity with the autograph text within any MS of any texttype. I thus see no problem in explaining local texts as deviations from the autograph; the real question is whether one chooses to treat the Byzantine Textform as a mere "local text" (Constantinople or Antioch or otherwise), or as the overarching archetype from which all other texttypes and sub-types have derived. > Agreed. All I am saying is that we don't *know* much about local > texts, since almost all known manuscripts are, or could be, derived > from Byzantium and the patriarchy of Constantinople. I would concur this point with regard to the minuscules. I cannot concur the same in regard to the uncials (even the Byzantine-text uncials). However, the problem in this regard is the almost total lack of genealogical connection between the MSS which were copied in the region from the Greek monasteries spanning the geographical gamut from Meteora through Sinai, most of which present a near-identical Byzantine-type of text, yet without collusion or even significant cross-comparison between those monasteries in the post-9th century era. The lack of genealogical connection (noted by Lake, Blake and New, HTR 1928) becomes a very significant factor in evaluating those MSS, and tends to rule out any mere "local text" aspect regarding them. > Though I must concede that the one other local text we know something > about (that of Egypt) *did* gradually grow closer to the Byzantine > text -- and that, interestingly, most of the change took place > *after* the Islamic conquest cut Egypt off from Constantinople. It's > a small point, but it argues in your favour. I take this as a mixed blessing: in Egypt itself, following the Islamic conquest, the Coptic versions continued to be reproduced and disseminated, and they remained (and remain today) highly Alexandrian in character. The Greek MSS of the Alexandrian local text certainly decline in number following the Islamic conquest, but they were already in decline from century IV through VI anyhow, as part of the increased communication between diverse parts of the Empire after Constantine, and the inevitable consequences of cross-comparison and correction which ensued. > And since I'm apologising, I should apologise again for not knowing > more about your theory. My (sort of) local seminary doesn't seem > to have any of your writings. So I'm learning as I go along. Neither do many others, save those who receive papers distributed at ETS meetings. Other than that, only my Greek NT edition introduction is available. > I still (dirty confession) haven't learned to read most minuscule > scripts, though I'm pretty good at reading uncials by now.... Get Van Gronigen as a tool -- minuscule is not that hard to read. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Wed Jun 5 18:00:42 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA05548; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 17:59:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 96 16:56 CDT X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 12166 On Wed, 05 Jun 96, schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) wrote: >On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >>Despite our disagreements on results, it should be noted that >Maurice >>Robinson >and I agree on at least one fundamental point: >that current eclectic >methodology is theoretically bankrupt. > >Please, calm down and let us return to the question Bob initially adressed: Thanks for the reminder. :-) >What >about text-types in relation to various other MSS groupings (families, >tribes)? >His long post (Sun, 2 Jun 1996) was devoted to define MSS alignments of >different quantity and quality. > >First of all I would like to say that I appreciate every effort to >describe MSS >alignments in a more sensitive way, without putting them into the Procrustean >bed of either text-types or families. > >After defining five levels of relationship, Bob wrote: > >>In "tight" families, there is no Byzantine influence at all. Or >more >correctly, what separates the members of the family is not >Byzantine >influence; >the family text may be heavily Byzantine. But >all that separates the family >members is the errors and >peculiarities of scribes. > >Fine point, though the problem to my mind is already lurking behind. > >>In "loose" families, Byzantine influence begins to appear. In >family >>2138, for >>instance, all members of the family seem to disagree with the >(hypothetical) >>archetype by about 10-20%. But in every case we find that the >divergence is >Byzantine. Either the manuscript displays the family >text, or it displays a >Byzantine reading. There are *no* instance >of other readings (at least, none >that I've noticed). > >This point is simply not true. At least in the General epistles there are some >instances where the family text is split -usually 1505 + 1611 versus 2138 >+ 2495 >(but sometimes only one MS deserts)- _and_ the deviation is NOT Byzantine (cf. >B. Aland/A. Juckel, _Das NT in Syrischer Ueberlieferung_, ANTT 7, 1986). I obviously spoke too dramatically when I said there were *no* such deviations. I would imagine that a detailed examination would reveal several. There will always be a few deviations due to scribal errors or perhaps marginal comments. Or even an occasional mixed reading. But the bulk of the variations in family 2138 are cases where one set of manuscripts have a reading associated with the Byzantine text and the rest don't. By the way -- are you sure the alignment should not be 1505+2495 versus 1611+2138? That seemed to be what I found when I examined the data (though I was consulting Richards and Merk for some of my readings, and neither is particularly reliable). >>In "tight" tribes, Byzantine influence becomes important, as do >the side >effects of many generations of copying. Still, there is >no sign of influence >other than the Byzantine. > >>In "loose" tribes, we see evidence of mixture from sources other >than the >Byzantine text. Thus L, in the gospels, is mostly a >mixture of p75/B readings >and Byzantine readings, but has a few >readings that seem to belong to a >different non-Byzantine strain >(perhaps from the Aleph group, or possibly >from >some later phase >of the Alexandrian text...). > >Bob critized repeatedly Colwell's 70 percent criterion for it can not >adaequately deal with mixed MSS. To my mind he is quite correct in doing so. >Nevertheless, I suspect his grouping method offers only slight >improvement. For >example, if he only had retained P75-B as belonging to one group, he >would have >been able to place them under the heading "loose" or even "tight" family. By >adding the somehow "mixed" MSS T and L to the gene pool the otherwise >presumably >"tight" family P75-B is to be removed and placed under the heading "loose" >tribe. I suppose that I should have pointed out that any grouping can contain any number of lower level groupings. Thus the "loose" family 2138 contains at least three much tighter families: 2412+614, 630+1799, 1505+2495. In the case of the B tribe, p75-B go together at the family level. T may also (I haven't examined the matter in detail). The sahidic is more distant, and L more distant still. The image I would offer is a familiar one of trees branching into smaller and smaller branches. Except that, on trees, one can tell where one branch begins and another ends. With text-types, it's not so obvious. I would remind everyone that most people have started with the branches (the text-types). I think we need to pay more attention to the twigs and the leaves (families and manuscripts). > The same is to be found when looking at Bob's example for a "tight" tribe >(family 1739): >>An example of this is family 1739 in Paul. >>Here we can say, for instance, that 1739 and 0243 are closely >related at a >level only slightly removed from the archetype (I >believe they are first >cousins, with their common ancestor being >about three removes from the >archetype). 6 and 424** are related >to each other within the family, but >split >off at a slightly >earlier point and have both suffered extensive Byzantine >influence >(with 6 receiving more corrections of the late Byzantine type). >>1881 >split off at about the same point as 1739, but comes from a >different family >and has suffered more corruptions. And so forth. >If I may add MS 2685 in Romans (cf. _Text und Textwert_), it may well turn >out a >MS alignment between 6 and 2685 which is closer than between 6 and 424**. >Therefore 6 and 2685 may well enter the major league "family", perhaps at the >"looser" stage. I won't argue with this. I can't prove it without a collation of 2685, but certainly there's no reason it can't be true. >Though this might look like quibbling on some MSS, to my mind it is essential. >In Bob's definition of "tight" and "loose" tribes we are dealing with compound >MSS groups, where one or two "pure" member(s) are together with "mixed" >members. >The only difference between "tight" and "loose" is if there is Byzantine >influence (only) or Byzantine and other. But do these definitions by Byz. >and/or >other influence still hold water, if we look at for example P46-B in >Romans? How >is their alignment to be described in terms of families, tribes? Harry Sturz >gives in Romans two (admittedly not very impressive) alignments of P46 >with Byz. >contra "Alex." and "Western", from Text und Textwert I know of at least five >near singular alignments of P46 and D F G. I do not claim that p46 and B belong either to a family or to a tribe. I believe they *do* share a text-type. But I would be amazed if anyone would claim they are closer than that. p46, in particular, has a text which seems completely unique. It has near-singular agreements with everything -- B, Aleph, D, G, 33, 1739. However, it has many more near-singular agreements with B than with anything else. If B and p46 share only a text-type, then the question of Byzantine influence does not come up. I suppose I should admit that I compiled my list of levels of agreement rather hastily (the disadvantage of e-mail). I should, perhaps, have argued for five levels of agreement (I still feel that *that* is correct) without mentioning the Byzantine text. But I also think that, in *most* cases, it *is* the degree of Byzantine influence that separates family or "tight" tribe members. To take an example from family 1739: I did a detailed comparison of 1739 and 1881 (1881 being the closest relative of 1739 cited in Nestle). In a set of 404 readings, the two differed 89 times. But in 80 of these 89 instances, either 1739 or 1881 (usually the latter) was Byzantine. Clearly, almost the entire difference between the two is caused by Byzantine influence. >If we do not subscribe to a pro-Byzantine viewpoint, which I shurely do not >intend to up to now, even slight Byzantine influence on P46 would be ruled >out. >But the same is also true with supposed >"Western" influence, for the Old Latin does not seem to attest all of the >shared >near singular agreements of P46 and D F G. Therefore it seems to me that all I >can say is, P46 and D F G share some rare readings which represent an early >stratum of readings presumably belonging to a common ancestor. > >Shurely P46 in Romans is closely connected to B, but it deviates sometimes and >some of these deviations are shared by other MSS. (One part of these MSS, >sharing P46 deviations from B, are commonly called Byzantine, another part >"Western".) This may seem purely descriptive, but the advantage is that it >avoids anachronistic misconceptions of Byzantine and/or "Western" influence on >MSS which seem to antedate both Byzantine and "Western" texts at least in >their >actual state of appearance. With the above I have no argument. I thought it was obvious. >Tough I do not say that the concept of Byzantine influence may not be >valid for >some parts of (later) MS tradition, I hestitate to give it the >significance Bob >does. Especially the crucial fact of the Harklensis Vorlage (family 2138) >gives >us some hints, for, believe me or not, even the Harklensis (616 AD) opposes >occasionally readings shared by all members of family 2138 (11th to 14/15th >centuries) by giving Byzantine readings. I agree completely. In fact, if my figures are correct, the Harklean is the *worst* witness to the developed text of family 2138. Although in assessing the Harklean version, one thing that *must* be remembered is the marginalia. This is only a feeling -- I have not studied the matter in detail -- but it appears to me that the Harklean is based on *two* texts -- one Byzantine and one belonging to family 2138. Where the two manuscripts disagreed on an add/omit reading, Thomas put the longer reading in the text in asterisks. Where there was a substitution, one or the other reading went into the text and the other (sometimes) in the margin. >But, does this imply that a full blown >Byzantine text in its actual state of appearance existed for the General >epistles prior to around 500 AD to serve as deus ex machina for our influence >theories? At least there is NO manuscript evidence to a full blown Byzantine >text prior to the 9th century. Agreed -- although Byzantine manuscripts appear in large numbers in that century (K, L, 049, assorted minuscules). That would seem to imply that the text is at least somewhat older than that century. This is perhaps not as important as it sounds; so far we have discussed only one family (family 2138) and one loose tribe (tribe B in the gospels) that have members that are possibly older than the Byzantine text. If we return to the original subject of the discussion (the relationship between the B tribe and the Aleph tribe), the question of Byzantine influence does not arise, since these are both loose tribes. >Generalizing influence theories tend to introduce >texts (text-types) at times when the evidence therefore is not clearly >settled. >So, I plea for caution. Conceded. The fact that Byzantine influence seems to appear everywhere, or almost everywhere, does not mean that we can assume it is always so. Which reminds me of an interesting phenomenon I noticed in the Catholic Epistles. I can't prove this, but I offer it for what it is worth. In general the Byzantine text is conservative; there are relatively few readings of the text that are not found in some group of non-Byzantine witnesses. Sturz has argued this, and this conclusion (alone among those he offers) I accept. Except in the Catholics. Take L, the earliest of the substantially complete Byzantine manuscripts of the Epistles. In my sample, it has *no* semi-singular readings in Paul. In the Catholics, out of far fewer readings, it has *eighteen.* K has six semi-singulars in Paul. In the Catholics, the number is *nineteen.* 049 has 21 semi-singulars in the Catholics. And so forth. What I am calling "semi-singular" readings are readings with no significant support outside of the text-type. From the above, it would appear that the Byzantine text usually agrees with *something* in Paul, but often stands alone in the Catholics. This is not proof, but it's interesting. Thoughts, anyone? Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Wed Jun 5 19:28:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA05918; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 19:27:23 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 19:24:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3650 [Responding to both Waltz and Schmid on a pertinent point]: On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: On Wed, 05 Jun 96, schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) wrote: [Waltz:] > But I also think that, in *most* cases, it *is* the degree of Byzantine > influence that separates family or "tight" tribe members. Even though we have a semantic difference over the term "influence" (which I would here term "alignment percentage" or something similar), I think Bob is correct on this point [Schmid:] >>But, does this imply that a full blown >>Byzantine text in its actual state of appearance existed for the General >>epistles prior to around 500 AD to serve as deus ex machina for our influence >>theories? At least there is NO manuscript evidence to a full blown Byzantine >>text prior to the 9th century. [Waltz:] > Agreed -- although Byzantine manuscripts appear in large numbers in that > century (K, L, 049, assorted minuscules). That would seem to imply that the > text is at least somewhat older than that century. I also would differ with Schmid on this point, along with Westcott and Hort, who were quite willing to admit a generally developed ("full-blown" probably is a question-begging term) Byzantine text from at least AD 350 onward. The new claims stemming from the Alands' Text of the NT volume (and picked up on by Wallace) regarding the Byzantine as "developed" and/or the "majority text" only beginning with the 9th century is simply revisionist history, held hitherto by no one. I will at the very least side with Westcott and Hort on this point; and Waltz is also clearly correct that 9th century Byzantine uncials certainly imply a much earlier existence of the "developed" Byzantine Textform, which in no way contradicts Westcott and Hort's own thesis on this point. [Waltz:] > The fact that Byzantine influence seems to appear everywhere, or > almost everywhere, does not mean that we can assume it is always so. Maybe not; but a prior question is WHY does the Byzantine influence tend to appear almost everywhere, and what are the causes of this permeating influence? I still doubt that modern eclecticism has a sufficiently valid transmissional history which will account for this phenomenon. [Waltz:] > In general the Byzantine text is conservative; there are relatively few > readings of the text that are not found in some group of non-Byzantine > witnesses. Sturz has argued this, and this conclusion (alone among those > he offers) I accept. Another interesting point, which can be taken in two primary ways: either the Byzantine Textform is a composite, pieced together from scattered readings found in various texttypes or other minority groupings, by some unknown method (since mere "conflation" will not account for all the Byzantine readings, nor even a large percentage of them); or the presence of Byzantine readings in nearly every other texttype or smaller group of MSS implies an extremely strong Byzantine "influence", which is quite difficult to explain without either imposing an official promulgation of that text or an official revision which produced that text -- unless of course, such Byzantine concurrence in non-Byzantine MSS and texttypes is actually a result of preservation of the autograph text itself (which latter I would naturally maintain). _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 04:40:25 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA07526; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 04:38:59 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 09:35:44 +0100 Message-Id: <199606060835.JAA26327@sable.ox.ac.uk> X-Sender: duff@sable.ox.ac.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Jeremy Duff Subject: NT Interpolations - request for help. Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1762 I wonder if I could pick the list's collective brain. I am doing a D.Phil. here in Oxford looking at Pseudepigraphy among the early Christians (until about 200 A.D.). While I have been thinking about this, I have become interested in what I see as an anomaly in NT scholarship / text criticism . I am sure that I am not coming up with anything new but if anyone could comment on it, or point me to suitable literature which discusses it, I would be very grateful. I am aware that in HB textual criticism there is talk of finding the "final form of the text" not the "autograph" and I guess there might be some insights here to help me. The anomaly is as follows: Most NT textual criticism (I think) works to try to get back to the autograph - removing both accidental changed to the text and also purposeful interpolations etc. If we think 1 Cor 14.34-35 is not by Paul - that is it is a later interpolation into the text - then we cut it out from the text and hence from the canon. Fine, but, much NT scholarship has decided that the whole of 1 Timothy is not by Paul - it is a later "interpolation" into the Pauline canon. Nevertheless most NT scholars assert that it should stay in the canon. We can speculate about how or why it got in there but nevertheless it is (by hypothesis) not 'by' Paul (I know that there is a lot packed into the word 'by' here but I don't think that is of the essence here - it is later compositions were are looking at here not secretaries, fragments or the like). Why is it seen as reasonable to cut out little interpolations but leave in big ones? Any comments or directs to literature on this would be appreciated. Thanks. ========================================= Jeremy Duff D. Phil. Student Jesus College, Oxford From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 05:16:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA07690; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 05:15:12 -0400 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 10:09:14 GMT Priority: normal X-mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2248 On Tuesday 4 June Robert Waltz wrote that 'our knowledge of local texts, especially in the western half of the Roman empire, is very slight'. As a matter of fact, palaeography helps us much further than this. If, for example, you look at the introduction to the Supplement of Lowe's _Codices Latini Antiquiores_, you will find an excellent discussion of the distinctive hands of North Africa (surely the origin of Bobbiensis (k). There is a discussion of Cavallo's _Maiuscola biblica_ of a hand which he believes to be distinctive of the Nitrian Desert (p. 87f). There are plenty of other examples. The present location of MSS is not necessarily of any use - provenance may tell us nothing about origin - nor should the Vatican collection be treated as more significant in this regard. Devreesse's _Les Manuscrits grecs de l'Italie meridionale_ is another example of palaeography providing grounds for identifying local texts, and illustrates the growth of collections such as the Vatican's. The whole discussion on this theme stirs up in me a thought on one point. It is being assumed (I suggest) that local texts had acquired all their own characteristics from the very beginning of their existence, and that therefore all members of the group must be, as it were, fully paid up members. This is not at all how I think of them. Rather, each text slowly acquired its peculiar properties over a sequence of transmissions. Rather than Athene springing fully armed from Zeus' head, they evolved like the distinctive species which Darwin found in different places. Or perhaps one might conceive of them as the various dialects in which a language is spoken. Thus, an early member of a type (or whatever you want to call it} will show some characteristics of its descendants, but will also share characteristics with members of other groups which its descendants will not retain. We must remember here what a tiny proportion of the members of any one group are available to us, even in part, as a consequence of which it is generally impossible to trace these developments in detail. DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 08:03:36 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA08003; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 08:02:03 -0400 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 12:55:37 GMT Subject: Birmingham Colloquium Priority: normal X-mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2067 THE FIRST BIRMINGHAM COLLOQUIUM ON THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT The first Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament will be held at Chamberlain Hall, The University of Birmingham, from 14 to 17 April 1997. The meeting will be under the presidency of J. Neville Birdsall, Emeritus Professor of New Testament and Textual Criticism in the university. His address will be on the theme 'Language and Text of Homer and of the New Testament; Analogies and Influences in Ancient and Modern Times'. The other main speakers will be Professor Larry W. Hurtado, who has been appointed to the chair of New Testament in Edinburgh, Jeff Childers, who has recently completed a study of the Syriac versions of John Chrysostom, and Dr David Taylor, of Birmingham University, who will speak on New Testament citations in Syriac patristic commentaries. There will also be: SEMINARS. Suggestions for theme are invited. Invitations to lead sessions will be made once the subjects have been determined. a 'WORK IN PROGRESS' session, at which colloquium members will be invited to describe any current projects in which they are involved. SHORT PAPERS Offers of papers on any aspect of the discipline are invited. The short papers will each be allotted 30 minutes, of which 10 will be available for questions and discussion. The cost will be approximately 140 pounds, including board and lodging. Requests for Registration Forms, suggestions for seminars, and applications to give a short paper should be sent to Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament Dept of Theology University of Birmingham Edgbaston Birmingham B15 2TT Tel. 0121-414 5666 Fax 0121-414 6866 E-Mail D.C.Parker@bham.ac.uk D.G.K.Taylor@bham.ac.uk Applications to read a short paper and seminar proposals should be sent by October 31, and should include a brief (150-300 word) summary of it. DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 08:40:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA08145; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 08:39:00 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 08:35:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199606061235.IAA04400@utc-01.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: NT Interpolations - request for help. Cc: Jeremy.Duff@Jesus.oxford.ac.uk Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2996 Dear Jeremy: Although I hold to the authenticity/authority of all the books in the Protestant canon, my guess would be that someone who doesn't would say that the Pastoral Epistles, "contain Pauline tradition" or " is representive of the Pauline school of thought" and therefore is worth of retention. The problem with spotting interpolation is that like beauty, an interpolation is in the mind of the beholder. Unlike TC which deals with real and documented ommissions/additions to the text, spotting interpolations is a matter of circular reasoning. We say that Paul wrote a certain corpus and we know this because we have Pauline writings, but when something differs in style or thought, we immediately say that this differs from what Paul has written previously, consequently it could not be by Paul. One of the best defenses of the authenticity of the Pastroal Epistles is in Donald Guthrie's _New Testament Introduction_ At 09:35 AM 6/6/96 +0100, you wrote: >I wonder if I could pick the list's collective brain. > >I am doing a D.Phil. here in Oxford looking at Pseudepigraphy among the >early Christians (until about 200 A.D.). While I have been thinking about >this, I have become interested in what I see as an anomaly in NT scholarship >/ text criticism . I am sure that I am not coming up with anything new but >if anyone could comment on it, or point me to suitable literature which >discusses it, I would be very grateful. I am aware that in HB textual >criticism there is talk of finding the "final form of the text" not the >"autograph" and I guess there might be some insights here to help me. > >The anomaly is as follows: > >Most NT textual criticism (I think) works to try to get back to the >autograph - removing both accidental changed to the text and also purposeful >interpolations etc. If we think 1 Cor 14.34-35 is not by Paul - that is it >is a later interpolation into the text - then we cut it out from the text >and hence from the canon. Fine, but, much NT scholarship has decided that >the whole of 1 Timothy is not by Paul - it is a later "interpolation" into >the Pauline canon. Nevertheless most NT scholars assert that it should stay >in the canon. We can speculate about how or why it got in there but >nevertheless it is (by hypothesis) not 'by' Paul (I know that there is a lot >packed into the word 'by' here but I don't think that is of the essence here >- it is later compositions were are looking at here not secretaries, >fragments or the like). Why is it seen as reasonable to cut out little >interpolations but leave in big ones? > >Any comments or directs to literature on this would be appreciated. > >Thanks. > > >========================================= > >Jeremy Duff >D. Phil. Student >Jesus College, Oxford > > > > Kevin W. Woodruff Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Temple Baptist Seminary Tennessee Temple University 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, TN 37404 423/493-4252 (phone) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 08:52:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA08207; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 08:51:08 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 96 07:47 CDT X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) Subject: Re: NT Interpolations - request for help. Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3370 On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Jeremy Duff wrote: >I wonder if I could pick the list's collective brain. > >I am doing a D.Phil. here in Oxford looking at Pseudepigraphy among the >early Christians (until about 200 A.D.). While I have been thinking about >this, I have become interested in what I see as an anomaly in NT scholarship >/ text criticism . I am sure that I am not coming up with anything new but >if anyone could comment on it, or point me to suitable literature which >discusses it, I would be very grateful. I am aware that in HB textual >criticism there is talk of finding the "final form of the text" not the >"autograph" and I guess there might be some insights here to help me. > >The anomaly is as follows: > >Most NT textual criticism (I think) works to try to get back to the >autograph - removing both accidental changed to the text and also purposeful >interpolations etc. If we think 1 Cor 14.34-35 is not by Paul - that is it >is a later interpolation into the text - then we cut it out from the text >and hence from the canon. Fine, but, much NT scholarship has decided that >the whole of 1 Timothy is not by Paul - it is a later "interpolation" into >the Pauline canon. Nevertheless most NT scholars assert that it should stay >in the canon. We can speculate about how or why it got in there but >nevertheless it is (by hypothesis) not 'by' Paul (I know that there is a lot >packed into the word 'by' here but I don't think that is of the essence here >- it is later compositions were are looking at here not secretaries, >fragments or the like). Why is it seen as reasonable to cut out little >interpolations but leave in big ones? > >Any comments or directs to literature on this would be appreciated. I'm short on time, but cannot resist a brief reply: One needs to distinguish between two processes here. The first is the process of canonization. This was carried out by the entire church in the first four centuries. After significant hesitation, the entire church agreed on the current NT canon. Now you or I may dispute their decisions -- e.g. as a very "low church" protestant I don't much like 1 Timothy -- but I cannot deny that the church canonized it. The fact that Paul is probably not responsible for large parts of the epistle doesn't matter; Hebrews was canonized, and everyone admitted *it* was not by Paul. BTW -- there's a strong tendency to credit Athanasius with the official list of canonical books. And he *was* the first to publish the exact and official list. But don't lay too much stress on that. His authority was limited -- note that the Codex Alexandrinus, written well after his death -- still contains extracanonical books. I repeat: Our current canon is the result of consensus in the church (even if, e.g., the Catholic church did not formally publish a canon until the Council of Trent). But the church could not canonize the text; it could not even produce a uniform text. So even though ever Bible after the fifth century contained the same books, they didn't contain the same texts. The goal of textual criticism is to obtain the original form of the books that were later canonized. If, somehow, there had been a form of the books that had been canonized, we might try to look for that. But no such form ever existed. I hope this helps. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 09:52:58 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA08528; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 09:51:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 09:51:25 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List cc: PWEGNER@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU Subject: Re: TC article (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3308 I am forwarding this message from Ioudaios, written by Judith Romney Wegner, to the tc-list, since it deals with the newest article to appear in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism. Perhaps some on the list would like to comment (especially Dave Washburn)? Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html <----- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 96 19:10:41 EDT From: PWEGNER@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU To: First Century Judaism Discussion Forum Subject: Re: TC article ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >2 Sam 19:2 is unusual, but commentators generally explain it simply as a variation from the norm, if they treat it at all. Others follow the lead of two MT mss, P, and T and repoint the second verb as a participle. However, the lack of any true parallel to this structure elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible raises the possibility of an alternative explanation: the waw-consecutive phrase is not part of the direct speech, but rather continues the flow of the narrative.< That's ingenious, but I'm not sure it would work UNLESS you are making Joab (rather than the king) the subject of wa-yit'abbel, thus: And Joab was informed, "Look, the king is weeping." So he [Joab] mourned Absalom [likewise]. In other words, upon discovering that the king had, as it were, changed his stance towards Absalom (now that things had gone too far and it was too late) Joab deemed it prudent to appear pretty upset about what had transpired. But if you want it to mean: And Joab was informed, "Look, the king is weeping." And the King mourned Absalom...I don't think that would work, because taking the sentence as a whole, it is far more natural for wa-yit'abbel to refer back to Joab than to the king (if you assume that *hinneh hamelekh bokheh* is the only part of the sentence that is in indirect speech). In order to do what you want, I think the text would need to have read: wa-yit'abbel ha-melekh 'al Absalom. Another possibility: since *bokheh*, though pointed as present participle, is written *Xaser* rather than *male'*, it could equally well be vocalized as *bakhah* -- in which case we would be back to the position that it is all part of the direct speech after all. "Look, the king has been weeping and mourning for Absalom (*bakhah wa-yit'abbel* is a quite natural construction.) I suppose *bokheh* was vocalized that way because of the preceding *hinneh*, but I don't think *hinneh* would absolutely require this. New JPS (I now see) translates it pretty much the way I just did, but by the device of using indirect speech: "Joab was told that the king WAS weeping and mourning over Absalom." Of course, if you rendered that back into direct speech you'd have "IS weeping and mourning", as you indicated. But it's also quite reasonable to amend *wa-yit'abbel* to *u-mit'abbel* even though this means replacing a yod with a mem, because in ancient Hebrew script, it happens that the yod was a much larger letter, and looked very much like the ancient Hebrew mem (wish I could do this on e-mail, but you can find the chart in the Encyclopedia Britannica article on "Alphabet"). Judith Romney Wegner, Providence From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 10:15:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA08641; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 10:14:19 -0400 From: rachel@ms1.hinet.net Message-Id: <199606061411.WAA27576@ms1.hinet.net> Date: Thu, 06 Jun 96 21:58:57 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: NT Interpolations - request for help. In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v1.00 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 5152 In , on 06/06/96 at 07:47 AM, waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) said: In dealing with interpolations I have some comments: Firstly I do not see that 1 Cor 14:34-35 as an interpolation After reading Gordon Fee`s commentary and other opinions that support an interpolation I lean heavily towards it not being an interpolation at all. I surmise that Paul is quoting and re-playing comments made by some turkeys in the Corinthian church. If it was an interpolation then why does it not appear that way in our Gk texts? As as I recall it is placed where it is in most mss and it is placed in a few other locations in a few other mss . As for 1 Tim I have taken Kelly comments as being convincing and reasonable enough for me to accept the Pauline authorship for the pastoral letters. Now for some the irony would be that altho I accept them as Paul`s YET I do not accept the trad. interp. regarding the "gender issue" i.e. women are subservient to men in and outside of the Church...... I think it is not good hermeneutics to use 1 Tim 2 as a proof text for all the other related passages concerning this issue. Why do we need another "canon with the canon"? Why should some try to harmonize all other texts with 1 Tim 2?? Again I do not recall any strong arguments from textual criticism that the pastorals are not Paul`s. ---On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Jeremy Duff --- wrote: --->I wonder if I could pick the list's collective brain. > --->I am doing a D.Phil. here in Oxford looking at Pseudepigraphy ---among the >early Christians (until about 200 A.D.). While I ---have been thinking about >this, I have become interested in ---what I see as an anomaly in NT scholarship >/ text criticism . ---I am sure that I am not coming up with anything new but >if ---anyone could comment on it, or point me to suitable literature ---which >discusses it, I would be very grateful. I am aware that ---in HB textual >criticism there is talk of finding the "final ---form of the text" not the >"autograph" and I guess there might ---be some insights here to help me. > --->The anomaly is as follows: ---> --->Most NT textual criticism (I think) works to try to get back ---to the >autograph - removing both accidental changed to the ---text and also purposeful >interpolations etc. If we think 1 ---Cor 14.34-35 is not by Paul - that is it >is a later ---interpolation into the text - then we cut it out from the text --->and hence from the canon. Fine, but, much NT scholarship has ---decided that >the whole of 1 Timothy is not by Paul - it is a ---later "interpolation" into >the Pauline canon. Nevertheless ---most NT scholars assert that it should stay >in the canon. We ---can speculate about how or why it got in there but --->nevertheless it is (by hypothesis) not 'by' Paul (I know that ---there is a lot >packed into the word 'by' here but I don't ---think that is of the essence here >- it is later compositions ---were are looking at here not secretaries, >fragments or the ---like). Why is it seen as reasonable to cut out little --->interpolations but leave in big ones? ---> --->Any comments or directs to literature on this would be ---appreciated. ---I'm short on time, but cannot resist a brief reply: ---One needs to distinguish between two processes here. ---The first is the process of canonization. This was carried out ---by the entire church in the first four centuries. After ---significant hesitation, the entire church agreed on the ---current NT canon. ---Now you or I may dispute their decisions -- e.g. as a very ---"low church" protestant I don't much like 1 Timothy -- but I ---cannot deny that the church canonized it. The fact that Paul ---is probably not responsible for large parts of the epistle ---doesn't matter; Hebrews was canonized, and everyone admitted ---*it* was not by Paul. ---BTW -- there's a strong tendency to credit Athanasius with the ---official list of canonical books. And he *was* the first to ---publish the exact and official list. But don't lay too much ---stress on that. His authority was limited -- note that the ---Codex Alexandrinus, written well after his death -- still ---contains extracanonical books. I repeat: Our current canon is ---the result of consensus in the church (even if, e.g., the ---Catholic church did not formally publish a canon until the ---Council of Trent). ---But the church could not canonize the text; it could not even ---produce a uniform text. So even though ever Bible after the ---fifth century contained the same books, they didn't contain ---the same texts. ---The goal of textual criticism is to obtain the original form ---of the books that were later canonized. If, somehow, there had ---been a form of the books that had been canonized, we might try ---to look for that. But no such form ever existed. ---I hope this helps. ---Bob Waltz ---waltzmn@skypoint.com -- Respond to Jim at the following address ---------------------------------------------------- rachel@ms1.hinet.net ----------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 11:08:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA09008; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 11:07:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 10:04:19 -0500 (CDT) From: "Larry W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2032 On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > Another interesting point, which can be taken in two primary ways: either > the Byzantine Textform is a composite, pieced together from scattered > readings found in various texttypes or other minority groupings, by some > unknown method (since mere "conflation" will not account for all the > Byzantine readings, nor even a large percentage of them); or the presence > of Byzantine readings in nearly every other texttype or smaller group of > MSS implies an extremely strong Byzantine "influence", which is quite > difficult to explain without either imposing an official promulgation of > that text or an official revision which produced that text -- unless of > course, such Byzantine concurrence in non-Byzantine MSS and texttypes is > actually a result of preservation of the autograph text itself (which > latter I would naturally maintain). Maurice (and others): If you imagine that the only way "Byzantine readings" can have made their way into mss is through the "influence" of a "Byzantine text-type" (i.e., a relatively matured type of text such as we have in the primary Byzantine mss reps.), then, yes, readings in early mss would suggest that this text-form might be there. But, if (as I see it) "text-types" are basically the result of scribal copying/transmission habits/tastes/objectives, etc. (shaped of course by ecclesiastical concerns etc.), then what becomes the "Byzantine text-type" is basically a matured form/degree (late, so the evidence) of scribal/editorial tendencies observable quite early in their initial operation. So, the "Byzantine text" is basically an "ecclesiastical" text, that reflects a few centuries of transmission with readability, inoffensiveness, harmonization, etc. operational. These tendencies began very early, so they show up ad hoc in such early witnesses as P45, P46, etc. But a more programmatic operation of these tendencies gathers force over time. Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 11:48:02 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA09214; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 11:46:24 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 11:43:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1604 On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, DC PARKER wrote: > The whole discussion on this theme stirs up in me a thought on one > point. It is being assumed (I suggest) that local texts had acquired all > their own characteristics from the very beginning of their existence, > and that therefore all members of the group must be, as it were, fully > paid up members. This is not at all how I think of them. Rather, each > text slowly acquired its peculiar properties over a sequence of > transmissions. Rather than Athene springing fully armed from Zeus' > head, they evolved like the distinctive species which Darwin found in > different places. Or perhaps one might conceive of them as the > various dialects in which a language is spoken. Thus, an early > member of a type (or whatever you want to call it} will show some > characteristics of its descendants, but will also share characteristics > with members of other groups which its descendants will not retain. > We must remember here what a tiny proportion of the members of > any one group are available to us, even in part, as a consequence of > which it is generally impossible to trace these developments in > detail. I fully concur with Parker on this point; it reflects well my own transmissional presuppositions regarding local texts. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 11:50:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA09244; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 11:49:21 -0400 Message-Id: <199606061545.RAA28382@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 06 Jun 96 17:49:38 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: NT Interpolations - request for help. To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <199606060835.JAA26327@sable.ox.ac.uk> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2562 On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Jeremy Duff wrote (inter alia): >The anomaly is as follows: >Most NT textual criticism (I think) works to try to get back to >the autograph - removing both accidental changed to the text and >also purposeful interpolations etc. If we think 1 Cor 14.34-35 is >not by Paul - that is it is a later interpolation into the text - >then we cut it out from the text and hence from the canon. Do you know of any edition/translation of the NT where 1 Cor 14.34-35 is cut out from the text? Even the _mulier adultera_ story to my knowledge is not cut out from the text or the longer ending(s) of Mark. If in editions/translations the mentioned texts are sometimes put into brackets or typed smaller or hesitations were expressed that they presumably did not belong to the oldest form of the writings, it was the editor's coice to do so. Up to now I fail to see how these operations result in cutting the mentioned texts out from the canon. This to my mind is quite a different thing depending on different concepts of canon. I do not know of any currently held concept of canon -but I am open to new insides- where canon is related to the oldest available Textform of individual NT writings in a way that scholarly progress would automatically affect the shape of the canon. >Fine, but, much NT scholarship has decided that the whole of 1 >Timothy is not by Paul - it is a later "interpolation" into >the Pauline canon. Nevertheless most NT scholars assert that it >should stay in the canon. >We can speculate about how or why it got in there but nevertheless >it is (by hypothesis) not 'by' Paul (I know that there is a lot >packed into the word 'by' here but I don't think that is of the >essence here - it is later compositions were are looking at here >not secretaries, fragments or the like). Why is it seen as >reasonable to cut out little interpolations but leave in big ones? I must confess that I do not fully grasp what the point is therein. What is "the Pauline canon" (first sentence) in relation to "the canon" (second sentence)? BTW I do not know of "the Pauline canon". What I know is the Corpus Paulinum as part of the New Testament as part of the Christian Bible. Within the Corpus Paulinum there is even one writing (letter?), Hebrews, transmitted that does not even claim to be written by Paul. The Corpus Paulinum is in itself simply speaking a 14-letter edition. Presumably other editions existed too, but which can properly addressed to be "the Pauline canon"? Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 12:57:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA09583; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 12:55:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 12:52:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4730 On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Larry W. Hurtado wrote: > Maurice (and others): If you imagine that the only way "Byzantine > readings" can have made their way into mss is through the "influence" of > a "Byzantine text-type" (i.e., a relatively matured type of text such as > we have in the primary Byzantine mss reps.), then, yes, readings in early > mss would suggest that this text-form might be there. Which falls within the range of my own reconstructed transmissional history. Note, however, that I do not think this is the "only way" that such could occur, but rather that it would be the "primary way", following my theory of transmission. Certainly, there is always room for the independent scribal creation (or re-creation) of various Byzantine readings without any necessary genealogical connection; but I would suspect this type of instance to be in the minority. > But, if (as I see > it) "text-types" are basically the result of scribal copying/transmission > habits/tastes/objectives, etc. (shaped of course by ecclesiastical > concerns etc.), then what becomes the "Byzantine text-type" is basically > a matured form/degree (late, so the evidence) of scribal/editorial > tendencies observable quite early in their initial operation. > So, the > "Byzantine text" is basically an "ecclesiastical" text, that reflects a > few centuries of transmission with readability, inoffensiveness, > harmonization, etc. operational. These tendencies began very early, so > they show up ad hoc in such early witnesses as P45, P46, etc. But a more > programmatic operation of these tendencies gathers force over time. As Fee has well noted, the Byzantine Textform, or any texttype, is really comprised of a _pattern_ of readings, which pattern distinguishes it from any other pattern, even if the patterns remain otherwise relatively similar. What you state above reflects the opinion of most eclectic scholars on this point, and supposes a "process" methodology whereby the Byzantine Textform is slowly pieced together over a long period of time into the basic "pattern" which it eventually assumes in the later uncials or in most minuscules. But again, the problem with that "process" scenario goes back to the statement made by Hodges (which basically reflects K.W.Clark's critique of Colwell on this point) that I quoted in the introduction to my Greek NT: No one has yet explained how a long, slow process spread out over many centuries as well as over a wide geographical area, and involving a multitude of copyists, who often knew nothing of the state of the text outside of their own monasteries or scriptoria, could achieve this widespread uniformity out of the diversity presented by the [supposedly] earlier [Western and Alexandrian] forms of text....An unguided process achieving relative stability and uniformity in the diversified textual, historical, and cultural circumstances in which the New Testament was copied, imposes impossible strains on our imagination. (Hodges, from Pickering, _Identity of the NT Text_, p.168; cited in my Greek NT introduction, p.xxv). If modern eclecticism wishes to maintain a "process" view (which it obviously prefers), then some serious grappling with this problem must occur. There is no difficulty in imagining that scribes might opt for certain types of readings, but the truth is that virtually ALL scribes, of ALL texttypes individually and sporadically opted for precisely the _same_ kind of readings which supposedly typify the Byzantine Textform (you admit as much regarding certain of the early MSS); the only difference is that they did not happen to recreate the "pattern" of that Textform as they chose such readings. The mystery question par excellence is _how_ did the Byzantine-era scribes consistently and harmoniously tend independently and sporadically to choose "Byzantine-like readings" (to use Fee's term) and to do so in precisely the _same_ pattern, without any collusion or certain knowledge that other scribes were similarly selecting nearly-identical patterns? The Hodges/Clark critique of Colwell's process method really needs to be addressed more seriously by the eclectic school before making a final supposition as to how the Byzantine mindset supposedly functioned. (I will note once more that my own transmissional reconstruction does not suffer from this particular problem). _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 13:23:08 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA09693; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:21:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:18:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1057 On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > The mystery question par excellence is _how_ did the Byzantine-era scribes > consistently and harmoniously tend independently and sporadically to > choose "Byzantine-like readings" (to use Fee's term) and to do so in > precisely the _same_ pattern, without any collusion or certain knowledge > that other scribes were similarly selecting nearly-identical patterns? ??? I don't think anyone has seriously argued that Byzantine scribes developed identical harmonizations independently or without collusion -- or at least certainly not in a way that is implicit in this characterization. Certainly various harmonizations (etc) occurred independently, finally resulting in the "final" Byzantine text as it evolved over six or so centuries. But it is also likely that many "Byzantine-like" variations came and fell by the wayside, losing out to those emendations that finally congealed into "standard form" of the text-style as we have it now. Nichael Cramer nichael@sover.net http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 13:56:46 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA09902; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:55:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:52:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2470 On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Nichael Cramer wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > I don't think anyone has seriously argued that Byzantine scribes developed > identical harmonizations independently or without collusion -- or at least > certainly not in a way that is implicit in this characterization. On the contrary, this is precisely the assumption of the "process" model, that Byzantine-like changes were being made and almost without question being adopted by later scribes, and henceforth perpetuated into future generations, thus producing the final stages of the Byzantine Textform in the period from the 9th century onward. If the choice of these readings was _not_ made independently and haphazardly, evidence of serious collusion needs to be forthcoming (W-H recognized this and were compelled to postulate a formal revision process whereby the Byzantine Textform was created and officially promulgated). Most eclectic scholars today have moved away from the formal recension theory, as well as official promulgation of certain readings (especially in a particular pattern), so what remains as an option beyond the haphazard and independently-created model which I critiqued? > Certainly various harmonizations (etc) occurred independently, finally > resulting in the "final" Byzantine text as it evolved over six or so > centuries. But it is also likely that many "Byzantine-like" variations > came and fell by the wayside, losing out to those emendations that > finally congealed into "standard form" of the text-style as we have it > now. The problem with the first sentence above is precisely what I was addressing by citing the Hodges quote. Independent creation of "Byzantine-like" readings certainly can and did occur. I previously noted that many of those same type of readings _did_ fall by the wayside during the "process". However, the question of precisely -how- the specific pattern of readings which characterizes the Byzantine Textform tended to come about by such a method, without collusion or imposition of specific textual authority still remains a mystery which process theorists seem unable to resolve. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 14:21:36 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA10058; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 14:20:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 14:16:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1861 On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > The problem with the first sentence above is precisely what I was > addressing by citing the Hodges quote. Independent creation of > "Byzantine-like" readings certainly can and did occur. I previously noted > that many of those same type of readings _did_ fall by the wayside during > the "process". However, the question of precisely -how- the specific > pattern of readings which characterizes the Byzantine Textform tended to > come about by such a method, without collusion or imposition of specific > textual authority still remains a mystery which process theorists seem > unable to resolve. But it seems to me that the flow of logic here is precisely backwards. We now have a Byzantine text-type which evolved over several centuries, which we now see has features which we characterize as "Byzantine" but acknowledging this is certainly not the same as insisting that those who created those peculiar variations were governed by some "hidden hand". Rather the logic here, it seems to me, would be the same as asking how could Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn and all the rest, working independently, have come up with a style of music which we (now) call "Classical"? Or how, separated by vast geographical areas and long stretches of time, our ancestors could have come up with our present English language? As in these examples, there were certainly conventions and a certain enviormental "ambience" (as it were) which would tend to reinforce certain aspects and to drive out certain others. The development of these creations might _tend_ to be driven in certain direction --that is the nature of such enterprises. But to insist that there must have been a central guiding force is to look through the wrong end of the telescope. Nichael Cramer nichael@sover.net http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 14:35:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA10150; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 14:34:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 96 13:31 CDT X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) Subject: This and That Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 11594 I was hoping that I could take a day off from controversy (it's a very busy day today), but I guess I'd better start writing before I get left behind. This is a mish-mash of responses to previous posts. Robinson: >I think you will find that, though I consider modern eclectic theory >basically defective (not necessarily "bankrupt") at its presuppositional >core, I do not really think the resultant text is "thoroughly bad", since >over 90% of it would agree with the Byzantine Textform or any other >texttype in the first place. I would consider the UBS/Nestle text and >even the W-H text as "adequate" for virtually all purposes. The fact >that I do not consider "adequate" to mean equivalent to the autograph text >does not prevent the profitable use of that text or of tools based upon >it; I simply propose a different model which (in my own opinion) >transcends the concept of mere adequacy. Once again, I suppose I overspoke. Modern textual scholarship should probably not be called "bankrupt"; people are proposing new ideas (e.g. Dearing, Robinson) or modifications of old ideas (e.g. Sturz). It's just that we are not reaching consensus on new ideas. And I suppose I must agree that there is no "thoroughly bad" NT text in circulation. At least, there's no one I'd label a heretic just because of that person's NT. Let's just say that both Robinson and I see some defects in the current NT editions, and that he would probably view them as graver than I. Robinson again: >I would concur this point with regard to the minuscules. I cannot concur >the same in regard to the uncials (even the Byzantine-text uncials). >However, the problem in this regard is the almost total lack of >genealogical connection between the MSS which were copied in the region >from the Greek monasteries spanning the geographical gamut from Meteora >through Sinai, most of which present a near-identical Byzantine-type of >text, yet without collusion or even significant cross-comparison between >those monasteries in the post-9th century era. The lack of genealogical >connection (noted by Lake, Blake and New, HTR 1928) becomes a very >significant factor in evaluating those MSS, and tends to rule out any >mere "local text" aspect regarding them. I ask -- purely for information -- how well-established this is? Most minuscules have never been collated; how can we *tell* what they are related to. Let's take an example. Wisse, page 93, reports that there are 59 minuscules that have a "perfect" Kr profile. So these manuscripts would have to be considered candidates for genetic relationship. Now the number of collating operations needed to cross-collate a group of manuscripts goes as the order n squared. For 59 manuscripts, that's 1711 cross-collations. For 700 Kx manuscripts, it's 244650. And so on. Have we *really* tried to see which of those manuscripts are directly related? I don't think it's possible without the help of a computer. And even then, someone has to enter in the 59, or 700, or 3000 collations.... Robinson again, quoting others: >[Schmid:] > >>>But, does this imply that a full blown >>>Byzantine text in its actual state of appearance existed for the General >>>epistles prior to around 500 AD to serve as deus ex machina for our influence >>>theories? At least there is NO manuscript evidence to a full blown Byzantine >>>text prior to the 9th century. > >[Waltz:] > >> Agreed -- although Byzantine manuscripts appear in large numbers in that >> century (K, L, 049, assorted minuscules). That would seem to imply that the >> text is at least somewhat older than that century. > >I also would differ with Schmid on this point, along with Westcott and >Hort, who were quite willing to admit a generally developed ("full-blown" >probably is a question-begging term) Byzantine text from at least AD 350 >onward. The new claims stemming from the Alands' Text of the NT volume >(and picked up on by Wallace) regarding the Byzantine as "developed" >and/or the "majority text" only beginning with the 9th century is simply >revisionist history, held hitherto by no one. I will at the very least >side with Westcott and Hort on this point; and Waltz is also clearly >correct that 9th century Byzantine uncials certainly imply a much earlier >existence of the "developed" Byzantine Textform, which in no way >contradicts Westcott and Hort's own thesis on this point. I think we need to distinguish here between the Byzantine *textform* (to use Robinson's term), Byzantine *manuscripts*, and the late medieval majority text. In all cases, witnesses which are substantially Byzantine (say 75% Byzantine) which occur long before "full-blown" Byzantine texts. Curiously, these are often versions. But let me list what I think are the earliest witnesses in each class, with dates, and then see what others think. Gospels: Earliest substantial witness: Peshitta (IV) Earliest substantial Greek witness: A (V) Earliest pure witness: E (VIII) Acts (tentative; I haven't worked with these manuuscripts much): Earliest substantial witness: (E in part/VI) Psi (VIII/IX) Earliest substantial Greek witness: same Earliest pure witness: L, P, minuscules (IX) Paul: Earliest substantial witness: Harklean (VI) Earliest substantial Greek witness: Psi (VIII/IX) Earliest pure witness: K, L, 049, minuscules (IX) Catholics: Earliest substantial witness: K, L, 049, minuscules (IX) Earliest substantial Greek witness: same Earliest pure witness: same Apocalypse (again, tentative): Earliest substantial witness: P, 046, minuscules (IX) Earliest substantial Greek witness: same Earliest pure witness: same Parker: >On Tuesday 4 June Robert Waltz wrote that 'our knowledge of local >texts, especially in the western half of the Roman empire, is very >slight'. As a matter of fact, palaeography helps us much further than >this. If, for example, you look at the introduction to the Supplement of >Lowe's _Codices Latini Antiquiores_, you will find an excellent >discussion of the distinctive hands of North Africa (surely the origin of >Bobbiensis (k). There is a discussion of Cavallo's _Maiuscola >biblica_ of a hand which he believes to be distinctive of the Nitrian >Desert (p. 87f). There are plenty of other examples. > >The present location of MSS is not necessarily of any use - >provenance may tell us nothing about origin - nor should the Vatican >collection be treated as more significant in this regard. Devreesse's >_Les Manuscrits grecs de l'Italie meridionale_ is another example of >palaeography providing grounds for identifying local texts, and >illustrates the growth of collections such as the Vatican's. Without denying this point, I fail to see how it affects things. Taking, again, North Africa, the fact that we can identify (Latin) manuscripts as coming from there does not mean that we *have* identified a significant number of such manuscripts. Despite this, to my knowledge the only North African texts we have are k, e, and h, plus quotations from Cyprian and a few others. We have *no* Greek witnesses (I concede that there were few greek manuscripts used there, but the Old Latin had to be translated from *something*). Even the Latin witnesses are fragmentary. So our knowledge of that local text is weak. As for the Vatican collection -- I am aware that manuscripts from there generally come from the east. But a manuscript in the Vatican *may* have been there all along, whereas a manuscript in, say, Ann Arbor *cannot* have been there since its writing. I still believe that our knowledge of local texts, except in areas that belonged to the Byzantine empire, is slight. >The whole discussion on this theme stirs up in me a thought on one >point. It is being assumed (I suggest) that local texts had acquired all >their own characteristics from the very beginning of their existence, >and that therefore all members of the group must be, as it were, fully >paid up members. With this I have no argument. Also, I think local texts can evolve. Hort noticed a bit of this when he spoke of "Neutral" and "Alexandrian" texts. I do not view these as separate texts. But (to use Epp's terminology, even though I hate it) the "trajectory" can change shape as it moves along. In Paul at least, the Alexandrian text seems to have phases. In Aleph/A/C/I/33/Bohairic we see one text. In later Alexandrian texts (e.g. 81 436 1175 f2127) we see something which is *mostly* early Alexandrian and/or Byzantine, but with a slight mixture of something else. Hurtado, on Robinson: >> Another interesting point, which can be taken in two primary ways: either >> the Byzantine Textform is a composite, pieced together from scattered >> readings found in various texttypes or other minority groupings, by some >> unknown method (since mere "conflation" will not account for all the >> Byzantine readings, nor even a large percentage of them); or the presence >> of Byzantine readings in nearly every other texttype or smaller group of >> MSS implies an extremely strong Byzantine "influence", which is quite >> difficult to explain without either imposing an official promulgation of >> that text or an official revision which produced that text -- unless of >> course, such Byzantine concurrence in non-Byzantine MSS and texttypes is >> actually a result of preservation of the autograph text itself (which >> latter I would naturally maintain). > >Maurice (and others): If you imagine that the only way "Byzantine >readings" can have made their way into mss is through the "influence" of >a "Byzantine text-type" (i.e., a relatively matured type of text such as >we have in the primary Byzantine mss reps.), then, yes, readings in early >mss would suggest that this text-form might be there. But, if (as I see >it) "text-types" are basically the result of scribal copying/transmission >habits/tastes/objectives, etc. (shaped of course by ecclesiastical >concerns etc.), then what becomes the "Byzantine text-type" is basically >a matured form/degree (late, so the evidence) of scribal/editorial >tendencies observable quite early in their initial operation. So, the >"Byzantine text" is basically an "ecclesiastical" text, that reflects a >few centuries of transmission with readability, inoffensiveness, >harmonization, etc. operational. These tendencies began very early, so >they show up ad hoc in such early witnesses as P45, P46, etc. But a more >programmatic operation of these tendencies gathers force over time. It's interesting how often scholars have accused particular scribes of a certain "mindset" -- e.g. Hort thought the "Alexandrian" scholars were conservative but concerned with grammatical niceties; Aland, Metzger, and others have called the "Western" copyists "wild" (without having much evidence to go on); many people accuse the Byzantine recensors of striving for a "smooth" text. I agree with whoever it was that said that it's hard to imagine a whole school of scribes with a "mindset"; if a text really does exhibit a particular set of characteristics, recensional activity seems more likely. I think that, to decide between "influence" and "scribal tendency," we must examine the nature of the proto-Byzantine texts (A, Peshitta, N-O-Sigma-Phi, P, Q, R, the early correctors of Aleph, etc.). Do they share the same Byzantine readings? Do they share the same *type* of Byzantine readings? Are Byzantine readings occurring in the same contexts? I don't know if this has been studied. Anyone? *** I hope that covers everything I'm responsible for. Next? Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 16:03:36 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA10624; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 16:01:44 -0400 Message-Id: <9606061958.AA18351@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 15:58:34 -0400 (EDT) From: "Stephen C Carlson" In-Reply-To: from "Nichael Cramer" at Jun 6, 96 02:16:53 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1836 It seems to me that once there exists a certain mass of documents, it should be very difficult for once scribe's deviation from his exemplar to be adopted by a large number of texts. If there is no cross-checking, then the unique reading would only descend to those MSS copied from it. If there is cross-checking, then the probability that the variant would continue to exist seems diminished. The analogy to biological genetics seems apt. The main way for a large number of variants that constitute a text-type to be adopted is for the transmission process to go through a bottleneck (i.e., reproductive isolation). Apparently the Lucian recension that had been proposed but now largely abandoned as one such bottleneck, and I think the conversion from uncial to minuscule is another. Although, there could be a textual analog to "genetic drift," it seems quite unlikely that a majority text-type can coalesce at a late stage without going through a transmissional bottleneck. I understand that Diocletian's persecution had targetted and destroyed many Christian manuscripts, and shortly thereafter Constantine legitimized Christianity. Obviously, more Bibles had to be produced at an increased pace, and the local text around Constantinople would be the most prestigious base. This bottleneck can adequately account for the rise and dominance of the Byzantine text-form, in a way that the sporadic process model can't. Its corollary implies that a Byzantine-type text existed in the third century (or was created rapidly in early fourth). Is this reasonable or mad speculation? Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/ : chant the words. -- Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 16:26:55 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA10719; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 16:25:49 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 96 15:22 CDT X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2690 On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, "Stephen C Carlson" wrote, in part: > >I understand that Diocletian's persecution had targetted and destroyed >many Christian manuscripts, and shortly thereafter Constantine legitimized >Christianity. Obviously, more Bibles had to be produced at an increased >pace, and the local text around Constantinople would be the most prestigious >base. This bottleneck can adequately account for the rise and dominance >of the Byzantine text-form, in a way that the sporadic process model can't. >Its corollary implies that a Byzantine-type text existed in the third century >(or was created rapidly in early fourth). > >Is this reasonable or mad speculation? A couple of observations, based mostly in history. It is my opinion that the effect of Diocletian's persecution have been overrated. The Christian church had been subjected to repeated persecutions before this (Domitian, Marcus Aurelius, Decius, etc.). Nobody ever talks about *their* effects on scripture. I've seen it claimed that Diocletian's was the longest and most extreme of the persecutions. This is not really true. It was one of the longer ones, but hardly universal. We should remember that Diocletian was not really the Roman Emperor. He was, by his own choice, the senior of four Emperors. Of these four, it was Galerius (Diocletian's understudy) who was most ardent against Christians. Diocletian, who approved the policy, was also anti-Christian, but really didn't do much to enforce it; he was well on his way to retirement by then. In the western Roman Empire, Maximian was anti-Christian, but that wasn't really at the top of his priority list. And Constantius (the father of Constantine) took no action at all against Christians. Thus, it was only in Galerius's fiefdom (roughly the Balkans) that Christians were really persecuted. I'm not saying that Diocletian's persecution was insignificant; it was long and nasty. But that is simply not unique. As for the coming of Constantine -- this too can be overrated. Constantine legalized Christianity, and encouraged it, but did not require it. Chances are that more manuscripts were copied in Constantine's time, but not massively more; there just weren't that many qualified scribes. For that matter, the only Bibles we know Constantine to have ordered were the fifty copies he received from Eusebius. But the text of Eusebius, although it has many Byzantine readings, is *not* purely, or even particularly strongly, Byzantine. I'm not saying that Stephen Carlson's conclusions are wrong. I think history can help elucidate textual problems. But it is a tool to be used carefully. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 18:00:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA11107; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 17:59:19 -0400 X-Sender: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 17:02:02 +0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton L. Winbery) Subject: Re: NT Interpolations - request for help. Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2085 Jeremy wrote; >I am doing a D.Phil. here in Oxford looking at Pseudepigraphy among the >early Christians (until about 200 A.D.). While I have been thinking about >this, I have become interested in what I see as an anomaly in NT scholarship >/ text criticism . I am sure that I am not coming up with anything new but >if anyone could comment on it, or point me to suitable literature which >discusses it, I would be very grateful. I am aware that in HB textual >criticism there is talk of finding the "final form of the text" not the >"autograph" and I guess there might be some insights here to help me. > >The anomaly is as follows: > >Most NT textual criticism (I think) works to try to get back to the >autograph - removing both accidental changed to the text and also purposeful >interpolations etc. If we think 1 Cor 14.34-35 is not by Paul - that is it >is a later interpolation into the text - then we cut it out from the text >and hence from the canon. Fine, but, much NT scholarship has decided that >the whole of 1 Timothy is not by Paul - it is a later "interpolation" into >the Pauline canon. Nevertheless most NT scholars assert that it should stay >in the canon. We can speculate about how or why it got in there but >nevertheless it is (by hypothesis) not 'by' Paul (I know that there is a lot >packed into the word 'by' here but I don't think that is of the essence here >- it is later compositions were are looking at here not secretaries, >fragments or the like). Why is it seen as reasonable to cut out little >interpolations but leave in big ones? Jeremy, there have been several studies on pseudipigrapha. Metzger's presidential address before the SBL, Published in JBL, 1972 was brief but informative with good bibliography. Metzger has a section on textual problems and canon in his work on the Canon. The Alands book on TC has a brief section on the relation to the canon. Someone else has already made the point that no particular form of the text was canonized. I agree with that. Carlton L. Winbery Fogleman Professor of Religion Louisiana College From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 18:00:41 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA11108; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 17:59:22 -0400 X-Sender: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 17:02:08 +0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton L. Winbery) Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1451 Larry Hurtado wrote; >Maurice (and others): If you imagine that the only way "Byzantine >readings" can have made their way into mss is through the "influence" of >a "Byzantine text-type" (i.e., a relatively matured type of text such as >we have in the primary Byzantine mss reps.), then, yes, readings in early >mss would suggest that this text-form might be there. But, if (as I see >it) "text-types" are basically the result of scribal copying/transmission >habits/tastes/objectives, etc. (shaped of course by ecclesiastical >concerns etc.), then what becomes the "Byzantine text-type" is basically >a matured form/degree (late, so the evidence) of scribal/editorial >tendencies observable quite early in their initial operation. So, the >"Byzantine text" is basically an "ecclesiastical" text, that reflects a >few centuries of transmission with readability, inoffensiveness, >harmonization, etc. operational. These tendencies began very early, so >they show up ad hoc in such early witnesses as P45, P46, etc. But a more >programmatic operation of these tendencies gathers force over time. > Larry has made an excellent statement that seems to me to account for the evidence that we have. This explanation of the growth of texts makes unnecessary elaborate and imaginative explanations for obvious scribal improvements such as the obvious harmonization in I Thess. 1:1. Carlton L. Winbery Fogleman Professor of Religion Louisiana College From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 20:45:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA11564; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 20:43:58 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 20:40:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 5527 On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Nichael Cramer wrote: > But it seems to me that the flow of logic here is precisely backwards. It is backwards only if a presupposition regarding the "late" nature of the Byzantine Textform predominates. From my perspective, there is no backward reasoning necessary. > We now have a Byzantine text-type which evolved over several centuries, > which we now see has features which we characterize as "Byzantine" but > acknowledging this is certainly not the same as insisting that those who > created those peculiar variations were governed by some "hidden hand". My own transmissional history of course begins with a presumption of Byzantine originality, from which individual and independent variations can readily be distinguished. Over 90% of the text of all MSS basically remains identical at all times, regardless of texttype, and this 90% most certainly stems from the autograph. My own theory merely applies the same logic to the remaining 10% of the text. There is no need to read this as a retrogressive superimposition of later characteristics upon pre-existing documents, nor is there any need to postulate any "hidden hand" governing the process (which in my reconstruction follows quite natural means). The final resultant text still has to come from somewhere, and if a Byzantine originality is not presumed, the question of -how- the result ended up in precisely that form still remains unanswered. > Rather the logic here, it seems to me, would be the same as asking how > could Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn and all the rest, working independently, > have come up with a style of music which we (now) call "Classical"? This analogy fails, since it does not deal with the same thing. Rather, allow a given of the hymn tune "Amazing Grace" and note that in virtually all hymnbooks of all denominations, the rendition remains basically identical, and usually even the key in which it is written remains unchanged. Various classical composers, with styles as diverse as Bach, Beethoven, and Ives might deal in a quite different manner with that hymn tune, but the "original essence" of it (which preceded any of the classical variations) would still remain, even though altered by those composers, sometimes in a dramatic manner. The text of the NT first has to be postulated from the point of the autograph, and it is the essence of the autograph which permeates all MSS, versions, and patristic quotations. That essence may be altered to varying degrees, but it cannot be destroyed, else the result will no longer be the NT text per se. > Or > how, separated by vast geographical areas and long stretches of time, our > ancestors could have come up with our present English language? Again, this is a supposition without presupposing an autograph. Putting it in a proper analogy, is there not a close connection between the Middle English of Chaucer and a modern prose or verse rendition of his Canterbury Tales? Or biblically, cannot Tyndale's English have a recognizable and readily traceable connection to its later English descendants, whether in the form of the Geneva Bible, the Bishop's Bible, or the King James Bible? Any analogy presented -must- be one which postulates an autograph which undergoes certain alteration, but without removing or destroying the -essence- of that autograph. > As in these examples, there were certainly conventions and a certain > enviormental "ambience" (as it were) which would tend to reinforce certain > aspects and to drive out certain others. Even allowing your hypothesis, what were these factors? Every item generally cited by eclectic scholars (a preference for easier readings, longer or fuller readings, substitution of synonyms, harmonizing readings, etc.) can be shown to have occurred repeatedly and on numerous occasions, even among MSS which are not of the Byzantine type. However, the vast bulk of such "secondary" readings -- probably 99% of such -- even though clearly reflecting the supposed "Byzantine mindset", were either NOT perpetuated or tended to have a very short span of perpetuation. Yet those particular readings which just "happened" to have the Byzantine "pattern" -were- perpetuated on a continually widening basis. Why should this be so, save for the overarching influence of the autograph? The question for eclectic theory is to account for precisely what caused that pattern of readings to be perpetuated to the point of dominance, while the vast bulk of other readings supposedly appropriate to the "Byzantine mindset" were not perpetuated. From my own perspective, I have no problem answering this point; I suspect modern eclectic theory will find this particular matter difficult if not insurmountable. > But to insist that there must have been a > central guiding force is to look through the wrong end of the telescope. If the autograph text itself is not considered a significant "guiding force," I do not know what else remains. Do note that I am not claiming anything more than normal transmissional practices in regard to a pre-existing autograph text; such is perfectly adequate to account for the data we possess in our extant MSS, versions and Fathers. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 21:29:50 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA11697; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 21:28:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 21:25:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: This and That In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 7242 [Answering a selection of items from Waltz' lengthy response] On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > Let's just say that both Robinson and > I see some defects in the current NT editions, and that he would > probably view them as graver than I. Probably less gravely than you think, since the bulk of the texts of all editions remains identical. > Robinson again: >> The lack of genealogical >> connection (noted by Lake, Blake and New, HTR 1928) becomes a very >> significant factor in evaluating those MSS, and tends to rule out any >> mere "local text" aspect regarding them. > I ask -- purely for information -- how well-established this is? Most > minuscules have never been collated; how can we *tell* what they are > related to. The article mentioned (which I have before me) reflects a reasonable statistical sampling with significant results. The article contains a collation of a sample chapter (Mark 11) from "all the MSS (excluding lectionaries and commentaries) on Mt. Sinai, at Patmos, and in the Patriarchal Library and the collection of St. Saba at Jerusalem" [as of 1928, obviously] (p.339). They omitted from collation only MS 1241, which is treated separately in the Six Collations volume, due to its peculiar text. They also omitted 1192 and 1210 because "they seem to us to have weak Caesarean texts" (p.340). Their intention in this particular excursus was not to categorize the Caesarean text, but accurately to present a Byzantine model. Just under 100 MSS were collated for this particular study, and the results are displayed in the HTR article. The point is that these MSS, which in the view of Lake, Blake, and New were likely copied within the confines of those three widely separated monasteries, presented a near-identical Byzantine Textform, yet without any indication of genealogical ties, or even descent from within the MSS of the same monastery. They raise some valid concerns, and their comments (p.340) are worth quoting in extenso: The results are instructive, especially in their negative aspects. This collation covers three of the great ancient collections of MSS.; and these are not modern conglomerations, brought together from all directions. Many of the MSS. now at Sinai, Patmos, and Jerusalem must be codices written in the scriptoria of these monasteries. We expected to find that a collation covering all the MSS. in each library would show many cases of direct copying. But there are practically no such cases. What does this mean? Before answering the question, it may be well to put another. Why are there only a few fragments (even in the two oldest of the monastic collections, Sinai and St. Saba) which come from a date earlier than the 10th century? There must have been in existence many thousands of manuscripts of the gospels in the great days of Byzantine prosperity, between the fourth and the tenth centuries. There are now extant but a pitiably small number. Moreover, the amount of direct genealogy which has been detected in extant codices is almost negligible. Nor are many known MSS. sister codices. . . . Apart from . . . [f1 and f13] there seem to be no groups of MSS. which are conceivably descendants of a single lost codex. There are cognate groups -- families of distant cousins -- but the manuscripts which we have are almost all orphan children without brothers or sisters. The data and conclusions of Lake, Blake, and New need to be seriously considered in formulating any hypothesis regarding the nature of the Byzantine Textform. > Let's take an example. Wisse, page 93, reports that there are 59 > minuscules that have a "perfect" Kr profile. So these manuscripts > would have to be considered candidates for genetic relationship. It is generally agreed since Voss that Von Soden's Kr group is a distinctive sub-type of the Byzantine Textform, and that MSS of this sub-type do have some genetic links, though none of the links are direct. > Now the number of collating operations needed to cross-collate a > group of manuscripts goes as the order n squared. For 59 manuscripts, > that's 1711 cross-collations. For 700 Kx manuscripts, it's 244650. > And so on. Have we *really* tried to see which of those manuscripts > are directly related? I don't think it's possible without the > help of a computer. And even then, someone has to enter in the > 59, or 700, or 3000 collations.... Which is why the Alands chose to use the 1000 selected readings as a gauge of a MS's textual affinity. It may not be a perfect system, but, given the geometrically-increasing alternatives noted above, it probably remains a reasonable approach. > I think we need to distinguish here between the Byzantine *textform* > (to use Robinson's term), Byzantine *manuscripts*, and the late > medieval majority text. I would distinguish between these, though I would place the late medieval Byz text after the 12th century; would you do the same? > Gospels: > Earliest substantial witness: Peshitta (IV) > Earliest substantial Greek witness: A (V) Add to that the clearly Byzantine portion of W (which had to have been copied from some previous archetype which also was clearly "Byzantine" in character) > Apocalypse (again, tentative): > Earliest substantial witness: P, 046, minuscules (IX) > Earliest substantial Greek witness: same > Earliest pure witness: same Since there are two competing "Byzantine" or "majority" texttypes in the Apocalypse (Andreas and Q), I would not claim any specific MS as "the" substantially Byzantine example. Leading MSS of the separate An and Q categories could be postulated, but little more. > Hurtado, on Robinson: > I agree with whoever it was that said that it's hard to imagine > a whole school of scribes with a "mindset"; if a text really does > exhibit a particular set of characteristics, recensional activity > seems more likely. Actually, I think almost all scribes had a certain "mindset," and that was basically to reproduce the text of their exemplar as accurately as possible, correcting errors when known, and checking and correcting errors against other exemplars when the situation was doubtful. Other than that, scribes definitely -did- have certain "tendencies" toward specific types of error (accidental omission, dittography, unconscious substitution of synonyms, etc., coupled with at times deliberate alteration where assumed error was perceived incorrectly, or to strengthen orthodox doctrine, etc.). However, these tendencies were not texttype specific, and affected all scribes of all texttype exemplars, though not in identical forms or quantity. My own dissertation study on the "Scribal Habits Among MSS of the Apocalypse" tended to show the basic fidelity of most all scribes to their task, even with their varying degrees of tendency toward error. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 21:51:14 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA11806; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 21:50:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 21:47:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text In-Reply-To: <9606061958.AA18351@osf1.gmu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4901 On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Stephen C Carlson wrote: > It seems to me that once there exists a certain mass of documents, it > should be very difficult for once scribe's deviation from his exemplar > to be adopted by a large number of texts. If there is no cross-checking, > then the unique reading would only descend to those MSS copied from it. > If there is cross-checking, then the probability that the variant would > continue to exist seems diminished. I would note that Carlson is in perfect agreement with my own views on this point (though we differ slightly near the end of the message). He asks later whether his view is "reasonable or mad speculation," and I would insist that it is eminently reasonable within a normal transmissional model, as even Hort noted (W-H, Introduction, p.45) with his "theoretical presumption" that a majority of existing documents should reflect a majority of pre-existing documents at any stage of transmission -unless- some dramatic event or occurrence would render the "normal" transmissional model null and void. W-H of course proposed the hypothesis of formal Byzantine revision and official promulgation of the formally-revised text to eliminate this problem. Remove this possibility and substitute Colwell's or Aland's "process" model, and the eclectic hypothesis does not function properly. > The analogy to biological genetics seems apt. The main way for a large > number of variants that constitute a text-type to be adopted is for the > transmission process to go through a bottleneck (i.e., reproductive > isolation). Apparently the Lucian recension that had been proposed but > now largely abandoned as one such bottleneck, and I think the > conversion from uncial to minuscule is another. Although, there could > be a textual analog to "genetic drift," it seems quite unlikely that a > majority text-type can coalesce at a late stage without going through a > transmissional bottleneck. I see three main "bottlenecks" which influence textual transmission: (1) the legitimization of Christianity under Constantine; (2) the change of writing material from fragile papyrus to long-lasting vellum; (3) the change of script from uncial to minuscule. None of these, however, can account satisfactorily for an alteration of a non-Byzantine autograph into the later dominant Byzantine Textform; all of these, however, can fit in readily with an assumption of an autograph which resembles the Byzantine Textform to a high degree. > I understand that Diocletian's persecution had targetted and destroyed > many Christian manuscripts, and shortly thereafter Constantine legitimized > Christianity. I could have added the Diocletian persecution as a fourth bottleneck, but in the absence of data to the contrary, I would consider that, all things being equal, MSS of any and all texttypes would be seized and destroyed in approximately the same percentage as their pre-persecution numbers would reflect. The end result of such would be a new beginning from MSS in the same texttype proportions (unless someone would want to argue that only or primarily non-Byzantine MSS were targeted for seizure, which would be purely an argument ex silentio). > Obviously, more Bibles had to be produced at an increased > pace, and the local text around Constantinople would be the most prestigious > base. The problem here is that MSS were not exactly dispatched Empire-wide from Constantinople to replace those which previously existed in various churches and monasteries. The evidence mentioned from Lake, Blake and New regarding MSS possessing a nearly identical Byzantine Textform yet without evidence of genealogical connection in locales as diverse as Patmos, Jerusalem and Sinai illustrates this point quite well. Personally, I have no problem in assuming a "local text" of Constantinople, as well as of Caesarea, Alexandria, Carthage, or Rome; however, I would suspect that the Ka or perhaps the K1 sub-group of the Byzantine Textform would reflect that local text of Constantinople, and would have little or no bearing upon the otherwise predominant Kx text throughout the Empire. > Its corollary implies that a Byzantine-type text existed in the third century > (or was created rapidly in early fourth). Since the likelihood of rapid creation in the fourth or any century would be weakened by its growth to dominance without official recognition or promulgation, the implication of this statement would be that the Byzantine Textform actually has roots which reach much further back, perhaps even to the autograph. *;-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 21:57:41 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA11844; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 21:56:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 21:53:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: "Robert B. Waltz" cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1611 On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > It is my opinion that the effect of Diocletian's persecution have been > overrated. Waltz and I a probably in close agreement regarding the text-critical effect of the persecutions of Diocletian, though I think he might understate the case a bit too much. The entire Donatist schism was related to the "traditores" who handed over the scriptures, and the implication is that this did happen to a degree hitherto unprecedented in earlier persecutions. > As for the coming of Constantine -- this too can be overrated. > Constantine legalized Christianity, and encouraged it, but did > not require it. Chances are that more manuscripts were copied in > Constantine's time, but not massively more; there just weren't > that many qualified scribes. I think this last statement is simply incorrect. There would be many scribes within the Roman Empire in any generation who would be qualified, and there were clearly financial favors provided to the Christian churches throughout the Empire, not only for building, but for vestments utensils, and other church-related items, which would surely include copies of the scriptures. An imperial order from Constantine for 50 copies certainly does not reflect the extent of his indirect influence in this regard. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 22:32:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA11962; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 22:30:57 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 22:27:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1264 On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Carlton L. Winbery wrote: > Larry has made an excellent statement that seems to me to account for the > evidence that we have. This explanation of the growth of texts makes > unnecessary elaborate and imaginative explanations for obvious scribal > improvements such as the obvious harmonization in I Thess. 1:1. I'm not sure whether Larry's comments really serve to explain 1 Thess.1:1 on which I commented some time ago; but I hardly thought the explanation of the non-Byzantine text as simple transcriptional error was "elaborate or imaginative," given the extant data and postulating upon the circumstances regarding the dissemination of the minority versus the majority variant therein. My further comments in response to various transmissional matters taken as a whole still would supersede taking an individual variant unit in isolation of the entire transmissional history and then declaring that variant "typical" or "normative". _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 22:33:37 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA11976; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 22:32:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 22:29:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: NT Interpolations - request for help. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 525 On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Carlton L. Winbery wrote: > Someone else has already made > the point that no particular form of the text was canonized. I agree with > that. And Carlton and I are in complete agreement on this point. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 7 00:37:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA12417; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 00:35:53 -0400 Message-Id: <199606070335.VAA20816@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 22:32:21 -7 Subject: Re: TC article (fwd) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 6422 > I am forwarding this message from Ioudaios, written by Judith Romney > Wegner, to the tc-list, since it deals with the newest article to appear > in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism. Perhaps some on the list > would like to comment (especially Dave Washburn)? > > Jimmy Adair I don't subscribe to Ioudaios, so this could get complicated if it turns into a dialog, but I'll give it a shot. > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 05 Jun 96 19:10:41 EDT > From: PWEGNER@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU > To: First Century Judaism Discussion Forum > Subject: Re: TC article > > > > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > >2 Sam 19:2 is unusual, but > commentators generally explain it simply as a variation from the norm, if > they treat it at all. Others follow the lead of two MT mss, P, and T and > repoint the second verb as a participle. However, the lack of any true > parallel to this structure elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible raises the > possibility of an alternative explanation: the waw-consecutive phrase is > not part of the direct speech, but rather continues the flow of the > narrative.< > > That's ingenious, but I'm not sure it would work UNLESS you are making > Joab (rather than the king) the subject of wa-yit'abbel, thus: And Joab was > informed, "Look, the king is weeping." So he [Joab] mourned Absalom [likewise]. I find it interesting that she inserts "so" in this translation. There is no good reason to. The waw-consecutive need not denote any kind of logical consequence here; it's nothing more than a basic resumption after an aside (see the references in my article). As such, it constitutes a syntactic break from the preceding. "Joab" is not the subject of anything in the immediate context (her translation with him as the subject of the passive notwithstanding), so there is no reason to consider him the subject of this clause. David is the one doing all the weeping and mourning, so it is natural to take this resumption as just that: resuming the description of David's grief over Absalom. Wegner appears to be ignoring the context in the above comment. > In other words, upon discovering that the king had, as it were, changed his > stance towards Absalom (now that things had gone too far and it was too late) > Joab deemed it prudent to appear pretty upset about what had transpired. Hardly! Verse 6 describes how Joab ripped into David for turning a day of victory into a day of sorrow. Once again, we're ignoring the context by trying to make Joab the subject. > But if you want it to mean: And Joab was informed, "Look, the king is weeping." > And the King mourned Absalom...I don't think that would work, because taking > the sentence as a whole, it is far more natural for wa-yit'abbel to refer back > to Joab than to the king (if you assume that *hinneh hamelekh bokheh* is the > only part of the sentence that is in indirect speech). > In order to do what you want, I think the text would need to have read: > wa-yit'abbel ha-melekh 'al Absalom. Not at all. This kind of resumption using the waw-consecutive is common all over the Hebrew Bible without an explicit subject. This appears to impose an English rhetorical necessity on Hebrew, but Hebrew doesn't need it. Context provides all the rhetorical material needed to understand the king as the subject of wayitabel. Hebrew grammar uses subject repetition quite sparingly, and there is no compelling reason to see anything different here. > Another possibility: since *bokheh*, though pointed as present participle, is > written *Xaser* rather than *male'*, it could equally well be vocalized as > *bakhah* -- in which case we would be back to the position that it is all > part of the direct speech after all. "Look, the king has been weeping and > mourning for Absalom (*bakhah wa-yit'abbel* is a quite natural construction.) This is imaginative, but as my material has already shown, repointing the text is unnecessary. > I suppose *bokheh* was vocalized that way because of the preceding *hinneh*, > but I don't think *hinneh* would absolutely require this. I don't know why they pointed it as a participle, except perhaps that they knew what they were doing. Hinneh may have affected the decision, and it may not absolutely require it, but it is certainly the more natural way to understand it. > New JPS (I now see) translates it pretty much the way I just did, but by the > device of using indirect speech: "Joab was told that the king WAS weeping > and mourning over Absalom." Of course, if you rendered that back into direct > speech you'd have "IS weeping and mourning", as you indicated. Translating it all as indirect speech merely evades the problem. >But it's also > quite reasonable to amend *wa-yit'abbel* to *u-mit'abbel* even though this > means replacing a yod with a mem, because in ancient Hebrew script, it happens > that the yod was a much larger letter, and looked very much like the ancient > Hebrew mem (wish I could do this on e-mail, but you can find the chart in the > Encyclopedia Britannica article on "Alphabet"). Yod was much larger, yes, but the similarity between archaic yod and mem ends there. Mem had three vertical strokes on a single horizontal bar; yod had two diagonal strokes, one above the other, attaching to a downward stroke. The downward stroke of mem slanted to the right, the downward stroke of yod to the left. The mem's downward stroke continued into a fairly smooth curve to the left; the yod's downward stroke ends in a sharp hook veering off to the right. I don't see any way that the two could be confused. There is no way that the change between mem and yod could be a visual error; it seems fairly obvious that it's an attempt to smooth the reading, as I already argued. In conclusion, these suggestions consistently overlook the context of the clauses in question, are based on a faulty understanding of the waw-consecutive in this verse, and appear to impose some anachronistic grammatical and scribal ideas on the text. I see nothing here that compels me to re-think the view I took in my article. > > Judith Romney Wegner, Providence > > > > Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "I like being second in line because I can learn from other people's mistakes." -Naomi From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 7 04:44:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA13058; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 04:43:04 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 09:38:54 +0100 Message-Id: <199606070838.JAA30144@sable.ox.ac.uk> X-Sender: duff@sable.ox.ac.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Jeremy Duff Subject: NT Interpolations Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4827 Thanks for the replies to my posting on NT interpolations. I am familar with the arguments about the authorship of particular works, general views of pseudepigraphy and canonization and whether a particular bit of text is an interpolation or not. Nevertheless people views on these matters are always of interest to me, so thanks. On the matter of the relationship between canon and interpolations the replies and bibliographical notes have been useful but there is still a query in my mind. It seems that the replies I got differed on the fundamental point. There was a position advocated by some people, which I will quote from Bob Waltz (also supported by Carlton Winbery and Maurice Robinson) ------------- But the church could not canonize the text; it could not even produce a uniform text. So even though ever Bible after the fifth century contained the same books, they didn't contain the same texts. The goal of textual criticism is to obtain the original form of the books that were later canonized. If, somehow, there had been a form of the books that had been canonized, we might try to look for that. But no such form ever existed. ------------- I can understand this - the church canonized whole books, not a text. Therefore text criticism tries to obtain the original form of the books that were later canonized. If I understand this view correctly it means that thinking a certain book is an "interpolation" into the canon is by definition invalid since it the book was accepted in the canon (this view of the canon I am familar with). Nevertheless this view also accepts that within a book, interpolations (i.e. pieces of the text we find in some or all of our manuscripts which we do not think were in the original form of the book) are removed, since it is the original form of the books later canonized that we are after. Although one might disagree with Fee's arguments over 1 Cor 14.33-34, this view would agree with him in saying that if this in an interpolation then it ought to be removed from the text. However, this view seems diametrically opposed to the view of Metzger (reported by Mike Holmes), the way in which most bible editors work (according to Ulrich Schmid). To quote Metzger (Canon of the NT, p.270) -------- There seems to be good reason, therefore, [early Church attestation] to conclude that, though external and internal evidence is conclusive against the authenticity of the last twelve verses as coming from the same pen as the rest of the Gospel, the passage ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark. --------------- The final words reveal the disagreement "canonical text" - but the view described above denies that this exists. If I understand the view mentioned above correctly it would say that the church only canonized "Mark" not a particular text of Mark and so if we are convinced that these verses were nt part of the original text we should remove them from Mark, and hence we do end up removing them from the canon. Similarly Ulrich Schmid said -------------- I do not know of any currently held concept of canon....where canon is related to the oldest available Textform of individual NT writings in a way that scholarly progress would automatically affect the shape of the canon. -------------- But is this not (at least very close to) the concept of canon supported by Bob Waltz and others? For them scholarly progess in obtaining the original text would affect the shape of the canon because passages identified as interpolations would be removed from the text and hence the canon. I can quite understand that there could simply be two different views of the goals of text criticism, each of them used by different scholars. This would be no great surprise to me, and the elucidation of the two viewpoints is useful to my own thinking. Is this the case that there really are two different views of the goals of text-criticism as I have described above or have I misunderstood one or both of these positions ? One a separate point, Ulrich Schmid was right to pick me up on "the Pauline canon". What I was meaning was "the set of texts written by Paul". One could suggest that an interpolation of a paragraph into a text within the "the set of texts written by Paul" is similar to the interpolation of a whole text into the "the set of texts written by Paul". Obviously, from what I have written above, I can see that this "similarity" depends on a particular view of the canon and text-criticism. Hence the main section of my posting above, trying to elucidate the different views. My sloppiness has thrown up a red herring on this point, I think, it is the views of text criticism and canon I am interested in. Thanks ========================================= Jeremy Duff D. Phil. Student Jesus College, Oxford From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 7 05:36:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA13136; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 05:33:47 -0400 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:18:41 GMT Subject: Re: Local texts Priority: normal X-mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 798 On June 6, Robert Waltz wrote of my comments on local texts "Without denying this point, I fail to see how it affects things... Even the Latin witnesses are fragmentary. So our knowledge of that local text is weak." It depends what you mean by 'weak'. Incomplete, yes. But I was trying to emphasize that we can find out about the character of MSS and about local texts by palaeographical as well as textual analysis. And there is a great deal more information waiting for someone to dig it out. With regard to the origins of the Vatican collections, I would agree only to the extent of accepting that Rome is closer than Ann Arbor to Calabria. David Parker DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 7 09:05:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA13810; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 09:04:12 -0400 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 09:03:10 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2666 Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Nichael Cramer wrote: >> But it seems to me that the flow of logic here is precisely backwards. >It is backwards only if a presupposition regarding the "late" nature of >the Byzantine Textform predominates. From my perspective, there is no >backward reasoning necessary. > [...] Ah, but be careful. Here you've subtly --but critically-- shifted the playing field. Your argument --the argument to which I was responding-- was a "consistency" arguement. That is, you were insisting that the Eclectic theory was flawed _internally_ because it did not provide a specific mechanism which would account for the rise of the Byzantine text-type. I, in response, showed that this was not correct. In turn, your response was that my arguments did not conform to (your) model of the originality of the Byzantine text type. This is a, actually, wholly different point and quite off the track. The fact that this does not fit a separate theoretical framework (in this case yours) is irrelevant and says nothing about the consistency of the theory, which is the question at hand. >> As in these examples, there were certainly conventions and a certain >> enviormental "ambience" (as it were) which would tend to reinforce certain >> aspects and to drive out certain others. > >Even allowing your hypothesis, what were these factors? > [...] >The question for eclectic theory is to account for precisely what caused >that pattern of readings to be perpetuated to the point of dominance, >while the vast bulk of other readings supposedly appropriate to the >"Byzantine mindset" were not perpetuated. From my own perspective, I have >no problem answering this point; I suspect modern eclectic theory will >find this particular matter difficult if not insurmountable. Well, one obvious force at work here --and moreover a force that we know to have affected the text of the NT-- is that characterized in the title of Bart Ehrman's book _The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_ (a book which, BTW, I heartily recommend to one and all). If we assume the existence of a Church in which the Byzantine text-type developed over the centuries, the existence of that orthodoxy must have been a compelling, an inexorable (if subtle) force for change in that Church's text. I don't recall now if the image is from Ehrman but, in short, the church (and its scribes) already knew what the text "meant", they would simply _tend_ --perhaps unconsciously-- to make sure that that's what it said. Nichael nichael@sover.net __ http://www.sover.net/~nichael Be as passersby -- IC From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 7 09:50:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA14036; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 09:49:03 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 96 08:45 CDT X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) Subject: Re: NT Interpolations Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3181 On Fri, 7 Jun 199, Jeremy Duff wrote, in part: >The final words reveal the disagreement "canonical text" - but the view >described above denies that this exists. If I understand the view mentioned >above correctly it would say that the church only canonized "Mark" not a >particular text of Mark and so if we are convinced that these verses were nt >part of the original text we should remove them from Mark, and hence we do >end up removing them from the canon. > > >Similarly Ulrich Schmid said > >-------------- >I do not know of any currently held concept of canon....where canon is >related to the oldest available Textform of individual NT writings in a way >that scholarly progress would automatically affect the shape of the canon. >-------------- > >But is this not (at least very close to) the concept of canon supported by >Bob Waltz and others? For them scholarly progess in obtaining the original >text would affect the shape of the canon because passages identified as >interpolations would be removed from the text and hence the canon. > > > > >I can quite understand that there could simply be two different views of the >goals of text criticism, each of them used by different scholars. This would >be no great surprise to me, and the elucidation of the two viewpoints is >useful to my own thinking. Is this the case that there really are two >different views of the goals of text-criticism as I have described above or >have I misunderstood one or both of these positions ? Personal perspective only... I think that you have identified two possible "extremist positions." I think that almost everyone falls somehwere between these two poles. So one cannot really identify separate camps. But let me give my *personal* perspective. I would agree, in principle, that if the church had approved an interpolated text (e.g. a text of Mark which included 16:9-20), then that we should accept that text. But there is no reason to believe that that ever happened. The thing to keep in mind is that the church never convened a council to approve a canon. Take the matter of Mark 16:9-20. Eusebius, who is our primary source for early canon lists, obviously includes Mark. But we know that he had encountered both long and short forms. As far as I know, Athanasius never quoted the ending of Mark. But chances are that, as a fourth century Egyptian, he had at least seen manuscripts that lacked it. There are assorted versions that omit it, and others that include it. So we cannot say *what* the church meant to canonize. In the case of the Jews, we know what they approves: The Masoretic Text. That's their Bible, for all its defects. Not so the Christian church. Both Old and New testaments just evolved. That being the case, I see no better alternative than to seek the *earliest* from of the text. The only other alternative I can imagine is to seek the most widely attested form of the text (this, obviously, requires some sort of belief in providential preservation). This has a certain logic -- but I can't bring myself to like it. As noted, this is my *personal* opinion on the matter. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 7 09:50:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA14037; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 09:49:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 96 08:45 CDT X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) Subject: Another set of miscellaneous replies Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 12842 I don't know whether to be amazed at how many side discussions this "Alexandrian Text" thread has thrown off -- or irritated that we still haven't managed to come to grips with the initial question of "What is a text-type, and can we prove that B and Aleph do/do not form one in the gospels?" But here are some odds and ends of replies, mostly to Maurice Robinson. First off, I did not mean to imply that Diocletian's persecution was not severe. It was very prolonged (over a decade of mild persecution, followed by nine years of intense persecution). It was more extensive than any previous persecution except the Decian. And -- in the areas administered by Galerius, at least -- it was thorough. But there was nothing unique about it. Everything that happened under Diocletian and Galerius had happened before. So we should not attribute any extraordinary effects to it. Also, about scriptures under Constantine. Obviously, since Christianity was now legal, there would be an increase in demand under Constantine. I just don't think that production would have risen all that much. This is only logic, but I think it has a certain validity. Remember that Constantine did not *enforce* Christianity, merely allowed it. So many scribes would have remained non-Christians. And I can't speak for anyone back then, but I wouldn't want a non-Christian copying my scripture! Maurice has told me he disagrees; he may be right. Remember also that no one could have been absolutely certain the Edict of Milan would hold. The Empire had changed its mind about Christianity several times before (and would change it briefly again, in the time of Julian). So scribes would have been cautious at first. Yes, copying of scripture would increase after Constantine. But -- I think -- only slowly. Also, I did not mean to imply that Constantine issued an "official text," or that Eusebius's fifty copies had a particularly great effect on the text of scripture. I *do not* believe that Constantine had an official text. My point was simply that, if Constantine's reign had any direct effect on scripture at all, it was not to promote the Byzantine text. Now, on a subject near and dear to my heart.... Robinson: >> Rather the logic here, it seems to me, would be the same as asking how >> could Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn and all the rest, working independently, >> have come up with a style of music which we (now) call "Classical"? > >This analogy fails, since it does not deal with the same thing. Rather, >allow a given of the hymn tune "Amazing Grace" and note that in virtually >all hymnbooks of all denominations, the rendition remains basically >identical, and usually even the key in which it is written remains >unchanged. Various classical composers, with styles as diverse as Bach, >Beethoven, and Ives might deal in a quite different manner with that hymn >tune, but the "original essence" of it (which preceded any of the >classical variations) would still remain, even though altered by those >composers, sometimes in a dramatic manner. Please folks, let's not use analogies to classical music. Classical music is largely defined by its instruments. Most orchestral instruments (except piano) can play only one note at a time, and most (except strings) can only play out of the twelve-tone scale. It is this, far more than composer's habits, that define classical music. Within those limits, almost anything prevails (listen to music by Berg or Hindemith some time and you'll see what I mean). If we must use musical analogies at all -- and I'd rather we didn't -- we should use analogies to folk music. By which I don't mean the stuff they played on radio stations in the 1960s, but actual *traditional* music, handed down from parents to children. In which one can see significant variations. For example, I just encountered a version of "Poor Wayfaring Stranger" from the Catskills in which the stranger became a "Poor and Foreign Stranger." Hymns, if not rigorously controlled by the printing press, can undergo amazing changes.... Leaving the soapbox now. :-) >> Robinson again: > >>> The lack of genealogical >>> connection (noted by Lake, Blake and New, HTR 1928) becomes a very >>> significant factor in evaluating those MSS, and tends to rule out any >>> mere "local text" aspect regarding them. > >> I ask -- purely for information -- how well-established this is? Most >> minuscules have never been collated; how can we *tell* what they are >> related to. > >The article mentioned (which I have before me) reflects a reasonable >statistical sampling with significant results. The article contains a >collation of a sample chapter (Mark 11) from "all the MSS (excluding >lectionaries and commentaries) on Mt. Sinai, at Patmos, and in the >Patriarchal Library and the collection of St. Saba at Jerusalem" [as of >1928, obviously] (p.339). They omitted from collation only MS 1241, which >is treated separately in the Six Collations volume, due to its peculiar >text. They also omitted 1192 and 1210 because "they seem to us to have >weak Caesarean texts" (p.340). Their intention in this particular >excursus was not to categorize the Caesarean text, but accurately to >present a Byzantine model. Just under 100 MSS were collated for this >particular study, and the results are displayed in the HTR article. > >The point is that these MSS, which in the view of Lake, Blake, and New >were likely copied within the confines of those three widely separated >monasteries, presented a near-identical Byzantine Textform, yet without >any indication of genealogical ties, or even descent from within the MSS >of the same monastery. They raise some valid concerns, and their >comments (p.340) are worth quoting in extenso: > > The results are instructive, especially in their negative aspects. > This collation covers three of the great ancient collections of MSS.; > and these are not modern conglomerations, brought together from all > directions. Many of the MSS. now at Sinai, Patmos, and Jerusalem must be > codices written in the scriptoria of these monasteries. We expected to > find that a collation covering all the MSS. in each library would show > many cases of direct copying. But there are practically no such cases. > What does this mean? > > Before answering the question, it may be well to put another. Why are > there only a few fragments (even in the two oldest of the monastic > collections, Sinai and St. Saba) which come from a date earlier than the > 10th century? > > There must have been in existence many thousands of manuscripts of the > gospels in the great days of Byzantine prosperity, between the fourth and > the tenth centuries. There are now extant but a pitiably small number. > Moreover, the amount of direct genealogy which has been detected in > extant codices is almost negligible. Nor are many known MSS. sister > codices. . . . Apart from . . . [f1 and f13] there seem to be no groups > of MSS. which are conceivably descendants of a single lost codex. There > are cognate groups -- families of distant cousins -- but the manuscripts > which we have are almost all orphan children without brothers or > sisters. > >The data and conclusions of Lake, Blake, and New need to be seriously >considered in formulating any hypothesis regarding the nature of the >Byzantine Textform. I'll admit to being slightly shocked by this. If this is valid, it implies that less than one manuscript in ten thousand has survived. Which seems almost unbelievable. What have I missed? Robinson: >> I think we need to distinguish here between the Byzantine *textform* >> (to use Robinson's term), Byzantine *manuscripts*, and the late >> medieval majority text. > >I would distinguish between these, though I would place the late medieval >Byz text after the 12th century; would you do the same? Well... "medieval" would imply such a date; I perhaps should have used a different word. (Come on, people, don't write so fast, so I can have more time to think about what I'm saying. :-) I would imagine you are much more expert on this than I am. To me it seems that the flood of full-blown Byzantine manuscripts that continued until the time of Erasmus began in the ninth century, and that manuscripts such as E-F-G-H in the gospels and K-L in the epistles are typical. But I am open to enlightenment; my knowledge of the Byzantine text in the Gospel is largely confined to the comments by Wisse and in Paul is dependent on the "NT auf Papyrus" collations plus Clark's "Eight Praxapostoloi." > >> Gospels: >> Earliest substantial witness: Peshitta (IV) >> Earliest substantial Greek witness: A (V) > >Add to that the clearly Byzantine portion of W (which had to have been >copied from some previous archetype which also was clearly "Byzantine" in >character) Agreed. Though W is of about the same date as A, so it doesn't change things much. >> Apocalypse (again, tentative): >> Earliest substantial witness: P, 046, minuscules (IX) >> Earliest substantial Greek witness: same >> Earliest pure witness: same > >Since there are two competing "Byzantine" or "majority" texttypes in the >Apocalypse (Andreas and Q), I would not claim any specific MS as "the" >substantially Byzantine example. Leading MSS of the separate An and Q >categories could be postulated, but little more. Again, agreed. P and 046 are, as I understand it, the lead witnesses to those two types. As an aside to Maurice -- how do you feel about those two types? Which one do you consider the original Byzantine textform? >> I agree with whoever it was that said that it's hard to imagine >> a whole school of scribes with a "mindset"; if a text really does >> exhibit a particular set of characteristics, recensional activity >> seems more likely. > >Actually, I think almost all scribes had a certain "mindset," and that >was basically to reproduce the text of their exemplar as accurately as >possible, correcting errors when known, and checking and correcting >errors against other exemplars when the situation was doubtful. > >Other than that, scribes definitely -did- have certain "tendencies" toward >specific types of error (accidental omission, dittography, unconscious >substitution of synonyms, etc., coupled with at times deliberate >alteration where assumed error was perceived incorrectly, or to strengthen >orthodox doctrine, etc.). However, these tendencies were not texttype >specific, and affected all scribes of all texttype exemplars, though not >in identical forms or quantity. My own dissertation study on the >"Scribal Habits Among MSS of the Apocalypse" tended to show the basic >fidelity of most all scribes to their task, even with their varying >degrees of tendency toward error. When I referred to a "mindset," I meant (say) a tendency to add superfluous pronouns, or delete them, or fix certain grammatical constructions. I agree with Maurice that most scribes were doing their best to copy what was before them, and that each scribe made idiosyncratic errors. But idiosyncratic errors will hardly create a text-type! Carlson: > The analogy to biological genetics seems apt. The main way for a large > number of variants that constitute a text-type to be adopted is for the > transmission process to go through a bottleneck (i.e., reproductive > isolation). Apparently the Lucian recension that had been proposed but > now largely abandoned as one such bottleneck, and I think the > conversion from uncial to minuscule is another. Although, there could > be a textual analog to "genetic drift," it seems quite unlikely that a > majority text-type can coalesce at a late stage without going through a > transmissional bottleneck. I once had an extended discussion on this subject with a biologist. We concluded that there are a number of functions in nature and human society which followed this "genetic" model. However, there *is* a way for a new "gene" to be propagated without a "bottleneck." That is "mutation" to produce a "superior" form. I won't get into an argument about biological evolution. But I can cite examples in other areas. It will often happen that a folk song will exist in various forms, and then someone creates a "superior" form (e.g. one with an improved melody or an easier set of words). The "improved" form will then gradually sweep all other forms away. (I could cite examples, but they probably wouldn't mean anything to the people on this list.) It could certainly be argued that this has happened with the NT text as well. The best example is the ending of Mark. Without saying which is original, it is clear that two major forms circulated -- with and without 16:9-20. But the longer form clearly prevailed because it was *superior* -- i.e. it looked complete. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 7 10:18:00 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA14145; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:16:34 -0400 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:15:26 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Re: Another set of miscellaneous replies Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1133 Robert B. Waltz wrote: >Now, on a subject near and dear to my heart.... >>> Rather the logic here, it seems to me, would be the same as asking how >>> could Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn and all the rest, working independently, >>> have come up with a style of music which we (now) call "Classical"? >Please folks, let's not use analogies to classical music. [...] (One minor point: Please note that I did not write "classical"; rather I wrote "Classical", i.e. a specific style characterized by those composers that I mention. I could have used "Romantic" or "Neo-Baroque" with a different set of composers; however I happened to be listening to the Archduke Trio as I was typing.) >If we must use musical analogies at all -- and I'd rather we didn't -- >we should use analogies to folk music. [...] In any case, at issue here was not a music point; nor even, really, a musical analogy. Rather I was simply pointing our an a priori/a posteriori flaw in the original argument. Cheers Nichael nichael@sover.net __ http://www.sover.net/~nichael Be as passersby -- IC From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 7 10:40:35 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA14211; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:39:14 -0400 Message-Id: <199606071435.QAA35806@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 07 Jun 96 16:39:20 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" text To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 5220 On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >By the way -- are you sure the alignment should not be 1505+2495 >versus >1611+2138? That seemed to be what I found when I examined the data >(though >I was consulting Richards and Merk for some of my readings, and >neither is particularly reliable). Sorry, my fault. Shure, the alignment in the Generals is 1505 + 2495 versus 1611 + 2138. I simply can not recall what caused this fault. >I obviously spoke too dramatically when I said there were *no* >such deviations. >I would imagine that a detailed examination would reveal several. >There will >always be a few deviations due to scribal errors or perhaps >marginal comments. >Or even an occasional mixed reading. But the bulk of the >variations in family 2138 are cases where one set of manuscripts >have a reading associated with the >Byzantine text and the rest don't. It all depends on how far one goes into detailed examination. I in fact did not go into very detail, but I commented on the bases of a preliminary glance at the edition (Aland/Juckel) with a Rueckuebersetzung of James, 1 Peter, and 1 John. With some extra-time I will be able to put the figures together. [omitting large parts of Bob's post for the sake of related subject:] >Although in assessing the Harklean version, one thing that *must* >be remembered is the marginalia. This is only a feeling -- I have >not studied the matter in detail -- but it appears to me that the >Harklean is based on *two* texts -- one >Byzantine and one belonging to family 2138. Where the two >manuscripts disagreed on an add/omit reading, Thomas put the >longer reading in the text in asterisks. >Where there was a substitution, one or the other reading went into >the text and the other (sometimes) in the margin. The marginalia of the Harklensis are hard stuff. In the General epistles there are roughly speaking two types of marginalia, one of the comment like type, and one referring to critical signs (asteriscus) within the text itself. Within the comment like type there are some presumably only referring to different renderings (often the Greek word is written in majuscule), and some presumably giving different readings (alike the critical signs type marginalia). For the General epistles (and Acta) Thomas himself stated that he only used one Greek manuscript. He also stated that he used the Philoxeniana as collation base. Therfore it seems that the readings he comments on in the margin (with or without asteriscus) are somehow referring to the (mainly lost) Philoxeniana of the General epistles and not to another Greek manuscript. Shure, the Philoxeniana too was a translation based on a Greek manuscript, but for the Generals the marginalia seem to reflect Greek readings through the intermediary stage of the Philoxeniana. (BTW in the colophon of the Harklensis to the Pauline epistles it is said that Polycarp [the translator of the Philoxeniana] checked his Greek Vorlage with an autograph of Pamphylus of Caesarea.) If Thomas in James puts a longer reading in the text in asteriscus (nine times), the longer text is only two times a Byz. reading, three times the longer text seems to be not (no more?) attested in our extant Greek MSS, another three longer readings are near singulars (one to four Greek MSS). Interesting, isn't it? Bob further wrote: >I do not claim that p46 and B belong either to a family or to a >tribe. I believe they *do* share a text-type. But I would be >amazed if anyone would claim they are closer than that. p46, in >particular, has a text which seems completely >unique. It has near-singular agreements with everything -- B, >Aleph, D, G, 33, 1739. >However, it has many more near-singular agreements with B than >with anything else. I totally agree with the description of P46. >If B and p46 share only a text-type, then the question of >Byzantine influence does not come up. >I suppose I should admit that I compiled my list of levels of >agreement rather hastily (the disadvantage of e-mail). I should, >perhaps, have argued for five levels of agreement (I still feel >that *that* is correct) without mentioning the Byzantine text. >But I also think that, in *most* cases, it *is* the degree of >Byzantine influence that separates family or "tight" tribe >members. I should point out that I stressed the influence matter to the extreme in order to emphasize the problems involved. Assuming influence from (other) text-types implies by consequence the assumption of existing text-types. But text-types are exactly what we are trying to define. It is by no means clear that we all refer to the same "thing". May be you can refrain from the logical implications (letting the historical problems aside) of "influence", I simply cannot. Text-types, the least one can say, refer to a certain distinct _pattern_ of readings. Even within the Byzantine "text-type" slightly different patterns are detectable. So, to my mind, the question is what distinct _pattern_ of readings makes for example the Peshitta the "earliest substantial witness" for the Byz. text of the Gospels (Bob on Thu, 6 June 1996)? Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 7 11:04:33 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA14321; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 11:03:22 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 11:00:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: NT Interpolations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1728 On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > I see no better > alternative than to seek the *earliest* from of the text. Although I do not want to get into the "canon" debate, I do agree with Waltz' conclusions on this point, and regard the basic goal of textual criticism of -any- work (biblical or not) to be the recovery and restoration of the autograph (assuming that = the "earliest form" as Waltz states it). > The only other alternative I can imagine is to seek the most widely > attested form of the text (this, obviously, requires some sort of > belief in providential preservation). This has a certain logic -- > but I can't bring myself to like it. I need to interject on this point that my own pro-Byzantine theory does not require an appeal to providential preservation on this point (though others may seek to read something like that into the matter). Rather, my own theory is based upon what normally would occur in the course of transmissional history, given the historical circumstances and the number of copies produced over the given period of manual copying. I would basically claim the same for other documents which have similar attestation, including the Latin Vulgate, in which (recognizing the three or four various stages of revision) the general 90% bulk of the documents supporting each stage of revision would more likely reflect the archetype of that stage than any contrary data. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 7 11:36:55 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA14654; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 11:34:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:31:42 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199606071531.KAA21507@homer.bethel.edu> X-Sender: holmic@mailhost.bethel.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: From: Michael Holmes Subject: Re: the "Alexandrian text" debate Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 6743 Colleagues, Some aspects of the interesting dialogue re the "Alexandrian text"--especially the consistent manner in which some of the participants position themselves over against "the eclectic approach" or "the eclectic method," which is alleged or implied to be to some degree a failure or bankrupt--prompt me to offer for consideration the following comments or observations (most of which are condensed from my discussion of "Reasoned Eclecticism in New Testament Textual Criticism" in _The Text of the NT in Contemporary Research_, etc., ed. Ehrman and Holmes [Eerdmans, 1995] 336-360). 1) I think it is important to distinguish between textual *methodology* and textual *history* (pp. 349-50). There is a synergistic relationship between the two, but they are not the same thing. (Cf., e.g., M. Robinson [4:57 p.m., 6/4/96]: "Since textual criticism cannot be done in a vacuum, I do not think it unreasonable to begin with theories regarding transmissional history"--a statement which appears to acknowledge the point.) Eclecticism has to do with methodology--what one considers to be evidence and how one goes about evaluating it. The circumstance that one is "eclectic" with regard to method does *not* carry with it any assumptions about one's view of textual history. Neglect of this distinction leads, one may suggest, to misleading or inaccurate generalizations. 2) Virtually all of us, I would argue, are "reasoned eclectics" with regard to method (for definitions, see pp. 336-338)--i.e., we utilize some combination of internal and external considerations in reaching decisions about textual variants. In contrast to a "rigorous eclecticism" which essentially eschews external evidence (e.g., Keith Elliott) or a "historical documentary" approach which attempts to avoid internal considerations (e.g., Dearing), the rest of us appear to utilize a combination of both kinds of evidence--e.g., Robinson again (4:57 p.m., 6/4/96): "in light of both internal and external evidence." In terms of method, we are all "eclectics," and for some to position themselves over against "the eclectic school" (or some such term)--as if they were not part of it--creates confusion. The central locus of our differences is not with regard to method, but with regard to the history of transmission. The *method* outlined by, e.g., the Alands, Metzger, Colwell, Amphoux, Fee, Holmes, etc. (see p. 344)--and, I would suggest, Robinson and Waltz--is very, very similar. The differences in the view of the history of the text among this same group, however, are tremendous; a comparison of Kurt Aland and Amphoux is esp. instructive in this regard (cf. p. 350). There is no such thing as "*the* eclectic hypothesis" (M. Robinson, 9:47 p.m., 6/6/96; emphasis added)--i.e., a single view of transmission history held by all those who utilize a "reasoned eclectic" methodology. 3) Reasoned eclecticism is not bankrupt, or a makeshift expedient; it is, in view of how the NT text has been transmitted, our only option--a point that Zuntz made quite clearly, building on Hort (see pp. 346-349). 4) The critical question for textual criticism today--and here the discussion started by Robinson and Waltz is right on target--is precisely the history of the text. At the present time there are a number of proposals "on the table" for discussion; these include (see pp. 351-352) the theories of the Alands, Amphoux, Birdsall, Kilpatrick & Elliott (yes, "rigorous eclectics" do have a theory of transmission; see Elliott's essay in the above volume, pp. 330-331), Zuntz (though it is limited to the Paulines), Klaus Wachtel for the Catholic Epistles (but notice his subtitle: _Der Byzantinische Text der Katholischen Briefe: Eine Untersuchung zur Entstehung der Koine des Neuen Testaments_ [ANTF 24; De Gruyter, 1995]--**a very important contribution**), and now M. Robinson (comprehensive and, it appears, fully developed), and B. Waltz (at least tentatively?). The rest of us, I presume, have thought about it enough to come to some basic conclusions--enough to enable us to employ our method in something other than a vacuum--but we generally have not yet put forth, at least publicly and/or for discussion, comprehensive or fully fleshed out proposals. In this respect I have appreciated the current dialogue--it is raising some of the key questions we need to address as a discipline, like such basics as just what is a "text-type," and just how do we understand the transmission history of the NT? As the discussion continues, however, perhaps there might be more reference to (or at least acknowledgement of) the variety and range of alternative proposals? (For a good recent survey see J. Petzer, "The History of the New Testament Text--Its Reconstruction, Significance and Use in New Testament Textual Criticism," in _NT Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Chruch History_, ed. B. Aland and J. Delobel [Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994] 11-36.) In particular, I would interested to hear what some of the discussants have to say about Wachtel's recent and wide-ranging treatment of the Byzantine tradition. (Thumbnail sketch of Wachtel: the Byz text of the Cath Epistles is the result of a long process [traces of which are evident already in the earliest period] of smoothing and standardization, and reached its definitive form in the ninth c. It is very unlikely that its origin is the result of a formal recension of the fourth century; instead, one must reckon with a series of editorial revisions [i.e., _diorthosis_] in every epoch. His findings substantially relativize the idea of "text types," to the extent that they are associated with recensional theories, and highlight the importance of the minuscules.) 5) The role of scribes in the transmission of the NT text has come up in the last few days. In light of what can be learned about how books were made and read in the ancient world, t may be that the traditional focus in NT textual criticism on scribes as "shapers" of the text is misplaced. In a lecture given in 1994 (due out any time now in a volume from Brill edited by David Parker and C.-B. Amphoux) it was suggested that active reader/users, practicing the customary and expected activity of _diorthosis_, may have been responsible for many of the distinctive variant readings associated with the "western" textual tradition. Now Wachtel makes a similar point, as has Harry Gamble (_Books and Readers in the Early Church_ [Yale, 1995]). This reminds us that not only scribes and the scriptorium but also readers and the church were important factors in the tranmission of the NT. How might this consideration reshape how we envision the transmission history of the NT? Mike Holmes Bethel College From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 7 12:00:08 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA14884; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 11:58:47 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 11:55:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Another set of miscellaneous replies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 9645 On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > Also, about scriptures under Constantine. Obviously, since Christianity > was now legal, there would be an increase in demand under Constantine. > I just don't think that production would have risen all that much. > This is only logic, but I think it has a certain validity. Remember > that Constantine did not *enforce* Christianity, merely allowed it. > So many scribes would have remained non-Christians. And I can't speak > for anyone back then, but I wouldn't want a non-Christian copying my > scripture! Maurice has told me he disagrees; he may be right. My private reply to Bob was this: The conversion of Constantine did not exactly make Constantine a Christian either *;-) However, scribes were not necessarily selected for their piety, but for the literacy, and grammatical and calligraphic ability, so I would not think it peculiar for non-Christian scribes to copy NT documents under contract to churches, though I do suspect that this rarely had to be the case, so long as scribes who were at least nominal church members (i.e. baptized for certain social and political benefits) were utilized. A reading of Gore Vidal's "Julian" gives interesting and generally factual insight into the socio-political situation of this era. > Remember also that no one could have been absolutely certain the Edict > of Milan would hold. The Empire had changed its mind about Christianity > several times before (and would change it briefly again, in the time > of Julian). So scribes would have been cautious at first. So long as they got paid for legitimate work during a time when such was freely permitted, I doubt that they would worry too much. No one was going to persecute a scribe (who would rarely sign his name to what he had copied) ex post facto merely because the religious or political climate might shift once more. That type of event might have to await the Inquisition or the McCarthy era. > My point was simply that, if Constantine's reign had > any direct effect on scripture at all, it was not to promote the > Byzantine text. I would agree here, adding it was not to promote -any- specific texttype, but merely "the" NT text and canon, in whatever form they might assume. > Please folks, let's not use analogies to classical music. I only addressed a faulty analogy, but to make a valid point to some degree. The issue of theme and variations within normative classical music would make the same point as Waltz' suggestion to move to folk music. There still has to be an underlying original which gets distorted or varied for whatever purposes, and this applies to any text-critical theory as well, since the autograph has to be presupposed as a stabilizing factor, else the variations would be unrecognizable as the text of a particular NT book. > Hymns, if not rigorously > controlled by the printing press, can undergo amazing changes.... Too many hymns controlled by the printing press end up dramatically changed for theological (e.g. the end of "Holy Holy Holy" as sung by the non-Trinitarian Mormon Tabernacle Choir) or aesthetical reasons ("for sinners such as I" instead of "for such a worm as I"). But I'll depart this soapbox as well..... > >The data and conclusions of Lake, Blake, and New need to be seriously > >considered in formulating any hypothesis regarding the nature of the > >Byzantine Textform. > I'll admit to being slightly shocked by this. If this is valid, it > implies that less than one manuscript in ten thousand has survived. > Which seems almost unbelievable. What have I missed? Lake, Blake, and New said only that there must have been thousands of MSS existing before the 9th century which are no longer extant. I would not necessarily multiply this into tens of thousands. However, I think that the conclusions of Lake, Blake, and New are quite reliable and highly significant. There remains an underlying implication (following Hort's "theoretical presumption") that those non-extant MSS would likely reflect a similar proportion of Byzantine MSS as is evidenced in the post-9th century era, and if so, any non-Byzantine views of transmissional history which engage in the recent "revisionist history" claim that the Byzantine Text was not in the majority until after the 9th century (e.g. Wallace, Aland), will have to be seriously re-evaluated. The conclusions of Lake et al. point at the minimum to at least the truth of Hort's claims regarding Byzantine dominance from ca. AD 350 onward. > I would imagine you are much more expert on this than I am. To me it > seems that the flood of full-blown Byzantine manuscripts that continued > until the time of Erasmus began in the ninth century, and that manuscripts > such as E-F-G-H in the gospels and K-L in the epistles are typical. I will agree that the multiplication of MSS increased dramatically from the 9th century onward, and that the uncial MSS cited are typical of the Byzantine Textform. But I would not suggest a sudden or major explosion of MS copies at that point, but only a continuing multiplication of what had previously been occurring (following the reasoning of Lake et al. on this point). > Agreed. Though W is of about the same date as A, so it doesn't change > things much. But A and W (not the root beer), with their early date and substantially Byzantine texts, do imply the existence of earlier complete exemplars (at least of the gospels) with a substantially Byzantine text in their respective regions of copying (and I see a clear Egyptian hand in A, with a more Armenian-style hand in W). > >Since there are two competing "Byzantine" or "majority" texttypes in the > >Apocalypse (Andreas and Q), I would not claim any specific MS as "the" > >substantially Byzantine example. > As an aside to Maurice -- how do you feel about those two types? > Which one do you consider the original Byzantine textform? I have a suspicion that the Andreas group might be influenced more by certain preferred readings of that Father (whose commentary accompanies almost all MSS of that group). The Q-group of MSS generally is continuous text without commentary attached, and I would suspect it to likely be closer to the original (but due to the smaller number of MSS in the Apocalypse as compared with anywhere else in the NT, there is no easy "Byzantine methodology" which can be applied there: readings where An + Q agree are obviously "Byzantine," and this covers probably 95% of the book; where An and Q differ, there is usually an approximately equal quantitative division among the MSS, and internal principles have to predominate in such cases). > When I referred to a "mindset," I meant (say) a tendency to add > superfluous pronouns, or delete them, or fix certain grammatical > constructions. I agree with Maurice that most scribes were doing their > best to copy what was before them, and that each scribe made > idiosyncratic errors. But idiosyncratic errors will hardly create a > text-type! Most definitely agreed. This is why I would argue for localized variations which would come together in local text forms. Some of these local variations may have arisen from accidental alteration which then became perpetuated within that given region; other readings may have come about due to deliberate local recensional activity (which I would maintain especially in the cases of Alexandria and Caesarea). > It will often happen that a folk song > will exist in various forms, and then someone creates a "superior" > form (e.g. one with an improved melody or an easier set of words). > The "improved" form will then gradually sweep all other forms away. > (I could cite examples, but they probably wouldn't mean anything > to the people on this list.) Not wanting to get into the music analogy again, but Luther's taking a drinking song and turning it into "A Mighty Fortress" or the same happening with the tavern tune "Anacreon in Heaven" becoming "The Star Spangled Banner" might serve as common illustrations. This analogy, however, still remains outside the realm of NT textual transmission, since it moves within the framework of the pre-existing autograph, where the basic autograph text is NOT altered beyond recognition. > It could certainly be argued that this has happened with the NT text > as well. The best example is the ending of Mark. Without saying which > is original, it is clear that two major forms circulated -- with and > without 16:9-20. But the longer form clearly prevailed because it > was *superior* -- i.e. it looked complete. The question of "circulated" is debatable. With only 3 Greek MSS omitting the long ending entirely, one has to wonder as to how extensively this form ever did "circulate". Even the forms with the shorter ending appear in only a handful of Greek MSS, and then in conjunction with the long ending, so it may be questioned whether even that ending (which would also have "looked complete") really had much independent circulation beyond it-k or possibly some few Old Latin companion MSS. My view is much simpler: the longer form prevailed because it was in fact part of the originally-circulated form of Mark, and later competing readings never really gained much popularity, let alone any ascendancy. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 7 12:10:33 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA14954; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 12:09:02 -0400 Message-Id: <9606071605.AA25408@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Influence of Diocletian/Constantine To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 12:05:45 -0400 (EDT) From: "Stephen C Carlson" In-Reply-To: from "Robert B. Waltz" at Jun 7, 96 08:45:00 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 976 I think it is too reductionistic to examine the effects of Diocletian's persecution as yet another persecution (albeit a longer and perhaps harsher one) and of Constantine's liberalization without regard to the fact that they occurred within decades of each other. We have the collocation of one of the longest and harshest persecutions (one that did target the Scriptures) and one of the most permissive legal treatments of Christianity in centuries. The two events jointly have a greater impact than what one would conclude by examining them separately. In other words, I understand Diocletian's persecution together with the nearly immediate legalization of Christianity by Constantine to be part of the same "bottleneck." Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/ : chant the words. -- Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 7 13:21:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA15367; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:20:11 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:16:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Holmes Overview Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 8613 Michael Holmes wrote on Fri, 7 Jun 1996: Let it be known that I agree with much of what Michael Holmes has stated. However, I do have some points of difference. which are noted below: >1) I think it is important to distinguish between textual >*methodology* and textual *history* .... There is a >synergistic relationship between the two, but they are not the same >thing....Eclecticism has to do with methodology--what one considers to >be evidence and how one goes about evaluating it. This is why I stated that textual criticism cannot be done in a vacuum, but it still seems clear (as Calvin Porter pointed out in his Duke dissertation over 30 years ago), that modern eclecticism still proceeds as if it has no theory of textual transmission, and that the search for the original text is more like the myth of wandering Isis trying to reassemble the pieces of Osiris from here there and yonder, where they have been scattered by forces unknown, with no regard for an overarching original text which had to have a basis in consistent continuous text MS evidence. This is not a mere generalization, but applies with equal validity to the current praxis of both rigorous and reasoned eclecticism. >2) Virtually all of us, I would argue, are "reasoned eclectics" with >regard to method ... --i.e., we utilize some combination of internal >and external considerations in reaching decisions about textual >variants....In terms of method, we are all "eclectics," and for some to >position themselves over against "the eclectic school" (or some such >term)--as if they were not part of it--creates confusion. I do not think this to be the case. There is a clear differentiation between the modern eclectic mindset and its methodology which is based upon taking variants as isolated cases and making evaluation on a case by case basis as opposed to the matter of developing a consistent comprehensive theory of transmission and -then- evaluating individual readings within the framework of that particular theory. I certainly do NOT consider my position to be "eclecticism" in any form; if it were so, then I could not hold to a "Byzantine priority" position, which would tend to override subjective eclectic decisions in cases where the reading of the Byzantine Textform is clearly dominant. Wallace makes this clear regarding my position in the same Ehrman/Holmes volume). My position is clearly a non-eclectic modus operandi, but "non-eclectic" does not in any way preclude examining readings on the basis of internal evidence. I will concede a form of "eclecticism" on one point: where the Byzantine Textform is seriously divided among two or three primary readings, then internal criteria do come into play. HOWEVER, even this is clearly distinguished from modern eclecticism where readings found in one or two highly favored MSS (or even less favored MSS, following Kilpatrick and Elliott) might be considered original in any given variant unit. My methodology in divided readings would still require work with only those readings which show a significant degree of support within the transmissional history of the readings, and this clearly is NOT what modern eclecticism would claim; so I still remain a "non-eclectic" in this regard. >The *method* outlined by, e.g., the Alands, Metzger, Colwell, Amphoux, >Fee, Holmes, etc....-- and, I would suggest, Robinson and Waltz--is >very, very similar. As regards myself, I really think not, in light of what I have stated above. Wallace similarly thinks not, and (I suspect) Ehrman would concur with me on this point. I will cheerfully place all others in the same bucket if that is where they want to be *;-) Waltz of course seems to be in neither category. >There is no such thing as "*the* eclectic hypothesis" (M. Robinson, >9:47 p.m., 6/6/96; emphasis added)--i.e., a single view of transmission >history held by all those who utilize a "reasoned eclectic" >methodology. I will agree in regard to the view of transmissional history held by various eclectic partisans; but there most clearly IS a distinction between "the" modern eclectic view which is primarily based upon the subjective evaluation of internal criteria (supplemented by external evidence) as differentiated from the non-eclectic view which is primarily based upon external evidence (supplemented by internal criteria). I shall continue to maintain this distinction when I contrast the eclectic versus non-eclectic methodologies. >3) Reasoned eclecticism is not bankrupt, or a makeshift expedient; it >is, in view of how the NT text has been transmitted, our only option--a >point that Zuntz made quite clearly, building on Hort (see pp.346-349). A point with which I obviously wholly disagree, else I would be within the eclectic fold once more. >4) The critical question for textual criticism today--and here the >discussion started by Robinson and Waltz is right on target--is >precisely the history of the text. Which has been one of my main points all along. >and now M. Robinson (comprehensive and, it appears, fully developed), I appreciate the comment, but I more than anyone else realize how undeveloped and unexplored is the territory within my theory. Just so long as it clearly gets differentiated from the KJV/TR crowd, as well as from that of Pickering or Hodges/Farstad, I will be content. >I would interested to hear what some of the discussants have to say >about Wachtel's recent and wide-ranging treatment of the Byzantine >tradition. (Thumbnail sketch of Wachtel: the Byz text of the Cath >Epistles is the result of a long process [traces of which are evident >already in the earliest period] of smoothing and standardization, and >reached its definitive form in the ninth c. It is very unlikely that >its origin is the result of a formal recension of the fourth century; >instead, one must reckon with a series of editorial revisions [i.e., >_diorthosis_] in every epoch. His findings substantially relativize >the idea of "text types," to the extent that they are associated with >recensional theories, and highlight the importance of the minuscules.) Except for the fact that Wachtel would differ dramatically from my own position, with only a few small changes I find his data remarkably favorable to my hypothesis, since I claim a process of textual restoration of the autograph which begins in the fourth century following the legitimization of Christianity under Constantine. Wachtel merely makes the creation of the Byzantine Text at that time the main issue rather than its restoration. Wachtel also later makes a claim regarding increased internal consistency within the developing Byzantine Textform which, if taken backward consistently through the centuries (which he does not), points to precisely what I claim regarding the restoration of the Byzantine Textform as the closest approximation to the autograph. Wachtel's essay deserves to be read by all, and (perhaps someone will do it) be translated into English. >5) The role of scribes in the transmission of the NT text has come up >in the last few days. ... it was suggested that active reader/users, >practicing the customary and expected activity of _diorthosis_, may >have been responsible for many of the distinctive variant readings >associated with the "western" textual tradition. Now Wachtel makes a >similar point, as has Harry Gamble (_Books and Readers in the Early >Church_ [Yale, 1995]). This reminds us that not only scribes and the >scriptorium but also readers and the church were important factors in >the tranmission of the NT. How might this consideration reshape how we >envision the transmission history of the NT? Certainly scribes were the primary cause of textual variation, and texttypes and sub-texttypes developed from their efforts. Correction of the text, however, by the diorthotes or the original scribe, especially when based upon lectionary usage within the liturgy, would still tend to maintain a preservative effect upon the text rather than its wide differentiation. This is still a reason why I think local text deviations are reasonable and can serve to explain much of the diversity found in the extant MSS, versions, and fathers, while the bulk of the text remains highly Byzantine in character. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 7 13:45:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA15558; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:43:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:40:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Alexandrian" Text In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 6351 (I had a nice response to this posting, but a blast of line noise totally= =20 obliterated it. The current posting reflects an attempt to recreate it=20 as best as possible). On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote: > Maurice Robinson wrote: >>> But it seems to me that the flow of logic here is precisely backwards. >>It is backwards only if a presupposition regarding the "late" nature of >>the Byzantine Textform predominates. From my perspective, there is no >>backward reasoning necessary. >=20 > Ah, but be careful. Here you've subtly --but critically-- shifted the > playing field. I think not; any theory has to be examined within the constraints of its=20 own presuppositions. I merely bring my own theory in as a point of=20 contrast to indicate that it does not suffer from the same weaknesses as=20 hitherto described. > Your argument --the argument to which I was responding-- was a > "consistency" arguement. That is, you were insisting that the Eclectic > theory was flawed _internally_ because it did not provide a specific > mechanism which would account for the rise of the Byzantine text-type. I= , > in response, showed that this was not correct. I fail to see where this has been demonstrated. So far every suggested=20 explanation for the rise and dominance of the Byzantine Textform which=20 comes from the varying quarters within modern eclecticism has had either=20 inconsistencies or serious weaknesses, which I have noted in passing. I=20 still have not seen a reasonable theory of textual transmission which can= =20 account for all the extant data which comes from the modern eclectic=20 fold, and in this case, I find the Westcott-Hort theory clearly superior=20 to anything yet put forth favoring a non-Byzantine text since that time. =20 > The fact that this does not fit a separate theoretical framework (in this > case yours) is irrelevant and says nothing about the consistency of the > theory, which is the question at hand. Precisely. I willingly would examine any transmissional theory from=20 within the framework of the hypothesis being set forth; but I would=20 reserve the right to play Devil's advocate in critiquing that same theory= =20 from within its theoretical framework, as well as suggesting alternative=20 models which do not suffer from the same deficiency. I would be quite=20 pleased if modern eclectics would willingly suspend a priori judgments=20 and evaluate the Byzantine-priority model from within its own framework=20 as well, but to date this has not been done -- rather, everyone else=20 continually chooses to shift the playing field back to their own ball=20 park, and to view all pro-Byzantine claims from behind their own eclectic= =20 blinders (Colwell's term). > >> As in these examples, there were certainly conventions and a certain > >> enviormental "ambience" (as it were) which would tend to reinforce cer= tain > >> aspects and to drive out certain others. > > > >Even allowing your hypothesis, what were these factors? I don't think I wrote the above statement, did I? Perhaps I was=20 quoting Waltz? I would generally concur that the "ambience" would be=20 basically the normal scribal duty and concern to copy the text as=20 accurately as possible, but recognizing that certain non-autograph=20 readings might predominate in any given area. > >The question for eclectic theory is to account for precisely what caused > >that pattern of readings to be perpetuated to the point of dominance, > >while the vast bulk of other readings supposedly appropriate to the > >"Byzantine mindset" were not perpetuated. From my own perspective, I hav= e > >no problem answering this point; I suspect modern eclectic theory will > >find this particular matter difficult if not insurmountable. >=20 > Well, one obvious force at work here --and moreover a force that we know = to > have affected the text of the NT-- is that characterized in the title of > Bart Ehrman's book _The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_ (a book which, > BTW, I heartily recommend to one and all). This would be one factor (though I will differ with Ehrman on his view of= =20 what consitutes "orthodoxy"). However, any claim to a scribal tendency=20 toward readings which favor orthodoxy fails in so many places where in=20 theory orthodoxy could have been strengthened, but was not, simply due to= =20 the fidelity of the scribes. Ehrman is basically correct, in my view,=20 when the "more orthodox" reading is found in a -minority- of MSS; I do=20 not accept the same claim at a point where the majority of MSS might=20 happen to preserve what subjectively appears to be a "more orthodox"=20 reading, since in such a case it is very possible that the "more orthodox"= =20 reading is simply that of the autograph, created by a writer who himself=20 WAS "orthodox". > If we assume the existence of a Church in which the Byzantine text-type > developed over the centuries, the existence of that orthodoxy must have > been a compelling, an inexorable (if subtle) force for change in that > Church's text. If so, the Byzantine era scribes left far too many places unaffected. If= =20 we were to accept the standard claims regarding the Byzantine tendency to= =20 expand sacred names, for instance, we should never find "Jesus" standing=20 alone, but it would be expanded to "Jesus Christ", which in turn would be= =20 expanded to "the Lord Jesus Christ" and then to "our Lord Jesus Christ,"=20 etc. This scribal expansion certainly was done, and it occurred=20 frequently but sporadically, and can be seen in comprehensive apparatuses= =20 like Von Soden or Tischendorf; however, the expansions were nipped in the= =20 bud by watchdog scribes and/or their correctors, and never gained the=20 ascendancy. The same would apply to numerous other readings which=20 somehow would supposedly be "more orthodox" than that which normally=20 would be preserved by simple copying of the autograph text. =20 7=ED=DB=D6=A4=CFK=F0=D4=CD=D0>=B3T%=D2=B5=A2=DB=C6o=CBS (and its scribes) a= lready knew what the text=20 "meant", they would simply > _tend_ --perhaps unconsciously-- to make sure that that's what it said. >=20 >=20 > Nichael > nichael@sover.net __ > http://www.sover.net/~nichael Be as passersby -- IC >=20 >=20 >=20 From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 7 13:55:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA15629; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:53:46 -0400 Message-Id: <199606071749.TAA18472@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 07 Jun 96 19:53:46 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: Another set of miscellaneous replies To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 6902 On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote (inter alia): [quoting Robinson:] >>Just under 100 MSS were collated for this >>particular study, and the results are displayed in the HTR >>article. >>The point is that these MSS, which in the view of Lake, Blake, >>and New were likely copied within the confines of those three >>widely separated >>monasteries, presented a near-identical Byzantine Textform, yet >>without any indication of genealogical ties, or even descent from >>within the MSS of the same monastery. They raise some valid >>concerns, and their comments (p.340) are worth quoting in >>extenso: >> The results are instructive, especially in their negative >>aspects. > > This collation covers three of the great ancient collections >>of MSS.; >> and these are not modern conglomerations, brought together >>from all directions. Many of the MSS. now at Sinai, Patmos, and >>Jerusalem must be codices written in the scriptoria of these >>monasteries. We expected to >> find that a collation covering all the MSS. in each library >>would show many cases of direct copying. But there are >>practically no such cases. >> What does this mean? >> Before answering the question, it may be well to put another. >> Why are there only a few fragments (even in the two oldest of >>the monastic >> collections, Sinai and St. Saba) which come from a date >>earlier than the 10th century? >> There must have been in existence many thousands of >>manuscripts of the gospels in the great days of Byzantine >>prosperity, between the fourth and > > the tenth centuries. There are now extant but a pitiably >>small number. > > Moreover, the amount of direct genealogy which has been >>detected in > >extant codices is almost negligible. Nor are many known MSS. >>sister codices. . . . Apart from . . . [f1 and f13] there seem to >>be no groups of MSS. which are conceivably descendants of a >>single lost codex. There >> are cognate groups -- families of distant cousins -- but the >>manuscripts which we have are almost all orphan children without >>brothers or sisters. > >>The data and conclusions of Lake, Blake, and New need to be >>seriously considered in formulating any hypothesis regarding the >>nature of the Byzantine Textform. >I'll admit to being slightly shocked by this. If this is valid, it >implies that less than one manuscript in ten thousand has >survived. >Which seems almost unbelievable. What have I missed? Well, the first thing we all miss at least from the long quotation from Kirsopp Lake (given by Maurice) is the concluding sentence: "(...are almost all orphan children without brothers or sisters.) Taking this fact into consideration along with the negative result of our collation of MSS. at Sinai, Patmos, and Jerusalem, it is hard to resist the conclusion that the scribes usually destroyed their exemplars when they had copied the sacred books" (HTR XXI, 1928, pp. 348f). If this had been usual scribal practice, then why do we have more than one manuscript now? But, to be serious, if we look at the Vulgate tradition, we have similar results. In 1972 (Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung, vol. 5), Bonifatius Fischer published the results from the examination of 32 Vulgate-MSS all stemming from the scriptorium of Tours (France) covering a time span from around 100 years (796 to around 900 AD). These 32 Vulgate-MSS can be pretty well arranged by the style of handwriting and the decorations. But, a collation of these MSS at 50 Teststellen in the Gospels revealed NO stemmatical arrangement of the texts they contain. Shurely, there are some MSS that are more closely related than others, but a more precise description of the textual development is not possible. Interesting enough, what can be seen is: (a) When the leadership of the monastery changed to the Abt Adalhard (834 AD), there was a textual shift towards the Vulgate text of Reins. (b) However, a dependence of Tours (Marmoutier) remained at the same time conservative (not influenced by the text of Reins). (c) Towards the end of the leadership of the Abt Vivian (around 850 AD) there was a change back to the older text of Tours. (d) After that there seems to have been taken place a constant change between both texts with mixtures involved. After all, we have to keep in mind that the texts involved are Vulgate-texts, i.e. they all belong to the same branche of textual transmission clearly distinct from the various Old-Latin texts. I now may return to the Lake-Blake-New collations from the MSS mentioned above. 119 (I found the number on p. 342) against Textus Receptus collated MSS in Mark 11 are involved. (a) First, they isolated a textual stratum which they call the "Ecclesiastical" text ("the most popular text in MSS. of the tenth to the fourteenth century") by meens of identifying four readings were almost all MSS under discussion deviate from the Textus Receptus. (b) Then, they noted another 10 readings which they judge to be regarded as variants within the "Ecclesiastical" text. (c) Some 20 MSS might be connected to (von Soden's) K 1, though Lake shows signs of hesitation. (d) Another seven MSS present a relatively pure K a text, with 16 additional MSS representing a mixture of K a and the "Ecclesiastical" text. (e) Another four MSS appeared to share a common pattern hitherto unknown. (f) The readings of von Sodens Antiochian commentary (A c) are clearely identifiable, but not by meens of a group. (g) Within the 33 verses of Mark 11 collated against the Textus Receptus there are 23 readings where at least 10 percent of the 119 MSS desert. To conclude therefrom, I may say that some 17 to 34 percent of the MSS (depending on wether we take K 1 into account or not) out of the 119 could be grouped by different patterns of readings. A glance at von Soden revealed that some of the readings involved have support from von Soden's various I groups, occasionally also from von Soden's H group. But that needs further assessment. However, it seems important to me that not few of the readings may have been caused independently by assimilation. The whole thing, to my mind is not as disturbing as it seems. A huge distinct pattern of readings seems to be fixed (i.e the primary Byzantine text stratum ), a few smaller distinct patterns in addition to the primary stratum are relatively purely displayed by few MSS. The majority of the MSS seems to display mixture mostly within the smaller patterns. Therefore, the additional smaller patterns can be seen as representing a broadly disseminated and very well known (at least to later scribes) pool of variant-readings. If the constant threat of assimilation is taken into account, it is to my mind not disturbing what can be found within the libraries Lake-Blake-New have examined. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 7 17:05:42 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA17057; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 17:04:32 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 96 16:01 CDT X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) Subject: Mathematical Error Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 13269 TCers -- Once again, I pay the price for trying to think too quickly. In this case, the price was a mathematical error concerning the rate at which manuscripts would have to be destroyed. This time I'll give you the correct figure, *and* the reasoning, so you can perhaps apply it to other samples. Let r be the probability that anu random manuscript will be destroyed. (Thus 1-r is the probability of its survival to the present day.) This is, of course, a simplistic assumption; older manuscripts are more likely to be destroyed. But this doesn't affect the argument much. The odds of *both of two* manuscripts being destroyed is thus r squared, for all of three mansuscripts is r cubed, and so forth. In general, for any n, the odds of all three being destroyed is r to the nth power. So for any set of n manuscripts, the odds of at least one surviving is one minus r to the nth power. If we choose n=100 and want at least a 5% chance of all manuscripts being destroyed (the usual cutoff used by statisticians), we must solve the equation 100 1 - r = .95 This gives us a "destruction rate" of 97% -- that is, at least 97% of the manuscripts must be destroyed to have a 5% chance of all 100 being destroyed. If we want a 50% chance of all 100 being destroyed, we find r to be 99.3%. So the destruction rate needed to observe the behavior found by Lake, Blake, and New, while high, is not impossible. *** Now let's see how many other comments I can respond to before I have to get back to work.... Holmes: >2) Virtually all of us, I would argue, are "reasoned eclectics" with regard >to method (for definitions, see pp. 336-338)--i.e., we utilize some >combination of internal and external considerations in reaching decisions >about textual variants. In contrast to a "rigorous eclecticism" which >essentially eschews external evidence (e.g., Keith Elliott) or a "historical >documentary" approach which attempts to avoid internal considerations (e.g., >Dearing), the rest of us appear to utilize a combination of both kinds of >evidence--e.g., Robinson again (4:57 p.m., 6/4/96): "in light of both >internal and external evidence." In terms of method, we are all >"eclectics," and for some to position themselves over against "the eclectic >school" (or some such term)--as if they were not part of it--creates >confusion. The central locus of our differences is not with regard to >method, but with regard to the history of transmission. The *method* >outlined by, e.g., the Alands, Metzger, Colwell, Amphoux, Fee, Holmes, etc. >(see p. 344)--and, I would suggest, Robinson and Waltz--is very, very >similar. The differences in the view of the history of the text among this >same group, however, are tremendous; a comparison of Kurt Aland and Amphoux >is esp. instructive in this regard (cf. p. 350). There is no such thing as >"*the* eclectic hypothesis" (M. Robinson, 9:47 p.m., 6/6/96; emphasis >added)--i.e., a single view of transmission history held by all those who >utilize a "reasoned eclectic" methodology. Nice to see somebody *finally* quoting a book that's actually in my own personal library. :-) For the most part I would agree with this comment. But -- technically speaking -- it is not true of my method (nor, as Robinson's rejoinder shows, of his). *Most* of the time I apply both internal and external criteria (with a bias toward the latter). However, there are instances in which I do not apply internal criteria at all: the cases where all pre-Byzantine text-types agree. Similarly Robinson: If the Byzantine text is united, he does not apply internal criteria. Still, I will not really argue with the label. I at least agree with Holmes (against Robinson) that variations are to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I just have unusually strict criteria for where I apply internal evidence. >4) The critical question for textual criticism today--and here the >discussion started by Robinson and Waltz is right on target--is precisely >the history of the text. Glad somebody remembers where we all started. :-) >In particular, I would interested to >hear what some of the discussants have to say about Wachtel's recent and >wide-ranging treatment of the Byzantine tradition. (Thumbnail sketch of >Wachtel: the Byz text of the Cath Epistles is the result of a long process >[traces of which are evident already in the earliest period] of smoothing >and standardization, and reached its definitive form in the ninth c. It is >very unlikely that its origin is the result of a formal recension of the >fourth century; instead, one must reckon with a series of editorial >revisions [i.e., _diorthosis_] in every epoch. His findings substantially >relativize the idea of "text types," to the extent that they are associated >with recensional theories, and highlight the importance of the minuscules.) Unfortunately, I have not seen the article, so I cannot comment directly. But I will admit to that it surprises me. From what I have seen -- and I will admit that this is based mostly on manuscripts, with very little examination of the Church Fathers -- there is almost no hint of the Byzantine text in the Catholics before the ninth century. Whereas, in the gospels, a text that is about 80% of the way to a full-blown Byzantine text appears in the fifth century in A and W, supported by the purple uncials in the sixth century. Admittedly in the case of the gospels there was further evolution between the fifth and ninth centuries (e.g. the insertion of the story of the adulteress), but most of the action was before that date. >5) The role of scribes in the transmission of the NT text has come up in the >last few days. In light of what can be learned about how books were made >and read in the ancient world, t may be that the traditional focus in NT >textual criticism on scribes as "shapers" of the text is misplaced. In a >lecture given in 1994 (due out any time now in a volume from Brill edited by >David Parker and C.-B. Amphoux) it was suggested that active reader/users, >practicing the customary and expected activity of _diorthosis_, may have >been responsible for many of the distinctive variant readings associated >with the "western" textual tradition. Now Wachtel makes a similar point, as >has Harry Gamble (_Books and Readers in the Early Church_ [Yale, 1995]). >This reminds us that not only scribes and the scriptorium but also readers >and the church were important factors in the tranmission of the NT. How >might this consideration reshape how we envision the transmission history of >the NT? This strikes me as reasonable. I can think of at least one instance where (please note: this is a *wild* speculation) it *may* have led to the dissemination of a whole new text-type. I'm thinking of the Photian schism, which (if I read my very unclear history books correctly) had to do in part with the purity of the clergy. This might possibly revive interest in Origen -- and lo and behold, shortly after the Photian schism ended, we find a number of manuscripts with a rather "Origenic" type of text. (Those manuscripts being the members of family 1739.) I repeat -- wild speculation, but a possible instance of the above. Schmid: >I should point out that I stressed the influence matter to the >extreme in order to emphasize the problems involved. Assuming >influence from (other) text-types implies by consequence the >assumption of existing text-types. But text-types are exactly what >we are trying to define. It is by no means clear that we all refer >to the same "thing". May be you can refrain from the logical >implications (letting the historical problems aside) of >"influence", I simply cannot. Text-types, the least one can say, refer to a >certain distinct _pattern_ of readings. Even within the Byzantine "text-type" >slightly different patterns are detectable. So, to my mind, the question >is what >distinct _pattern_ of readings makes for example the Peshitta the "earliest >substantial witness" for the Byz. text of the Gospels (Bob on Thu, 6 June >1996)? This is one of the things I was hinting at in my later discussion on this subject. It's a difficult matter -- if we take our earliest proto-Byzantine witnesses (A, N, W, Peshitta), we find that all agree with the later Byzantine text 80% of the time or more (in my sample, anyway) -- but they don't agree at the same points. This could indicate that all have been influenced by the Byzantine text in different places -- but also that they have been influenced by different forms of that text. I cannot see how to prove the matter one way or another. Unless I am to understand from this that Ulrich Schmid does *not* consider the Peshitta to be primarily Byzantine. Robinson also comments on this general topic: >But A and W (not the root beer), with their early date and substantially >Byzantine texts, do imply the existence of earlier complete exemplars (at >least of the gospels) with a substantially Byzantine text in their >respective regions of copying (and I see a clear Egyptian hand in A, with >a more Armenian-style hand in W). I agree that A has a rather "Egyptian" feel -- indeed, I would speculate (here I go again....) that A was based on a *more* Byzantine model that was sporadically corrected toward the Alexandrian text. I say this because A is disproportionally Alexandrian on big, obvious readings (e.g. Luke 22:43-44) -- the kind of variation that even the most casual scribe could not overlook. Of course, this could just be block mixture. But, as noted, I can't see how this affects how we reconstruct the Byzantine text. Robinson, on a different subject: >> It could certainly be argued that this has happened with the NT text >> as well. The best example is the ending of Mark. Without saying which >> is original, it is clear that two major forms circulated -- with and >> without 16:9-20. But the longer form clearly prevailed because it >> was *superior* -- i.e. it looked complete. > >The question of "circulated" is debatable. With only 3 Greek MSS omitting >the long ending entirely, one has to wonder as to how extensively this >form ever did "circulate". Even the forms with the shorter ending appear >in only a handful of Greek MSS, and then in conjunction with the long >ending, so it may be questioned whether even that ending (which would >also have "looked complete") really had much independent circulation >beyond it-k or possibly some few Old Latin companion MSS. My view is >much simpler: the longer form prevailed because it was in fact part of >the originally-circulated form of Mark, and later competing readings >never really gained much popularity, let alone any ascendancy. This argument isn't based on originality. All I am saying is that the longer ending will tend to survive by "natural selection." Carlson: >I think it is too reductionistic to examine the effects of Diocletian's >persecution as yet another persecution (albeit a longer and perhaps harsher >one) and of Constantine's liberalization without regard to the fact that >they occurred within decades of each other. We have the collocation of >one of the longest and harshest persecutions (one that did target the >Scriptures) and one of the most permissive legal treatments of >Christianity in centuries. > >The two events jointly have a greater impact than what one would >conclude by examining them separately. In other words, I understand >Diocletian's persecution together with the nearly immediate legalization >of Christianity by Constantine to be part of the same "bottleneck." I'm willing to accept this view -- but in that case, we need once again to look at the Decian persecution. The situation was almost identical: A relatively severe persecution (the worst experienced to that point), followed *immediately* by Gallienus's edict of toleration, which provided the Christians with more security than they had ever had until that time. Robinson again, on Holmes >>The *method* outlined by, e.g., the Alands, Metzger, Colwell, Amphoux, >>Fee, Holmes, etc....-- and, I would suggest, Robinson and Waltz--is >>very, very similar. > >As regards myself, I really think not, in light of what I have stated >above. Wallace similarly thinks not, and (I suspect) Ehrman would >concur with me on this point. I will cheerfully place all others in >the same bucket if that is where they want to be *;-) Waltz of course >seems to be in neither category. Gee, thanks. What, then, does that make me (other than obviously insane)? Sorry, I couldn't pass up making *some* sort of comment on this. :-) Robinson again: >I appreciate the comment, but I more than anyone else realize how >undeveloped and unexplored is the territory within my theory. Just so >long as it clearly gets differentiated from the KJV/TR crowd, as well >as from that of Pickering or Hodges/Farstad, I will be content. If nothing else, I sympathise with Maurice. The fact that his *result* looks, to us outsiders, much like Hodges/Farstad does not mean that his methods are similar. Just as I *do* feel some distance from, say, Aland and Metzger, even if my text agrees with their fairly frequently. And with that, I had better get back to the outside world. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Sat Jun 8 10:26:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA18800; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 10:24:40 -0400 Message-Id: <199606081421.QAA32858@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 08 Jun 96 16:25:00 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: NT Interpolations To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 9983 On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >But let me give my *personal* perspective. >I would agree, in principle, that if the church had approved an >interpolated text (e.g. a text of Mark which included 16:9-20), >then that we should accept that text. >But there is no reason to believe that that ever happened. The >thing to keep in mind is that the church never convened a council >to approve a canon. Let us assume for a moment that a church council had approved not only the various books within the canon but also a definite form of the text of these books. One of the consequences would have been the appointment of a GREEK text only. Despite of that, various protestant low-church movements of which their founders had not been familiar with Greek were deeply inspired by scripture based on translations. But, as we all know, translations are also heavily dependent on interpretation. And interpretation based on interpretation would somehow obscure by consequence a Greek-text-only position. The only way to properly cope with such a position would be the exclusion of people not familiar with Greek from teaching and preaching the Gospel. This would not only affect recent protestant movements but also for example Augustine of Hippo, for in his teaching on the doctrine of original sin he seemed to be heavily dependent on a defective rendering/interpretation of Rom 5.12. To my mind a church council decision at least on the Textform would not have settled the problem of authoritative tradition in a true Christian spirit, for it would have replaced the ONE WORD of God (Jesus Christ) by the multiple words of scripture that testify to it (him). BTW--- this seems to be a constant threat to protestant tradition. >Take the matter of Mark 16:9-20. Eusebius, who is our primary >source >for early canon lists, obviously includes Mark. But we know that >he had encountered both long and short forms. As far as I know, >Athanasius never quoted the ending of Mark. But chances are that, >as a fourth century Egyptian, he had at least seen manuscripts >that lacked it. There are assorted versions that omit it, and >others that include it. >So we cannot say *what* the church meant to canonize. In the case >of the Jews, we know what they approves: The Masoretic Text. >That's their Bible, for all its defects. Not so the Christian >church. Both Old and New testaments just evolved. That being the >case, I see no better alternative than to seek the *earliest* from >of the text. The above mentioned constant threat to protestant tradition is, to my mind, lurking behind the seeking for "the *earliest* form of the text". To be shure, the seeking for the earliest form of the text is a challenging scientific enterprise that is worth to be devoted to. It is also heavily connected to the interpretation of scripture which to my mind is the primary source Christian faith refers to. But, the cult of the earliest text to my mind suffers from some shortcomings, on theological as well as historical grounds. The theological shortcoming is that it tends to implicitely establish a canon decision on textual grounds (by means of judgments on earliest forms of texts as well as on pseudepigraphy), which the early church in fact even did not explicitely establish at a council. The historical shortcoming is the following: If the New Testament "just evolved", WHICH "earliest" form of the text should we look for? The earliest form of the New Testament as a whole, the earliest form of the various parts of the NT (i.e. the Gospel Corpus, the Pauline letter Corpus, etc.), or the earliest form of the individual writings? And, granted we could reach the earliest form of the individual writings, what, if it were defective? For example, if we judge the longer ending of Mark to be secondary, then a good case can be made (in fact the best up to my knowledge) for a defective "Urexemplar" of Mark's Gospel at the beginning of our textual transmission. BTW--- there are plenty of examples for a defective archetype of writings from antiquity. Even within the Bible Mark's Gospel would not be unique. As far as I know the masoretic text of the book of Iob stemms from the same defective archetype as does the Septuagint tradition with some 180 cases where conjecture is not to avoid, including irreparably damaged parts of Iob 36,16.20 (may be our OT collegues can comment on that). >The only other alternative I can imagine is to seek the most >widely >attested form of the text (this, obviously, requires some sort of >belief in providential preservation). This has a certain logic -- >but I can't bring myself to like it. I think there is a third alternative. Granted the point that no church council decision imposed a canon and/or a Textform, nevertheless some ancient church reports (cf. Athanasius) seemed to take notice of the somehow evolved Christian Bible (i.e. a somehow reached consensus). The consensus "included" the exclusion of various other writings lateron labelled to be apocryphal. The question therefore is, how was the consensus reached? BTW--- as a Presbyterian I shurely rely on God's providence, but not totally excluding human conditions (dei providentia ac hominum confusione). So, I may put the question slightly different: Are there some hints to describe the human part of the consensus reaching process probably from within NT tradition itself? I think there are roughly speaking two hints, one from NT textual transmission, and one from the redactional arrangements of NT writings. I should add that I am dependent, though not accepting all of it, on David Trobisch's recent study _Die Endredaktion des Neuen Testaments_ (not yet published). NT textual transmission gives at least some evidence of a far back reaching consensus: the use of the codex form and the nomina sacra system. Both features, though looking somehow mere technical, seperate the earliest Christian literature from all pagan and Jewish literature of that time. Moreover, the codex form in itself is to my mind a striking indication to the very early existence of collections of writings (cf. T.C. Skeat, The Origin of the Christian Codex, ZPE 102, 1994, pp. 263ff). Another striking indication of far back reaching consensus _and_ collections are the unanimously attested ascriptions of the individual writings titles/authors. Why, for example, was "Hebrews" labelled PROS hEBRAIOYS? This title is unanimously attested and its place is within the Corpus Paulinum, allthough most early church fathers doubted Pauline authorship. The title form EYAGGELION KATA... indicates the existence of at least two writings of that genre. For example P66, though presumably covering text from only one Gospel, indicates the existence of more than one by giving the title EYAGGELION KATA IOANNHN. So, to my mind, various features from within NT textual transmission heavily point to the very early existence of collections of NT writings. Presumably most second century Christians got in touch with NT writings as part of collections. The shape of these collections could not have differed so much, for textual transmission offers only few hints of differing collections (most obviously within the Corpus Paulinum, cf. the ending of Romans and the Ephesians' adress). The least one can say is that NT textual transmission goes back to the well known collections, and only through the collections back to the autographs. One may differ on various points, but the collections seem to be the decisive bottlenecks one simply cannot ignore. Thus, having established reasonable grounds for the significance of the collections, I may now turn to the redactional arrangements of NT writings. To my mind it is remarkable that within the different collections we can find some texts at important places which can be viewed as a kind of covering note. The most prominent example in John 21.25 refers to BIBLIA and GRAFHTAI. Though presumably originally only referring to the Gospel of John, it can cover at its actual position within the fourfold Gospel "canon" the whole collection by indicating its definite ending in the written form. Assuming the most prominent place for Hebrews at the end of the Corpus Paulinum the covering note Heb 13,22-24 may refer to the preceeding Pastoral epistles (brother Timothy) as well as to Romans (from Italy). Within the General epistles we have 2 Peter's referrences to both the Gospel tradition and Pauls letters. The most prominent place of Revelation within NT textual transmission seems to be at the end (mostly after the Corpus Paulinum). Therefore the covering canon formula (Rev 22,18f), though presumably originally only covering Revelations, may in its later context cover the preceeding collections too. Note, I do not argue for redactional offspring of all of these notes, but rather for redactional/editorial arrangements of the individual writings that could well belong to different levels (at least for the Gospels). But, seen together, these notes in their actual contexts form an impressive set of hints that link together the various collections not only from within the collections itself, but also partly transcendending their boundaries. So, I suspect that these notes in combination with the unanimous, more technical, features of codex and nomina sacra gave reason for the reproduction of scripture collections of virtually identical shapes (save for some textual variation). And this laid reasonable grounds to the consensus lateron only to be recognized, for NT writings in the above described form had already in (at the end of?) the second century become a "best-seller" within Christian communities superseding both autographs as well as most of apocryphal literature. This is, believe me or not, in short, how I would describe the emergence of the NT canon _sub specie hominum_. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Sat Jun 8 22:06:24 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA20389; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 22:03:16 -0400 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 11:11:41 GMT Subject: Re: Holmes Overview Priority: normal X-mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 605 I note that Robinson replies to Holmes point about the role of scribes in the development of texts 'Certainly scribes were the primary cause of textual variation'. It depends what kind of variation you mean. Mike's point in his paper concerns conscious rather than mechanical change. (By the way, the collection is being published just about now, and copies should be becoming available.) It is on the word 'Certainly' that what he has to say casts doubt. David Parker DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list Sun Jun 9 03:16:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA21034; Sun, 9 Jun 1996 03:14:14 -0400 From: rachel@ms1.hinet.net Message-Id: <199606090711.PAA23712@ms1.hinet.net> Date: Sun, 09 Jun 96 12:08:30 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Holmes Overview In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v1.00 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3882 In , on 06/07/96 Once again I change from my lurking mode: I wrestle with how I can make my input more useful to the others on this list.... Since I am not a TC active member I basically read the posts and then together with outside reading form my base of opinion. Thus to many this current post will only appear to be a "Amen!" or "I agree" thus robbing it of its voice in the crowded arena. If anyone can give me some better suggestion as to how to make my "vote" heard more clearly please do so..... Thus I have snipped out large portions to basically state my *reasoned out* opinion..... ---->1) I think it is important to distinguish between textual --->*methodology* and textual *history* .... --- modern---eclecticism still proceeds as if it has no theory of textual ---transmission, This is not a mere---generalization, but applies with equal validity to the current praxis of both rigorous and reasoned eclecticism. This is a very significant point that Robinson has made and in my reasoning it justifies why I support and accept his methodology.....!! There is the matter of developing a consistent comprehensive theory of transmission and -then- evaluating individual readings within the framework of that particular theory. -My methodology in divided readings would still require ---work with only those readings which show a significant degree ---of support within the transmissional history of the readings, At least Robinson is very consistent in using his methodology which is more than I can attest concerning other so-called Byzantine promoters... --->The *method* outlined by, e.g., the Alands, Metzger, Colwell, ---Amphoux, >Fee, Holmes, etc....-- and, I would suggest, ---Robinson and Waltz--is >very, very similar. Since I know Fee and Robinson For *me* the best scenario would be a an email exchange between these two incredibly gifted Scholars..... This is due to personal exchange with each one in which I have the highest esteem for both Scholars for different reasons. Unforunately there is already too much rhetoric in this field for this too take place..... ---I appreciate the comment, but I more than anyone else realize ---how undeveloped and unexplored is the territory within my ---theory. Just so long as it clearly gets differentiated from ---the KJV/TR crowd, as well as from that of Pickering or ---Hodges/Farstad, I will be content. This was my point and observation above with the smiley!!! I am not too favorably impressed with that of Pickering or Hodges/Farstad and esp. I grow weary with the rhetoric of the KJV/TR crowd. I also do not appreciate being squeezed by most of the TC teaching aids to follow the Alands, Fee, et al. route....... Again this is why I have so much esteem for M. Robinson in that he has taken a lot of time explaining his position and helping me to more clearly understand Textual Criticism as a field of study rather than being a salesman for his position....! Which is something I do *not* find readily available else where..... --- Thanks for taking the time to view this........... Respond to Jim at the following address ---------------------------------------------------- rachel@ms1.hinet.net ----------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list Sun Jun 9 09:19:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA21629; Sun, 9 Jun 1996 09:17:59 -0400 Message-Id: <199606091314.PAA21314@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 09 Jun 96 15:18:23 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: Holmes Overview To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2207 On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote (inter alia): [first quoting Holmes:] >>2) Virtually all of us, I would argue, are "reasoned eclectics" >>with >>regard to method ... --i.e., we utilize some combination of >>internal >>and external considerations in reaching decisions about textual >>variants....In terms of method, we are all "eclectics," and for >>some to >>position themselves over against "the eclectic school" (or some >>such term)--as if they were not part of it--creates confusion. >I do not think this to be the case. There is a clear >differentiation >between the modern eclectic mindset and its methodology which is >based >upon taking variants as isolated cases and making evaluation on a >case >by case basis as opposed to the matter of developing a consistent >comprehensive theory of transmission and -then- evaluating >individual readings within the framework of that particular >theory. I can understand from Maurice's viewpoint the differentiation he puts forth. Therefore, I think we should focus more on transmissional history as Mike Holmes has pointed out (7 Jun 1996): >4) The critical question for textual criticism today--and here the >discussion started by Robinson and Waltz is right on target--is >precisely the history of the text. In addressing the history of the text I think our task is twofold, (1) we have to reason on the archetype of NT textual transmission; (2) we have to compare textual transmissions of other highly frequent copied texts. ad (1) I have argued elsewhere (Re: NT Interpolations, 8 Jun 1996): "The least one can say is that NT textual transmission goes back to the well known collections, and only through the collections back to the autographs. One may differ on various points, but the collections seem to be the decisive bottlenecks one simply cannot ignore." My question is: Can we reach some agreements on the archetype(s) of NT textual transmission? ad (2) Since we somehow agree that we are not doing our job in a vacuum, it may be worthwhile looking at other highly frequent copied textual transmissions. I would suggest at least two: The Latin Vulgate and the Platonic dialogues. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Sun Jun 9 15:42:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA22366; Sun, 9 Jun 1996 15:40:36 -0400 Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 15:37:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Another set of miscellaneous replies In-Reply-To: <199606071749.TAA18472@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4777 On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Ulrich Schmid wrote: > Well, the first thing we all miss at least from the long quotation from >Kirsopp Lake (given by Maurice) is the concluding sentence: "(...are >almost all orphan children without brothers or sisters.) Taking this fact >into consideration along with the negative result of our collation of MSS. >at Sinai, Patmos, and Jerusalem, it is hard to resist the conclusion that >the scribes usually destroyed their exemplars when they had copied the >sacred books" (HTR XXI, 1928, pp. 348f). I left off that sentence since the logical fallacy inherent in such a supposition has already been refuted by D.A.Carson in his critique of Pickering, and Ulrich's comment notes that same logical fallacy: > If this had been usual scribal practice, then why do we have more than one > manuscript now? However, there is another good and sufficient answer to the situation, and it revolves around the move from uncial to minuscule script, which occurred at about the same time as these early minuscules were copied. No one yet apparently has speculated or commented on the destruction of -uncial- exemplars once a minuscule copy had been made, but this seems to be the real thrust of Lake, Blake, and New's claim. > But, to be serious, if we look at the Vulgate tradition, we have > similar results. In the Latin tradition the change in handwriting was not so radically different as that in the Greek tradition. But the additional points Ulrich made are indeed significant within the history of that tradition. > (a) First, they isolated a textual stratum which they call the >"Ecclesiastical" text ("the most popular text in MSS. of the tenth to the >fourteenth century") by meens of identifying four readings were almost all >MSS under discussion deviate from the Textus Receptus. They noted that the TR was equal to the Byzantine tradition in all but four readings, where the vast majority of the 100 or so MSS deviated nearly unanimously. One should not regard merely these 4 readings as the Ecclesiastical (= Byzantine) text, but the 4 readings plus the remaining entirety of the TR text in that chapter. I will (and Lake would have also, I am certain) readily grant that intra-Byzantine sub-group readings exist among these MSS; Lake was making the point that the MSS which comprist this group of around 100 MSS does remain "Byzantine" to the exclusion of other texttypes. >However, it seems important to me that not few of the readings may >have been caused independently by assimilation. Do you REALLY think this? Or are you just bringing in a hypothetical possibility that the sharing of certain variants might be by chance? I would allow the chance element were the texttypes clearly distinct, with only a few isolated readings held in common; but when all MSS are of the same basic texttype, and the shared readings are often among MSS of the same sub-type, I suspect something more genetic is reflected, even if we cannot determine the real interrelationship among the MSS. >The whole thing to my mind is not as disturbing as it seems. A huge >distinct pattern of readings seems to be fixed (i.e the primary Byzantine >text stratum ), a few smaller distinct patterns in addition to the primary >stratum are relatively purely displayed by few MSS. The majority of the >MSS seems to display mixture mostly within the smaller patterns. I agree fully with this assessment -- basically this is a good description of the entire group of MSS comprising the Byzantine Textform. >Therefore, the additional smaller patterns can be seen as representing a >broadly disseminated and very well known (at least to later scribes) pool >of variant-readings. If the constant threat of assimilation is taken into >account, it is to my mind not disturbing what can be found within the >libraries Lake-Blake-New have examined. I see the extraneous readings as reflecting "floating" localized variants which were sporadically adopted, not necessarily a "broadly disseminated" or even "well known" pattern. Certainly the readings in question were known to the specific scribes in any case, but how widespread or well-known they may have been remains uncertain. The lack of clear genealogical connection among these MSS which existed and were likely copied in those widely-separated monasteries remains the key point within Lake's findings which should still send some "disturbing" signals to those within the eclectic camp. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sun Jun 9 16:12:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA22416; Sun, 9 Jun 1996 16:11:39 -0400 Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 16:08:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Holmes Overview In-Reply-To: <199606091314.PAA21314@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 879 On Sun, 9 Jun 1996, Ulrich Schmid wrote: > Since we somehow agree that we are not doing our job in a vacuum, it may > be worthwhile looking at other highly frequent copied textual transmissions. > I would suggest at least two: The Latin Vulgate and the Platonic dialogues. I would like to add to this the Homeric works, since they have the greatest number of extant MSS within the classical tradition, and as poetry were probably more memorized than the Platonic dialogues, which would then parallel certain memorized familiarity with Scripture in either Greek or Latin. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 10 11:49:55 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA24977; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 11:48:30 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 96 10:45 CDT X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) Subject: Manuscript fragments.... Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 989 TCers -- Just wondering aloud here.... Why is it that uncials are usually fragments, while minuscules are generally complete or nearly? As I recall, about 80% of uncials are fragmentary, often only a single leaf. Whereas a (very quick) check of the Kurzgefasste Liste seemed to show that only about 5% of minuscules are fragmentary (I was checking for manuscripts, not of the Apocalypse, of less than fifty folios), and the number of single-page manuscripts is infinitesimal. Is this just because many of the papyri and uncials are recovered from rubbish heaps and the like, whereas minuscules are usually kept in libraries? Or is there something else involved that might help us in our discussion of the destruction of manuscript's ancestors? And while we're on the topic -- Did the report by Lake, Blake, and New examine the manuscripts to try to tell if any of them were copied from uncials? That might figure in somehow. Thanks for any thoughts. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 10 12:19:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA25039; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:18:10 -0400 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:17:12 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Re: Manuscript fragments.... Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1431 At 10:45 AM 6/10/96, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >TCers -- > >Just wondering aloud here.... > >Why is it that uncials are usually fragments, while minuscules are >generally complete or nearly? As I recall, about 80% of uncials are >fragmentary, often only a single leaf. Whereas a (very quick) check >of the Kurzgefasste Liste seemed to show that only about 5% of >minuscules are fragmentary (I was checking for manuscripts, not >of the Apocalypse, of less than fifty folios), and the number of >single-page manuscripts is infinitesimal. > >Is this just because many of the papyri and uncials are recovered >from rubbish heaps and the like, whereas minuscules are usually >kept in libraries? Or is there something else involved that might >help us in our discussion of the destruction of manuscript's >ancestors? Wouldn't a major consideration be simply their difference in age (in general). Most Uncials date from before the 9th century; most (all?) miniscules after. Also, there may be a "false resonance" here. Presumably the total number of manuscripts produced in any century grew from the first century until the introduction of printing. Viewed in this way it would make sense that there are more younger(=Miniscule) better preserved manuscripts than older(=Uncial) manuscripts. Nichael nichael@sover.net __ http://www.sover.net/~nichael Be as passersby -- IC From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 10 13:44:54 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA25421; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 13:40:38 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 96 12:37 CDT X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) Subject: Re: Manuscript fragments.... Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2504 On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) wrote: >At 10:45 AM 6/10/96, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >>TCers -- >> >>Just wondering aloud here.... >> >>Why is it that uncials are usually fragments, while minuscules are >>generally complete or nearly? As I recall, about 80% of uncials are >>fragmentary, often only a single leaf. Whereas a (very quick) check >>of the Kurzgefasste Liste seemed to show that only about 5% of >>minuscules are fragmentary (I was checking for manuscripts, not >>of the Apocalypse, of less than fifty folios), and the number of >>single-page manuscripts is infinitesimal. >> >>Is this just because many of the papyri and uncials are recovered >>from rubbish heaps and the like, whereas minuscules are usually >>kept in libraries? Or is there something else involved that might >>help us in our discussion of the destruction of manuscript's >>ancestors? > >Wouldn't a major consideration be simply their difference in age (in >general). Most Uncials date from before the 9th century; most (all?) >miniscules after. > >Also, there may be a "false resonance" here. Presumably the total number >of manuscripts produced in any century grew from the first century until >the introduction of printing. Viewed in this way it would make sense that >there are more younger(=Miniscule) better preserved manuscripts than >older(=Uncial) manuscripts. I think it's a bit more complicated than that. By that argument, survival rates for uncials and minuscules should be the same for the centuries they overlap (IX and X). I thought I would check that. Using the Kurzgefasste Liste (1st Ed, since that's what I have at home), I looked for *all* ninth century minuscules and uncials. I may have missed one or two (this was obviously a very quick scan), *but* Of 15 minuscules from the ninth century, *all* are significant (50+ folios). Most are complete. Of 38 uncials, only 22 are substantial, and many of these are more or less damaged. 14 uncials are fragmentary (usually less than 20 folios, and uncials generally had less text on a folio than minuscules), and 2 uncials were single folios. Thus, even when they are of the same date, uncials seem to be more likely to have been damaged. Just as an aside, these early minuscules are also more likely to be non-Byzantine. Those fifteen minuscules I listed included, among others, 33, 565, 892, and 1424. Not enough manuscripts to be statistically significant -- but it's interesting. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 10 15:33:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA25964; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:31:14 -0400 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:30:09 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Re: Manuscript fragments.... Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3567 At 12:37 PM 6/10/96, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) wrote: >>At 10:45 AM 6/10/96, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >>>Why is it that uncials are usually fragments, while minuscules are >>>generally complete or nearly? As I recall, about 80% of uncials are >>>fragmentary, often only a single leaf. Whereas a (very quick) check >>>of the Kurzgefasste Liste seemed to show that only about 5% of >>>minuscules are fragmentary (I was checking for manuscripts, not >>>of the Apocalypse, of less than fifty folios), and the number of >>>single-page manuscripts is infinitesimal. >>> >>>Is this just because many of the papyri and uncials are recovered >>>from rubbish heaps and the like, whereas minuscules are usually >>>kept in libraries? Or is there something else involved that might >>>help us in our discussion of the destruction of manuscript's >>>ancestors? >> >>Wouldn't a major consideration be simply their difference in age (in >>general). Most Uncials date from before the 9th century; most (all?) >>miniscules after. >> >>Also, there may be a "false resonance" here. Presumably the total number >>of manuscripts produced in any century grew from the first century until >>the introduction of printing. Viewed in this way it would make sense that >>there are more younger(=Miniscule) better preserved manuscripts than >>older(=Uncial) manuscripts. > >I think it's a bit more complicated than that. By that argument, >survival rates for uncials and minuscules should be the same for >the centuries they overlap (IX and X). > >I thought I would check that. Using the Kurzgefasste Liste (1st Ed, >since that's what I have at home), I looked for *all* ninth century >minuscules and uncials. I may have missed one or two (this was >obviously a very quick scan), *but* > >Of 15 minuscules from the ninth century, *all* are significant (50+ >folios). Most are complete. > >Of 38 uncials, only 22 are substantial, and many of these are more >or less damaged. 14 uncials are fragmentary (usually less than 20 >folios, and uncials generally had less text on a folio than >minuscules), and 2 uncials were single folios. > >Thus, even when they are of the same date, uncials seem to be >more likely to have been damaged. You're right --that is interesting (although we still have to separate out the age affect: cf your reference to papyri above). A couple of things come to mind. First, I wonder if there was any significant correlation between Uncial/Minscule scripy and book material during this period? If not, it would be useful to know what (if any) patterns of damage the Uncials exhibit. If so, could we infer that was there something about the larger characters that tended to make the books more prone to damage? For example, is the binding the culprit here? The larger size of the characters would tend to put the binding under greater stress because books would need to be thicker for an equal amount of text (e.g. it's all I can do to keep my 20's vintage Liddel-Scott together, but I have even older magazines that are perfectly happy with a couple of staples). There's also the minor affect that fewer characters per page means proportionally more page turning. A damaged or broken binding will clearly put the leaves at greater risk. More generally would a physically smaller book be more or less likely to survive (i.e. is it safer because it presents a smaller "target")? Nichael nichael@sover.net __ http://www.sover.net/~nichael Be as passersby -- IC From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 10 16:16:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA26319; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 16:13:52 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 96 15:10 CDT X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) Subject: Re: Manuscript fragments.... Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3833 On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) wrote, in part: >>>>Why is it that uncials are usually fragments, while minuscules are >>>>generally complete or nearly? [...] >> >>I think it's a bit more complicated than that. By that argument, >>survival rates for uncials and minuscules should be the same for >>the centuries they overlap (IX and X). >> >>I thought I would check that. Using the Kurzgefasste Liste (1st Ed, >>since that's what I have at home), I looked for *all* ninth century >>minuscules and uncials. I may have missed one or two (this was >>obviously a very quick scan), *but* >> >>Of 15 minuscules from the ninth century, *all* are significant (50+ >>folios). Most are complete. >> >>Of 38 uncials, only 22 are substantial, and many of these are more >>or less damaged. 14 uncials are fragmentary (usually less than 20 >>folios, and uncials generally had less text on a folio than >>minuscules), and 2 uncials were single folios. >> >>Thus, even when they are of the same date, uncials seem to be >>more likely to have been damaged. > >You're right --that is interesting (although we still have to separate out >the age affect: cf your reference to papyri above). > >A couple of things come to mind. First, I wonder if there was any >significant correlation between Uncial/Minscule scripy and book material >during this period? There shouldn't be. By the ninth century, papyrus had ceased to be used for manuscript copying but paper had not yet come into use. >If not, it would be useful to know what (if any) patterns of damage the >Uncials exhibit. If so, could we infer that was there something about the >larger characters that tended to make the books more prone to damage? > >For example, is the binding the culprit here? The larger size of the >characters would tend to put the binding under greater stress because books >would need to be thicker for an equal amount of text (e.g. it's all I can >do to keep my 20's vintage Liddel-Scott together, but I have even older >magazines that are perfectly happy with a couple of staples). There's also >the minor affect that fewer characters per page means proportionally more >page turning. A damaged or broken binding will clearly put the leaves at >greater risk. I wouldn't think this would have much effect. Yes, a large book would be more subject to damage -- but a minuscule which contained nearly the whole Bible (e.g. 33, which dates from this century) would presumably be more fragile than an uncial of only one part of scripture. >More generally would a physically smaller book be more or less likely to >survive (i.e. is it safer because it presents a smaller "target")? A few ideas that occur to me. * The obvious: That minuscules were better cared for (presumably because they used the writing style that people in later centuries were used to). * Different rates of adoption: Perhaps minuscules were adopted sooner in areas that took better care of books, or where the climate was more conducive to preservation of books. * The data is defective. Maybe paleography is not as accurate as assumed. (This is not an attack on anyone; just an attempt to list all possible explanations.) A few misdated manuscripts could completely alter these results. In assessing this explanation, it might also be worth remembering that the period prior to the ninth century was very hard on manuscripts. As I recall, there are no more than two substantial manuscripts from the eighth century (L and possibly Psi), and *none* from the seventh. In the sixth we find some fairly long manuscripts (e.g. N), but again, nothing complete. If, perhaps, the "ninth century" uncials are in fact a little older than the "ninth century" minuscules, it might explain the discrepancy. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 10 16:19:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA26352; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 16:18:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:14:46 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199606102014.PAA19320@homer.bethel.edu> X-Sender: holmic@mailhost.bethel.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Michael Holmes Subject: Re: Holmes Overview Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2637 In his 7 June response to my post of the same date, Maurice Robinson wrote: >... but it still seems clear (as Calvin Porter pointed out in his Duke >dissertation over 30 years ago), that modern eclecticism still proceeds >as if it has no theory of textual transmission, and that the search for >the original text is more like the myth of wandering Isis trying to >reassemble the pieces of Osiris from here there and yonder, where they >have been scattered by forces unknown, with no regard for an >overarching original text which had to have a basis in consistent >continuous text MS evidence. This is not a mere generalization, but >applies with equal validity to the current praxis of both rigorous and >reasoned eclecticism. > With all due respect (and without getting a debate about circumstances 30 years ago), the generalization "that modern eclecticism still proceeds as if it has no theory of textual transmission ... This is not a mere generalization, but applies with equal validity to the current praxis of both rigorous and reasoned eclecticism" is an inadequate description of the current situation. E.g., --Kilpatrick (and Elliott after him) worked with an explicit theory of textual transmission (namely, following Vogels, that nearly all variants had been created before the year 200, and since nearly all our extant witnesses are post-200, the dates and relevance of external evidence is of little value. See further Elliott, in the Ehrman-Holmes volume, 330-331). --a reasoned eclectic like K. Aland worked with an explicit and well-developed theory of tranmission of the text, as is clear from Aland and Aland, _Text_. --Zuntz was driven to the practice of eclecticism *precisely because* of his study of the transmission of the textual tradition (see _Text of the Epistles_, 282-283). --rather than extend ad nauseam the list of exx. (Fee, Colwell, Birdsall, Metzger, etc.) of reasoned eclectics who do work with an explicit theory of textual transmission, a generalization may be suggested: many current "reasoned eclectics" practice a reasoned eclecticism *because of* a certain understanding of or conclusion about the textual transmission of the NT, namely, that no extant textual tradition has escaped the impact of textual corruption. The (often widely-differing, to be sure) theories of textual transmission held by current reasoned eclectics certainly may be critiqued as inadequate, and may in the opinion of some be employed inconsistently. But in view of the data it appears that one must demur from the generalization quoted above. Mike Holmes Bethel College From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 10 20:12:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA27383; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 20:11:32 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 20:08:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Manuscript fragments.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2065 On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > Just wondering aloud here.... Taking it in a different order from the original post: > Did the report by Lake, Blake, and > New examine the manuscripts to try to tell if any of them were > copied from uncials? That might figure in somehow. They did not claim to make any determination of the predecessor exemplar, but the context of the article with its note that these minuscules all were apparently "orphans" seems to imply a lost uncial as the immediate predecessor. > Why is it that uncials are usually fragments, while minuscules are > generally complete or nearly? As I recall, about 80% of uncials are > fragmentary, often only a single leaf. Whereas a (very quick) check > of the Kurzgefasste Liste seemed to show that only about 5% of > minuscules are fragmentary (I was checking for manuscripts, not > of the Apocalypse, of less than fifty folios), and the number of > single-page manuscripts is infinitesimal. I suspect that the likely destruction of the uncials after a good minuscule copy was made therefrom generally obliterated the entire uncial, whether it was disassembled and used as scrap paper or washed and reused as a palimpsest. Most discarded uncial fragments simply perished in the normal course of events. The uncial fragments which survive in highly fragmentary form (especially if palimpsest) likely trace their destruction to the 9th-10th centuries and this change in handwriting style. The fragments found in Egypt, however, are usually scraps from trash heaps, and would not reflect the same practice. A scaled graph of the total number of existing MSS shows a significant narrowing from the 4th - 9th centuries which seems to point to the correctness of Lake's conclusion. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 10 20:25:50 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA27478; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 20:24:42 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 20:21:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Manuscript fragments.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2058 On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote: > Wouldn't a major consideration be simply their difference in age (in > general). Most Uncials date from before the 9th century; most (all?) > miniscules after. This alone does not answer the situation, since the scaled graph referred to in my response to Waltz clearly shows a massive "balooning" of total number of MSS instantly within the 9th and 10th centuries, versus a mere trickle from the 4th - 9th centuries (and I should perhaps point out that I refer to a chart which I prepared some years ago that is scaled _accurately_, and does not give a distorted view of matters as in the misleading chart that appears as part of Daniel Wallace's article within the Holmes/Ehrman volume). > Also, there may be a "false resonance" here. Presumably the total number > of manuscripts produced in any century grew from the first century until > the introduction of printing. Viewed in this way it would make sense that > there are more younger(=Miniscule) better preserved manuscripts than > older(=Uncial) manuscripts. I would agree with the premise expressed here, except for two factors: (1) the same graph shows a continuing growth from the 9th - 13th centuries, but a decline in extant MSS from the 14th - 16th centuries. Certain historical occurrences as well as a saturation of MSS to available churches may serve to explain this particular phenomenon; (2) this assumption still does not account adequately for the total number of extant MSS dropping from a very large number in the 10th - 9th centuries to a mere trickle in the 8th - 4th centuries. A massive and systematic destruction of the uncial exemplars must have taken place to produce such a lopsided preservation of documents. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 10 20:46:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA27581; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 20:45:32 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 20:42:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Manuscript fragments.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1446 On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > Of 38 uncials, only 22 are substantial, and many of these are more > or less damaged. 14 uncials are fragmentary (usually less than 20 > folios, and uncials generally had less text on a folio than > minuscules), and 2 uncials were single folios. > > Thus, even when they are of the same date, uncials seem to be > more likely to have been damaged. Which fits in with Lake and my own suppositions in this regard. > Just as an aside, these early minuscules are also more likely > to be non-Byzantine. Those fifteen minuscules I listed included, > among others, 33, 565, 892, and 1424. Not enough manuscripts to > be statistically significant -- but it's interesting. Not the majority, but a significant minority of non-Byzantine minuscules, which themselves clearly stem from uncial exemplars, in which case there seems little reason not to consider that the remaining minuscules of the 9th and 10th centuries (especially) likely derive from now non-extant uncials. This of course becomes of significance in helping to explain whereunto all the early Byzantine uncials may have disappeared. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 10 21:10:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA27668; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 21:09:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 21:06:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Manuscript fragments.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4891 On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote: [Waltz:] >>I thought I would check that. Using the Kurzgefasste Liste (1st Ed, >>since that's what I have at home), I looked for *all* ninth century >>minuscules and uncials. .... >>even when they are of the same date, uncials seem to be >>more likely to have been damaged. > A couple of things come to mind. First, I wonder if there was any > significant correlation between Uncial/Minscule scripy and book material > during this period? As far as I know, there was not. The introduction of paper in the 12th or 13th and later centuries might explain part of the reduction in number of minuscule copies in the later era of the minuscules, but at the time of the uncial to minuscule transition, there are no known factors I know of which would cause a problem as regards availability of material. Minuscule script was developed primarily because it was easier to write than uncial, and took up less leaves within a document. > If not, it would be useful to know what (if any) patterns of damage the > Uncials exhibit. If so, could we infer that was there something about the > larger characters that tended to make the books more prone to damage? Certainly the script alone would not make a MS any more or less prone to damage. Typical instances of accidental damage would be the loss of an internal quire or the beginning or last page(s) of a MS. The extant MSS which have had missing portions supplied (marked "supp" in the apparatuses) attest to this situation. The likely cause still remains deliberate destruction of the uncial exemplars once a minuscule copy had been made, as Lake proposed. The existing uncial fragments which had been put to palimpsest use testify to at least part of this near-universal disassembly or destruction of uncials so that they might be turned to other uses. (It is interesting that the Council of Trullo in 692 had prohibited such destruction of biblical MSS, especially their use as palimpsests; a century later, with the change of script occurring, this decree was obviously no longer in force). > For example, is the binding the culprit here? The larger size of the > characters would tend to put the binding under greater stress because books > would need to be thicker for an equal amount of text No need to postulate any of this. Only about 50 MSS contain the entire NT bound as a single volume. Most MSS were bound only as the four gospels, or the Acts and Catholic epistles, or the Pauline Epistles (Revelation usually stood alone, since it had no liturgical use within the lectionary system). The minuscule MSS containing any similar portion would be nearly the same size and thickness (recognizing Aleph, A, B, C, and D as exceptions on the grand scale); also, minuscule MSS which placed the biblical text in the center but surrounded that text with lengthy catenae would end up as thick as uncial MSS previously had been. > There's also > the minor affect that fewer characters per page means proportionally more > page turning. A damaged or broken binding will clearly put the leaves at > greater risk. The quality of the binding certainly could be a factor; however, I think you will find that there was probably MORE page turning in the minuscule MSS, since most of them were rubricated for lectionary use, and pages were turned quite frequently as a continuous-text MS served double duty as a lectionary. Interestingly, the lectionary MSS themselves (the pages of which were obviously turned sequentially, seem to show less wear than many of the continuous text minuscule MSS). > More generally would a physically smaller book be more or less likely to > survive (i.e. is it safer because it presents a smaller "target")? MSS are preserved in all kinds of sizes, from true "miniature" books to the massive grand uncial type of volumes. Proportionally, there is certainly an "average size" volume for both uncial and minuscule MSS, once the extremes are discounted, but there is nothing within that range to explain one cause of destruction more than another merely due to size alone. E.g., Sinaiticus is complete in the NT; Vaticanus is missing from Heb 9:14 to the end (supplied by a minuscule hand from a different exemplar); A is missing the first 25 chapters of Matthew; C as a palimpsest is only about half complete. There is no rhyme or reason regarding survival which can be discerned among the great uncials, except in the case of C, in which we know it was disassembled and reused for those "significant sermons of Ephraem". _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 10 21:34:24 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA27729; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 21:33:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 21:29:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Manuscript fragments.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4491 On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > I wouldn't think this would have much effect. Yes, a large book would > be more subject to damage -- but a minuscule which contained nearly the > whole Bible (e.g. 33, which dates from this century) would presumably > be more fragile than an uncial of only one part of scripture. Of course, to the contrary, a clearly _expensive_ book like 33 which contained the entire NT might be more carefully safeguarded. Vellum was not exactly cheap, and the amount of scribal activity needed to copy a single gospel, let alone the entire NT would tend to make the owners of such MSS generally extremely careful. > * The obvious: That minuscules were better cared for (presumably because > they used the writing style that people in later centuries were used > to). Again, I do not think that there should be any implication that the uncials (or even the papyri) were not generally well-cared for. The papyri eventually disintegrated, as we might expect; but the vellum uncial should have remained mostly intact for many centuries into the minuscule era, unless in fact a systematic destruction of the uncials had occurred as Lake surmised. Most definitely in the later centuries people were used to the minuscule script, but that alone would not prevent them from revering and preserving unused uncials which may have survived from a bygone era; no, the destruction of the uncials had to have a greater cause, and the change in script is clearly the answer, since there are extant scribal comments which speak of not being able easily to read uncial script, and the burden of copying from an uncial exemplar, etc. -- and this within 50 years after the introduction of the minuscule script! (these examples come from comments regarding secular literature, and not biblical, but the same would apply with few changes necessary). > * Different rates of adoption: Perhaps minuscules were adopted sooner > in areas that took better care of books, or where the climate was > more conducive to preservation of books. Nope. Basically the minuscule script hit the Greek-speaking world by storm, and uncials ceased to be copied within a century after the introduction of the new script. > * The data is defective. Maybe paleography is not as accurate as assumed. > (This is not an attack on anyone; just an attempt to list all possible > explanations.) A few misdated manuscripts could completely alter these > results. We have too many dated MSS from secular Greek works as well as biblical (see, e.g., Lake's 10 or 11 volumes of specimens in this regard) to even wonder on this point. Palaeography of the later uncial era as well as the minuscule era is quite accurate. > In assessing this explanation, it might also be worth remembering that > the period prior to the ninth century was very hard on manuscripts. As > I recall, there are no more than two substantial manuscripts from the > eighth century (L and possibly Psi), and *none* from the seventh. In the > sixth we find some fairly long manuscripts (e.g. N), but again, nothing > complete. But this still puts the cart before the horse, and denies the clearest explanation, which remains that of Lake, Blake, and New. There is no reason to presume the 6th-9th century to be particularly "hard" or "severe" regarding MSS, when, even allowing for the fragile nature of papyri and their destruction by accident or persecution, we still have a large quantity of them preserved as opposed to the near disappearance of 6th-9th century uncials which were written on secure vellum and which did not undergo such hostilities of environment or persecution as did the papyri. No, some other cause still must be found for the slim attestation of uncial evidence during this period, and Lake most certainly seems to be on the right track. > If, perhaps, the "ninth century" uncials are in fact a little > older than the "ninth century" minuscules, it might explain the > discrepancy. They basically aren't; also, there remain a few 10th century uncials which date subsequent to the ninth century minuscules. What then about them? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 10 22:19:54 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA27889; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 22:18:34 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 22:15:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Holmes Overview Revisited In-Reply-To: <199606102014.PAA19320@homer.bethel.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 7761 On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Michael Holmes wrote: > With all due respect (and without getting a debate about circumstances 30 > years ago), the generalization "that modern eclecticism still proceeds as if > it has no theory of textual transmission ... " I only cited Porter to reflect that the same complaint was made then as Epp has been making since 1980 in his "Interlude" and "Requiem for a Discipline" articles. K.W.Clark similarly pointed out the same in his essays during the 1960s. I will maintain that this still is the case, even allowing for the data cited below, since as I read it, all of it still presents a non-theory regarding transmissional history. > --Kilpatrick (and Elliott after him) worked with an explicit theory > of textual transmission (namely, following Vogels, that nearly all variants > had been created before the year 200, and since nearly all our extant > witnesses are post-200, the dates and relevance of external evidence is of > little value. See further Elliott, in the Ehrman-Holmes volume, 330-331). Kilpatrick and Elliot and Vogels (not to mention Colwell) are correct on this point, and I also hold the same position. However, the acknowledgement that all or most significant variants were in existence before AD 200 is NOT "an explicit theory of textual transmission" -- it merely recognizes what the data presented in the papyri basically have forced everyone to acknowledge. Ask Elliott (Kilpatrick being deceased) precisely WHAT theory of transmission he could possibly hold which allows the autograph reading to end up preserved in a single Old Latin MS copied in the 13th century as opposed to all other Greek, versional, and patristic evidence (this is a real example, by the way). My wager is that he will admit to having NO theory of transmission, but only his theory that ANY reading, so long as it is attested SOMEWHERE, might be the autograph. No regard for HOW it got to the place where it did is a concern; hence, no real theory of transmission. > --a reasoned eclectic like K. Aland worked with an explicit and > well-developed theory of tranmission of the text, as is clear from Aland and > Aland, _Text_. Is there really an "explicit and well-developed theory of transmission" in that volume? If so, I must have missed it. All I see therein is a notion that the papyri are a key to the original text and that the Byzantine is the late "Imperial text" (whatever is really meant by that, since no recension or imposed authority seems to be suggested). No explanation really exists therein to explain how the utterly mixed text of the competing papyri actually came to be that way, nor how the existing texttypes derived from the mixed papyri, let alone from the autograph. A theory of transmission simply does not exist by citing sporadic data without being comprehensive in explaining the whole process of transmission. > --Zuntz was driven to the practice of eclecticism *precisely > because* of his study of the transmission of the textual tradition (see > _Text of the Epistles_, 282-283). Zuntz at least did attempt a theory regarding the collection of the Pauline Epistles. The Byzantine readings within P46 (especially) forced him into eclecticism, because as a previous Hortian theorist, those readings should not have been there. His move to eclecticism was in fact an _abandonment_ of a transmissional history and theory in favor of a theory which looked only at individual readings and speculated primarily upon which reading was most likely to have given rise to all the others (which in reality is Aland's primary position -- the "genealogy of readings" principle -- regardless of what else he wrote). > --rather than extend ad nauseam the list of exx. (Fee, Colwell, > Birdsall, Metzger, etc.) of reasoned eclectics who do work with an explicit > theory of textual transmission, I would be especially interested to learn of either Fee's or Metzger's theory of transmission, since I have never seen such attempted by either scholar. Do you have some privy information in this regard? Birdsall is primarily a historian of textual theory and praxis; I have not seen anything original regarding transmissional history from his hand. Colwell I know did _not_ have a theory of transmission, once he abandoned his quest to establish the Alexandrian texttype as the autograph (which came as he and K.W.Clark attempted to reconstruct that supposed Alexandrian autograph and gave the project up as hopeless). Most of Colwell's later writings clearly show his discontent with modern eclecticism, but also his frustration with not being able to come up with much of anything better, even though he knew and admitted that "textual criticism without a history of the text is impossible." I still maintain, therefore, and unapologetically, that "modern eclecticism still proceeds as if it has no theory of textual transmission ... " I suggest you ask Epp and see whether he does not agree with me on this point. > a generalization may be suggested: many > current "reasoned eclectics" practice a reasoned eclecticism *because of* a > certain understanding of or conclusion about the textual transmission of the > NT, namely, that no extant textual tradition has escaped the impact of > textual corruption. I will concur on this point, and allow that mixture or corruption has affected all textual traditions (though I would not claim irretrievably in any way). But then in what way are the modern eclectics any different from myself or anyone else who come to a contrary conclusion regarding the original text? Merely noting that no textual tradition is unmixed (regardless of what "unmixed" really means), this still is _not_ a history of transmission, nor does it reflect any assumptions regarding such a history (if so, why is the explanation for the "mixture" not forthcoming?) but a mere recognition of a fact which is adequately evidenced in the MS, versional, and patristic data preserved to us. Recognition of this fact most certainly does _not_ cause me to practice either rigorous or reasoned eclecticism. The modern eclectics practice rigorous or reasoned eclecticism precisely because they do NOT have a transmissional history, and the internal criteria within a variant unit are either allowed to predominate over any externally-based principles (rigorous eclecticism) or they are allowed to have a significant influence in conjunction with MSS which are considered "best" on either grounds of age or subjective opinion regarding the quality of readings contained within such MSS (the latter form of reasoning being circular). There simply is _no_ transmissional history present which seriously affects or controls any principle of modern eclecticism. If you think otherwise, tell me which eclectic principle is directly based upon a transmissional/historical view rather than merely upon subjectively-determined internal criteria and/or a claim that the oldest MSS are assumed to be the best, for no other reason save their age. > The (often widely-differing, to be sure) theories of textual > transmission held by current reasoned eclectics certainly may be critiqued > as inadequate, and may in the opinion of some be employed inconsistently. > But in view of the data it appears that one must demur from the > generalization quoted above. Which as an eclectic, you certainly are free to do *;-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Tue Jun 11 03:15:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA28914; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 03:13:27 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 03:13:11 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC Editors , TC List Subject: review article on TC Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 355 William L. Petersen has written the first book review to be published in TC. He reviews Tjitze Baarda's _Essays on the Diatessaron_. This review, like all our regular articles, is accessible from the TC home page. Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html <----- From owner-tc-list Tue Jun 11 08:16:30 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA29696; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 08:14:16 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 96 07:11 CDT X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) Subject: Re: Manuscript fragments.... Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1977 On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote, om part: >(1) the same graph shows a continuing growth from the 9th - 13th centuries, >but a decline in extant MSS from the 14th - 16th centuries. Certain >historical occurrences as well as a saturation of MSS to available >churches may serve to explain this particular phenomenon; I would imagine that this has been previously studied, but I would mention three possible explanations for the decline in numbers starting in century XIII: * The decline of the Byzantine Empire. Although the Ottomans, like most of Islam, were tolerant of Christianity, toleration is not the same as encouragement. The monasteries must have been much poorer. * The Black Death. Not only did this cut the population by a third in the latter part of this period, but it also severely damaged the economy. A weak economy would have less surplus to support such luxuries as manuscripts and the scribes that copied them. * The transition to paper, which was taking place during this period. Although early paper, being made of cloth, was far sturdier than this cheap stuff we use nowadays, it was not as robust as parchment. Might not paper manuscripts have been destroyed far more easily? >(2) this assumption still does not account adequately for the total number >of extant MSS dropping from a very large number in the 10th - 9th >centuries to a mere trickle in the 8th - 4th centuries. A massive and >systematic destruction of the uncial exemplars must have taken place to >produce such a lopsided preservation of documents. That sixth to eight century manuscripts were destroyed is evident from the figures already cited. But were the manuscripts destroyed because they were uncials? How, then, does one explain the large number of ninth and tenth century uncials which survive largely intact (e.g. Fe Fp Ge Gp He Ke Kap Lap M S U V X Y Gamma Delta Pi etc.)? Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Tue Jun 11 08:46:47 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA29806; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 08:45:33 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 96 07:41 CDT X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) Subject: Re: Holmes Overview Revisited Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3280 On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote, in part (quoting Holmes): [ ... ] > >> --a reasoned eclectic like K. Aland worked with an explicit and >> well-developed theory of tranmission of the text, as is clear from Aland and >> Aland, _Text_. > >Is there really an "explicit and well-developed theory of transmission" >in that volume? If so, I must have missed it. All I see therein is a >notion that the papyri are a key to the original text and that the >Byzantine is the late "Imperial text" (whatever is really meant by that, >since no recension or imposed authority seems to be suggested). No >explanation really exists therein to explain how the utterly mixed text >of the competing papyri actually came to be that way, nor how the >existing texttypes derived from the mixed papyri, let alone from the >autograph. A theory of transmission simply does not exist by citing >sporadic data without being comprehensive in explaining the whole process >of transmission. I have to agree with Maurice on this. While I concede that scholars such as Zuntz and Metzger had textual theories (Metzger's being a slightly modernized version of Westcott & Hort), Aland seems almost to deliberately reject one. He concedes only two text-types (Alexandrian and Byzantine), denies that they existed before the fourth century, procedes to rate all the minuscules based on their similarity to the UBS and Byzantine texts -- and bases his text on "local genealogical" methods that *sound* like rigorous eclecticism. [ ... ] > >I would be especially interested to learn of either Fee's or Metzger's >theory of transmission, since I have never seen such attempted by either >scholar. Do you have some privy information in this regard? As noted, I would say that Metzger largely follows WH. See the introduction to the UBS commentary volume, and his dissents there on the subject of the "Western Non-Interpolations" (plus Aland's comments on Metzger's conservative view of the "Western" text). [ ... ] > >Colwell I know did _not_ have a theory of transmission, once he abandoned >his quest to establish the Alexandrian texttype as the autograph (which >came as he and K.W.Clark attempted to reconstruct that supposed >Alexandrian autograph and gave the project up as hopeless). Most of >Colwell's later writings clearly show his discontent with modern >eclecticism, but also his frustration with not being able to come up with >much of anything better, even though he knew and admitted that "textual >criticism without a history of the text is impossible." Again, I am inclined to agree. Colwell sought methods to write the history of the text -- but (whether one accepts his methods or not, and it should be noted that I'm not the only one to question some of his techniques!) he never actually *prepared* such a history. >I still maintain, therefore, and unapologetically, that "modern eclecticism >still proceeds as if it has no theory of textual transmission ... " >I suggest you ask Epp and see whether he does not agree with me on this >point. I'm not sure that Epp would go that far -- but his recent collection of essays suggests that he is *still* frustrated at the lack of progress in this area. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Tue Jun 11 12:02:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00741; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 12:00:10 -0400 Message-Id: <199606111556.RAA11250@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 11 Jun 96 18:00:37 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: Another set of miscellaneous replies To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <199606071749.TAA18472@mail.uni-muenster.de> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4021 On Sun, 9 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: [qoting Schmid:] >> (a) First, they isolated a textual stratum which they call the >>"Ecclesiastical" text ("the most popular text in MSS. of the >>tenth to the >>fourteenth century") by meens of identifying four readings were >>almost all >>MSS under discussion deviate from the Textus Receptus. >They noted that the TR was equal to the Byzantine tradition in all >but >four readings, where the vast majority of the 100 or so MSS >deviated nearly unanimously. One should not regard merely these 4 >readings as the Ecclesiastical (= Byzantine) text, but the 4 >readings plus the >remaining entirety of the TR text in that chapter. This is definitely correct. I may have stated this more clearely. [again quoting Schmid:] >>However, it seems important to me that not few of the readings >>may have been caused independently by assimilation. >Do you REALLY think this? Or are you just bringing in a >hypothetical >possibility that the sharing of certain variants might be by >chance? I >would allow the chance element were the texttypes clearly >distinct, with >only a few isolated readings held in common; but when all MSS are >of the >same basic texttype, and the shared readings are often among MSS >of the >same sub-type, I suspect something more genetic is reflected, even >if we >cannot determine the real interrelationship among the MSS. Again, I may have stated the point more clearly. Assimilation in the Gospels is very frequent. This is not text-type specific, but seemingly to be found in virtually every MS. Therefore, assimilation may somehow affect clear patterns and obcure them to some extend. I only thought of the smaller patterns within the Byz. text-type, indicating Byz. sub-divisions. The point was: Assimilation _might_ have obscured to some extend the clear genealogical relations between MSS of the same text-type. [again quoting Schmid:] >>Therefore, the additional smaller patterns can be seen as >>representing a >>broadly disseminated and very well known (at least to later >>scribes) pool >>of variant-readings. If the constant threat of assimilation is >>taken into >>account, it is to my mind not disturbing what can be found within >>the libraries Lake-Blake-New have examined. >I see the extraneous readings as reflecting "floating" localized >variants >which were sporadically adopted, not necessarily a "broadly >disseminated" >or even "well known" pattern. Certainly the readings in question >were >known to the specific scribes in any case, but how widespread or >well-known they may have been remains uncertain. The lack of clear >genealogical connection among these MSS which existed and were >likely >copied in those widely-separated monasteries remains the key point >within >Lake's findings which should still send some "disturbing" signals >to those within the eclectic camp. Well, the readings of these smaller patterns (i.e. "broadly disseminated and very well known pool of variant-readings") are regularly found in around 10 to 40 percent of the MSS Lake-Blake-New examined. These MSS stem from three "widely-separated monasteries" and therefore, by consequence, if an argument is built on the widely-separated monasteries, the smaller patterns are at least spread exactly in the same "widely-separated" areas (i.e from Mount Sinai to Jerusalem and Patmos). I must admit that I do not completely grasp what "'floating' localized variants" means. Do they originally belong to some sort of localized Byzantine sub-types the local text-type like, or...? I may add that there are 22 of these "'floating' localized variants" within the 33 verses of Mark 11. Even if they are only "sporadically adopted", they can be found in MSS from "widely-separated monasteries". If they are originally somehow "localized variants", the probability of genealogical connection increases dramatically. Otherwise, how were they spread? "Disturbing" signals to whom? Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Tue Jun 11 18:19:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA02315; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 18:16:29 -0400 Message-Id: <199606112213.SAA25554@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 18:13:15 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Theories of textual transmission / Alexandrian text / etc. Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1053 As I have watched the various posts on these two subjects float by over the last week or so, I have been struck by one point. It leads me to ask the following question: Why, in all these discussions, have NONE of the earliest witnesses to the NT text been mentioned? Are they without relevance to the issue of how the text originated and was then transmitted? Are they of no significance when discussing the "Alexandrian" or "Byzantine" or other families? By "earliest witnesses" I mean, of course, the extensive second-century citations which we possess: Justin, Tertullian, Ignatius, the Didache, etc. Even the early third century citations in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, etc., are very important for the light they shed on both the text itself and how early "academic" Christians handled it. Quite frankly, I don't understand why one would choose to busy one's self with 4th cent. through 12th cent. evidence, while at the same time totally ignoring the 2nd through 3rd. cent. evidence. Please enlighten me. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list Tue Jun 11 18:46:25 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA02474; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 18:45:12 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 18:41:29 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: jwest@SunBelt.Net (Jim West) Subject: Re: Theories of textual transmission / Alexandrian text / etc. X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <01I5SJHT8JLU8WX2QJ@InfoAve.Net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 699 >By "earliest witnesses" I mean, of course, the extensive second-century >citations which we possess: Justin, Tertullian, Ignatius, the Didache, etc. >Even the early third century citations in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, >etc., are very important for the light they shed on both the text itself and >how early "academic" Christians handled it. > >--Petersen, Penn State Univ. As I have understood it, use of the Fathers is hazardous because we do not know exactly their habits of citation. Do they cite from manuscript or memory? Since we do not know, it seems that using them as primary sources for textual reconstruction is a bit risky. But perhaps I have been misinformed. Jim West From owner-tc-list Tue Jun 11 19:45:46 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA02588; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 19:44:40 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 96 16:10:54 PDT Message-Id: <9606112310.AA09435@Np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <199606112213.SAA25554@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> (wlp1@psu.edu) Subject: Re: Theories of textual transmission / Alexandrian text / etc. Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2188 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- wlp1@psu.edu asked: > Why, in all these discussions, have NONE of the earliest witnesses to the NT > text been mentioned? ... > Quite frankly, I don't understand why one would choose to busy one's self > with 4th cent. through 12th cent. evidence, while at the same time totally > ignoring the 2nd through 3rd. cent. evidence. I think the 2d-3d cent. evidence is well-trod ground that we are all taking for granted. It is useful, but substantially biased as a sample, and it doesn't solve the problem of explaining the history of the text. Imagine someone saying: All the second century witnesses that we can classify are more-or-less "Western", and the Alexandrian type of text doesn't appear till the early third century, marking the latter text as obviously late and a mere derivative of the earlier forms attested by Tertullian et al. You would expostulate: But wait! that doesn't explain where p66/p75 come from! There must have been proto-Alexandrian MSS in the 2d century, they just haven't been preserved. There is a similar mystery about the origins of the Byzantine tradition. Hort had an explanation for it, but that explanation has been abandoned. Others have talked vaguely about scribal processes evolving it gradually, but there still is this fish in the chowder: Where did A/W/Chrysostom/Gothic come from? The evidence seems to say that they descend from pre-4th century ancestors somewhere between Greece and Palestine of which no physical traces survive. How that could happen is interesting to discuss. Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil = o 2224 33d St. Phone: +1 619 284 3775 = _ /- _ San Diego, CA 92104-5605 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W = (_)> (_) ___ PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@np.nosc.mil ___ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMb38y2CU4mTNq7IdAQHgnwQAoBZJV/x+B2uEHpJ2yg0thFQdbDl3cB5p tQuivqJYezfIyJ0lrLMiN1ATTm+lLd0d93Yv6a5tyNsOU0f1FIgO9WJ++Wy02E5d b39lAeO9JjtZQEPxWyXWsrSpAwiAi5CuDNNcgokxVZDdGPyzdsw7fUgcryePJFDA hkJ5PWLLitQ= =sI1w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list Tue Jun 11 19:58:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA02654; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 19:57:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 96 18:54 CDT X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) Subject: Re: Theories of textual transmission / Alexandrian text / etc. Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3196 On Tue, 11 Jun 199, wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) wrote: >As I have watched the various posts on these two subjects float by over the >last week or so, I have been struck by one point. It leads me to ask the >following question: > >Why, in all these discussions, have NONE of the earliest witnesses to the NT >text been mentioned? Are they without relevance to the issue of how the >text originated and was then transmitted? Are they of no significance when >discussing the "Alexandrian" or "Byzantine" or other families? > >By "earliest witnesses" I mean, of course, the extensive second-century >citations which we possess: Justin, Tertullian, Ignatius, the Didache, etc. >Even the early third century citations in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, >etc., are very important for the light they shed on both the text itself and >how early "academic" Christians handled it. > >Quite frankly, I don't understand why one would choose to busy one's self >with 4th cent. through 12th cent. evidence, while at the same time totally >ignoring the 2nd through 3rd. cent. evidence. Please enlighten me. Let's take this in pieces. You're right, of course, that early authors have advantages for researching the textual tradition, since we know with fair precision *where* and *when* they wrote. But let's remember the caveats. First, most authors did not cite precisely. This is particularly true of the earliest: Ignatius, Justin, etc. But Tertullian wasn't overly precise, either. And even Origen suffered occasional lapses of memory. Second, the writings of these authors are often badly preserved. Irenaeus and Origen, for instance, wrote in Greek but are preserved primarily in Latin. And in the case of Origen, at least, Rufinus's translation was more than a little biased. And even when we possess the texts in the original language, our *manuscripts* are generally recent, and often thoroughly corrupt. For these problems, I refer you to Fee's essays in Epp & Fee. I'm not sure I like Fee's solutions, but it shows the magnitude of the problem. Third, remember that relatively few authors commented on entire books. So in any given passage, we may not *know* what that author's text read. But suppose that, miraculously, we were to recover the autographs of every writing by all of these authors. How does that help us? We don't really *care* where the text-types came from. As for dates, it is conceded that, with the possible exception of the Byzantine text, (don't jump on me, Maurice, I said *possible*) *all* the text-types are older than their oldest witnesses. Pushing the date back a decade or two, or even a century or two, doesn't help much. When we try to decide the relationship between text-types, all we care about is the types themselves. Certain Fathers may be witnesses to the text-types (the standard example is Chrysostom as a witness to the Byzantine text, even though we are finding now that his text wasn't *quite* purely Byzantine), but they do not tell us which types are which. If you can tell me how the use of the Fathers can resolve the basic question ("What is a text-type?"), I'd be thrilled to hear the proposal. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Tue Jun 11 21:26:58 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA02877; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 21:25:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 21:22:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Manuscript fragments.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3862 On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > I would mention three possible explanations for the decline in numbers > starting in century XIII: > * The decline of the Byzantine Empire. Although the Ottomans, like most > of Islam, were tolerant of Christianity, toleration is not the same > as encouragement. The monasteries must have been much poorer. This does not explain the continuing growth in numbers during centuries 9-12, which levels off in century 13. The same historical situation existed in the preceding as well as the following centuries, and in itself should not have affected the number of MSS. > * The Black Death. Not only did this cut the population by a third > in the latter part of this period, but it also severely damaged > the economy. A weak economy would have less surplus to support > such luxuries as manuscripts and the scribes that copied them. Did the Black Death really affect the Balkans and Turkey as much as it did Western Europe? Also a bad analogy, since it does not seem that the Latin manuscript trade in western Europe suffered. Certainly the number of extant MSS declines in centuries 14-15, but not by anywhere near a third; in fact even with the decline, the total number of extant MSS from either century 14 or 15 exceeds that available in centuries 9 and 10 combined. We are talking only of a small decline -- not matters turning back to a trickle, as the pre-9th century uncial situation happens to be. > * The transition to paper, which was taking place during this period. > Although early paper, being made of cloth, was far sturdier than this > cheap stuff we use nowadays, it was not as robust as parchment. > Might not paper manuscripts have been destroyed far more easily? This has more merit, and may explain some of the decline, but I would not think it explains all of it. I still think that basically a saturation point had been reached, and MSS simply were not continuing to be copied in an increasing manner, but primarily to replace those which were lost or destroyed. Given the accidents of history, the slight decline in number over the 14th and 15th centuries is not really very significant. > >(2) this assumption still does not account adequately for the total number > >of extant MSS dropping from a very large number in the 10th - 9th > >centuries to a mere trickle in the 8th - 4th centuries. A massive and > >systematic destruction of the uncial exemplars must have taken place to > >produce such a lopsided preservation of documents. > > That sixth to eight century manuscripts were destroyed is evident from > the figures already cited. But were the manuscripts destroyed because > they were uncials? How, then, does one explain the large number of > ninth and tenth century uncials which survive largely intact (e.g. > Fe Fp Ge Gp He Ke Kap Lap M S U V X Y Gamma Delta Pi etc.)? I would ask why do any uncials survive, if Lake were totally correct? Even with a systematic destruction of uncials after a minuscule exemplar was made, some of those uncials might (and did) escape such destruction), for all kinds of varying reasons, whether a MS had been used in a great church, or was the special property of a favored abbot, etc. It even may be the case that those 9th and 10th century uncials you mentioned simply never were copied into minuscule form, and hence were not subject to destruction (which is more likely than not, since no one is yet claiming any minuscules to be genealogically descended from those specific uncials). _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Tue Jun 11 21:42:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA02921; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 21:41:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 21:38:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Holmes Overview Revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1549 On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > I have to agree with Maurice on this. While I concede that scholars > such as Zuntz and Metzger had textual theories (Metzger's being a > slightly modernized version of Westcott & Hort) .... Metzger chooses to retain the "Lucianic Recension" and "Byzantine conflation" concept from Hort while abandoning virtually everything else in Hort's transmissional theory except the deprecation of the Byzantine Text. In the end, Metzger remains a variant-by-variant eclectic with no integrated theory of transmission. > >I still maintain, therefore, and unapologetically, that "modern eclecticism > >still proceeds as if it has no theory of textual transmission ... " > >I suggest you ask Epp and see whether he does not agree with me on this > >point. > > I'm not sure that Epp would go that far -- but his recent collection of > essays suggests that he is *still* frustrated at the lack of progress in > this area. I definitely would be interested in knowing precisely what Epp thinks on this point. All I know is what he has written in numerous articles, and the thrust seems to be in the direction I stated (and he told me what seemed like much the same over lunch in Cleveland some years ago). _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Tue Jun 11 21:59:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA02978; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 21:58:31 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 21:55:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Another set of miscellaneous replies In-Reply-To: <199606111556.RAA11250@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3683 On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, Ulrich Schmid wrote: > Again, I may have stated the point more clearly. Assimilation in the Gospels is > very frequent. This is not text-type specific, but seemingly to be found in > virtually every MS. Therefore, assimilation may somehow affect clear patterns > and obcure them to some extend. I only thought of the smaller patterns within > the Byz. text-type, indicating Byz. sub-divisions. The point was: Assimilation > _might_ have obscured to some extend the clear genealogical relations between > MSS of the same text-type. Probably some close analysis of the readings in the Mk.11 collation by Lake et al. needs to be made to see whether any of the shared readings are in fact likely assimilations, either to parallel passages or to the near context, and then to see whether any clear pattern of association results among the MSS of these groups. I myself suspect little or no connections in this regard, since this collation data caused Lake et al. to consider the MSS actually genealogically unrelated. > Well, the readings of these smaller patterns (i.e. "broadly disseminated and > very well known pool of variant-readings") are regularly found in around 10 to > 40 percent of the MSS Lake-Blake-New examined. These MSS stem from three > "widely-separated monasteries" and therefore, by consequence, if an argument is > built on the widely-separated monasteries, the smaller patterns are at least > spread exactly in the same "widely-separated" areas (i.e from Mount Sinai to > Jerusalem and Patmos). It might be instructive to see whether any of the patterns are monastery-specific, i.e., limited almost exclusively to MSS from within a single monastery (which would imply some limitation and restriction upon the copying procedure). If on the other hand, the sub-type readings were spread nearly equally among the MSS of all three monasteries, then this would imply approximately a same percentage of parallel spread throughout the empire of these sub-groups (which well may be the case, even if the sub-groups originally began as local-text variants; the significant point is that these sub-group readings never gained the ascendancy, but always remained in a minority of MSS, even within the Byzantine tradition). > I must admit that I do not completely grasp what "'floating' localized variants" > means. Do they originally belong to some sort of localized Byzantine sub-types > the local text-type like, or...? I suspect originating within a localized tradition, but with a certain degree of transmission beyond the local area for some, if not all, of the local variants. > I may add that there are 22 of these > "'floating' localized variants" within the 33 verses of Mark 11. Even if they > are only "sporadically adopted", they can be found in MSS from "widely-separated > monasteries". Perhaps. This again needs to be checked against the locale of each MS in Lake's collation to see whether the localized variants in fact do transcend the single monastery within which they are kept. This is a relatively simple task, which could be accomplishing by obtaining the data from the Kurzgefasste Liste, and then color-coding each MS in the collation with a different highlighting pen. Until then, it is unwise to speculate. > "Disturbing" signals to whom? My guess is to the eclectic school. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Tue Jun 11 23:16:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA03189; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 23:15:15 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 23:12:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Theories of textual transmission / Alexandrian text / etc. In-Reply-To: <199606112213.SAA25554@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 6603 On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, William L. Petersen wrote: > Why, in all these discussions, have NONE of the earliest witnesses to the NT > text been mentioned? Are they without relevance to the issue of how the > text originated and was then transmitted? Are they of no significance when > discussing the "Alexandrian" or "Byzantine" or other families? > > By "earliest witnesses" I mean, of course, the extensive second-century > citations which we possess: Justin, Tertullian, Ignatius, the Didache, etc. > Even the early third century citations in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, > etc., are very important for the light they shed on both the text itself and > how early "academic" Christians handled it. I think Petersen does ask a significant question, and those within the eclectic field will have to explain their non-reliance upon the early papyri and patristic evidence on a different basis than will I. I find most of the patristic evidence from the second century either too limited in scope or simply inadequate; certainly not definitive (the quotation of Mk.10 in Clem.Alex's "Who is the Rich Man that will be saved?" is a case in point -- a direct quote, but so corrupted that it is hard to believe any MS read the same as Clement gives, even within the worst of the western tradition). Similarly, writers like Irenaeus indiscriminately quote the same passage in varying forms, at times agreeing with one or another texttype, but not definitively. The fathers in most cases were limited as to MSS within their own local text situation; add to that their constant allusion or quoting from (faulty) memory, and the reliability of their text tends to drop off dramatically. Nevertheless, much of the text in their quotes agrees with that held in common by all texttypes, and in that regard they are valuable. Also, much of their text agrees with joint Alexandrian-Byzantine or Western-Byzantine readings, and in that regard they are themselves highly Byzantine. Where they deviate in places where variant readings occur, at least in such cases they offer evidence that the reading was early, and that it was known in that Father's location. More than that, I doubt should be claimed. The early papyri have all been preserved in Egypt, and even though some of them may not have had an Egyptian provenance, I suspect most of them did. Their text is not consistent, and most present a jumbled mixture of predominantly western and Alexandrian type readings, with some distinctively Byzantine readings thrown in. They do not have a default text which is easily accessible by merely stripping away individual accretions; yet, if such were attempted, their resultant text would end up more Byzantine than either Alexandrian or Western, due to the jointly-held Alexandrian-Byzantine and Western-Byzantine readings which appear in them. A significant contingent of Alexandrian readings still would remain, however, after the purely western corruptions were stripped, which would be in keeping with the locale in which they were found. Neither I nor the eclectic critics (save some lip-service from Kurt Aland) seem to put much weight on the papyri or early fathers in general, due to their basic reflection of what Colwell termed the "uncontrolled popular text" era. Among the eclectics, only P66 and P75 appear to have major significance in the gospels, but not so much as to override B or Aleph. > Quite frankly, I don't understand why one would choose to busy one's self > with 4th cent. through 12th cent. evidence, while at the same time totally > ignoring the 2nd through 3rd. cent. evidence. Please enlighten me. My own theory of transmission follows Hort's "initial presumption", which works backward from what we know (our extant evidence), and assumes (rightly, given a "normal" transmissional history) that what appears in a vast majority of extant documents reflects that which in any previous copying generation would also reflect a vast majority of earlier documents. The task is to explain simply and logically where all the Byzantine predecessors disappeared to, and this is precisely why certain portions of the discussion have been focusing on the shift from the trickle of uncials between the 6th-9th centuries turning into an explosion of minuscules beginning in the 9th century. If Lake is correct (as I have assumed in this discussion) that the uncial predecessors of the 9th and 10th century minuscules were destroyed once a good minuscule copy was made, then the only logical assumption has to be that those numerous lost uncials of the 6th-9th century period were predominately (90%+) Byzantine. Take that back a few generational steps further, and one will quickly see that -- barring Hort's formal recension which produced the Byzantine text -- there is no easy way to presume that the portion of extant early evidence we today possess is necessarily representative of what once must have been the situation. The fallacy is in presuming that what exists on a century-by-century basis is supposedly "typical", when in fact this merely begs the question. Once this line of reasoning has been instituted, then the early evidence from the 2nd-4th centuries can be evaluated from a better perspective, and one will see that, despite all the idiosyncracies of the fathers or the mixture in the early papyri, there still remains a basic core or common consensus text which permeates them all, once the aberrations are stripped, and that common text (even in the fathers) remains heavily Byzantine. I of course cherish few hopes that Petersen or other modern eclectics will agree, but I believe that all this can be demonstrated from within the critical editions of the papyri published by Muenster or the IGNTP, as well as from the critical editions of the fathers. One must, however, proceed on the assumption that readings which are jointly Alexandrian and Byzantine or jointly Western and Byzantine should properly be called "Byzantine", and that such readings reflect places where either the Alexandrian or the Western texts simply did not happen to differ. Note that it is _not_ the matter of the so-called "distinctive" Byzantine readings which are the key here, but merely readings which are common to the entire Byzantine Textform. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Tue Jun 11 23:18:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA03204; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 23:17:47 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 23:14:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Theories of textual transmission / Alexandrian text / etc. In-Reply-To: <01I5SJHT8JLU8WX2QJ@InfoAve.Net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 961 On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, Jim West wrote: > As I have understood it, use of the Fathers is hazardous because we do not > know exactly their habits of citation. Do they cite from manuscript or > memory? Since we do not know, it seems that using them as primary sources > for textual reconstruction is a bit risky. I agree on this point, but I should mention that I would be quite content to have a NT text constructed from the consensus (majority) testimony of the fathers of the first five centuries, since I have no doubts regarding the texttypical nature of an edition constructed on that basis. It might not be purely Byzantine, but it would come close. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Tue Jun 11 23:28:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA03266; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 23:27:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 23:24:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Regrets... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 684 Although I have been enjoying the current line of discussion, I will be away from the list for the next two weeks while visiting Wichita to complete the digital audio recording of the Greek NT (Byzantine text, of course; modified Erasmian pronunciation) for an ongoing multimedia project. Not to worry though -- I plan to return and answer all pertinent points after the 26th. *;-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Wed Jun 12 08:58:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA04818; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 08:55:05 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 07:51 CDT X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) Subject: Re: Manuscript fragments.... Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3599 On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >> I would mention three possible explanations for the decline in numbers >> starting in century XIII: Please note that I was not saying that any of these explanations were *the* correct answer; merely that they might have contributed. >> * The decline of the Byzantine Empire. Although the Ottomans, like most >> of Islam, were tolerant of Christianity, toleration is not the same >> as encouragement. The monasteries must have been much poorer. > >This does not explain the continuing growth in numbers during centuries >9-12, which levels off in century 13. The same historical situation >existed in the preceding as well as the following centuries, and in >itself should not have affected the number of MSS. Not entirely... Byzantium lost control of Egypt, parts of Palestine, and eastern Anatolia *before* the ninth century, but its boundaries then remained essentially stable until the battle of Manzikert in 1071. Even then, Constantinople itself was safe. It was not until the Ottoman Empire became a major power starting in the twelfth century that Byzantium and the Balkan areas came under direct threat. >> * The Black Death. Not only did this cut the population by a third >> in the latter part of this period, but it also severely damaged >> the economy. A weak economy would have less surplus to support >> such luxuries as manuscripts and the scribes that copied them. > >Did the Black Death really affect the Balkans and Turkey as much as it did >Western Europe? Also a bad analogy, since it does not seem that the Latin >manuscript trade in western Europe suffered. Certainly the number of >extant MSS declines in centuries 14-15, but not by anywhere near a third; >in fact even with the decline, the total number of extant MSS from either >century 14 or 15 exceeds that available in centuries 9 and 10 combined. >We are talking only of a small decline -- not matters turning back to a >trickle, as the pre-9th century uncial situation happens to be. All right, I'll accept that based on your superior knowledge of Vulgate manuscripts. For what it's worth, though, the Black Death *did* affect the east significantly (that's where the plague came from, after all!). It probably didn't affect the Balkans much; they were too sparsely populated. But I seem to recall reading somewhere that the plague struck Constantinople heavily, and that its population *never* recovered. Now it's obvious that a plague that hit in the late 1340s could not have *started* the decline. But I thought it reasonable that it might have contributed. >> * The transition to paper, which was taking place during this period. >> Although early paper, being made of cloth, was far sturdier than this >> cheap stuff we use nowadays, it was not as robust as parchment. >> Might not paper manuscripts have been destroyed far more easily? > >This has more merit, and may explain some of the decline, but I would not >think it explains all of it. I still think that basically a saturation >point had been reached, and MSS simply were not continuing to be copied >in an increasing manner, but primarily to replace those which were lost >or destroyed. Given the accidents of history, the slight decline in >number over the 14th and 15th centuries is not really very significant. Why didn't you say so in the first place? :-) [remainder omitted as I don't think Robinson and I disagree -- though he seems to think otherwise] Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Wed Jun 12 12:24:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA05942; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 12:20:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 00:16:54 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Where did the uncials go? Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 5432 Warning: this is a long post. It's a strange thing that Robert Waltz brought up the question of where the 8th century uncials went when he did. Last week I was looking at the distribution by date of the pre-1000 AD MSS of Hebrews and was struck by the hole in the 6th to 8th centuries.=20 The following is derived from NA27 appendix 1, where cent. =3D century, n = =3D=20 total no. of mss dated to that century; nc =3D no. of (relatively) complete= =20 mss that seem to have survived unmolested; nm =3D no. of mss made of=20 multiple fragments including palimpsests and mss with sizable continuous=20 sections; and ns =3D no. of mss comprised of single fragments. The multiple= =20 fragments category is meant to include mss that do seem to have suffered=20 bad treatment. The age distribution of the papyrus mss of Hebrews is then: cent.=09n=09nc=09nm=09ns 0=090=090=090=090 1=090=090=090=090 2=091=091=090=090 3=092=090=091=091 4=092=090=090=092 5=090=090=090=090 6=090=090=090=090 7=091=090=090=091 8=090=090=090=090 9=090=090=090=090 10=090=090=090=090 and the age distribution for the uncials (excluding 0280 which I don=D5t=20 have data for) is: cent.=09n=09nc=09nm=09ns 0=090=090=090=090 1=090=090=090=090 2=090=090=090=090 3=090=090=090=090 4=093=092=090=091 5=096=092=092=092 6=093=091=092=090 7=090=090=090=090 8=090=090=090=090 9=098=095=093=090 10=094=093=091=090 Apart from an anomalous 7th century papyrus, there seem to be two=20 extinctions: the first is of the papyri from the fifth century on, and=20 the second is of the uncials during the 7th and 8th centuries. (The=20 anomalous papyrus is p79. Having looked at it, I am surprised that anyone= =20 managed to identify it, let alone date it.) The disappearance of the papyri can be explained as being due to the=20 increasing popularity of parchment as a writing material. But the clear=20 gap in the uncials for the 7th and 8th centuries requires a different=20 explanation. It may be that this is evidence of the Moslem conquest around 640 of=20 Palestine and Egypt which, until then, had probably been primary ms=20 production regions. However the survival of the uncials predating 640=20 must be accounted for. The following leans heavily on speculation and=20 hearsay. Nevertheless I beg your indulgence. Ignoring single fragments, these older uncials are 01, 02, 03, 04, 06,=20 015, 016, 048 and 0285. Assuming they were in Palestine or Egypt around=20 640, how did they survive? 01 survived by finding its way to St.=20 Catherine=D5s Monastery, as did 0285. 02 survived through being adopted by= =20 the Patriarchate at Alexandria. 03 somehow escaped to Constantinople,=20 possibly from the same place as 01 (Caesarea?), and ended up in the=20 Vatican after Constantinople fell in 1453. 04 was washed and used for=20 Ephraim=D5s sermons in minuscule script (more on this later). 048 was also= =20 washed and used for something else. I don=D5t know the history of 06, but= =20 to survive it would most likely have found refuge in a safer=20 north-westerly location or protection in a tolerated Christian=20 community within the Islamic sphere. 015 made it to Athos but was=20 seriously injured, while 016 hid in the sands of Egypt. A mass extinction of Palestinian and Egyptian mss is a possible=20 explanation for the ascendancy of the Byzantine text. The Palestinian and= =20 Egyptian copying workshops had been shut down, leaving only Byzantium to=20 make copies of the text that had developed there. (Here I have made the=20 postulate that refugees like 03 did not have the same status as=20 Byzantines when it came to being exemplars. I have no evidence for this,=20 except that there probably would have been more Byzantines than refugees.= =20 In fact mss like 1739 may well be descendants of refugees. Also,=20 conformation of mss to the Byzantine text as found in the 7th century=20 corrector of Sinaiticus, indicates a Byzantine standardisation in process= =20 at this very time.) Now to explain the 200 year gap in uncials extending even to Byzantium.=20 Perhaps Byzantium had never been a major copying centre but was forced to= =20 become one by the sudden Moslem conquest of the traditional centres.=20 Accordingly the number of uncials would start at a low number and=20 increase from the time of the conquest, which is what we see above.=20 Perhaps the minuscule innovation was so complete that all of the older=20 uncials were disdained as things of the past and used to heat ovens (cf.=20 the wonderful story of Tischendorf=D5s discovery of Sinaiticus). The new=20 writing style made for faster, more compact copying. Like slide rules and= =20 digital calculators, the old were neglected once the new arrived. A weakness in the foregoing theory is that uncials exist after the 200=20 year gap. In defence I note that many of the 9th and 10th C. mss are a=20 mixture of uncial and minuscule writing. Others have the angular=20 (Slavonic) type uncial script of regions further removed from the Moslem=20 frontier. As a final observation, it occurred to me today that there is a=20 similarity between minuscule and Arabic script. Perhaps the cursive=20 concept was borrowed from the Moslems. One possible advantage would be=20 that minuscule mss would look more like Arabic mss, and so promote their=20 survival in hostile environments. Tim Finney Baptist Theological College and Murdoch University Perth, W. Australia From owner-tc-list Wed Jun 12 14:19:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA06336; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:18:29 -0400 Message-Id: <199606121814.UAA21330@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 20:18:47 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: Theories of textual transmission / Alexandrian text / etc. To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3493 On Tue, 11 Jun 199, wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) wrote: >As I have watched the various posts on these two subjects float by over the >last week or so, I have been struck by one point. It leads me to ask the >following question: > >Why, in all these discussions, have NONE of the earliest witnesses to the NT >text been mentioned? Are they without relevance to the issue of how the >text originated and was then transmitted? Are they of no significance when >discussing the "Alexandrian" or "Byzantine" or other families? > >By "earliest witnesses" I mean, of course, the extensive second-century >citations which we possess: Justin, Tertullian, Ignatius, the Didache, etc. >Even the early third century citations in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, >etc., are very important for the light they shed on both the text itself and >how early "academic" Christians handled it. > >Quite frankly, I don't understand why one would choose to busy one's self >with 4th cent. through 12th cent. evidence, while at the same time totally >ignoring the 2nd through 3rd. cent. evidence. Please enlighten me. I too think that the earliest witnesses to NT text are highly significant "to the issue of how the text originated and was then transmitted". Since a good deal of the citations from the early fathers (and some of the early Papyri) do not fit very well to the framework of text-types, I suspect their significance is ruled down by most scholars (exceptions are for example Amphoux, Boismard/Lamouille, and those devoted to Diatessaron studies). I personally refrained from taking this type of evidence into account, because the discussion started with "text-types" and how to describe them. Nevertheless, encouraged by W.L. Petersen, I my express some textual criticism "heresy" (cf. Bob Waltz). 1.) The obstacle (in our actual discussion already emphasized by Waltz, Robinson, and West) concerning the reliability of citations, to my mind, is overemphasized. It is true that there was an uncritical use of church father testimonies without taking into account context, style, preferrences, etc. to an extend that one may well call this kind of use an abuse. But nevertheless, things change, and there are recent methodological contributions in order to evaluate the reliability of this kind of evidence (cf. for example B. Aland, Petersen, Clabeaux, Schmid). 2.) When reconstructing Marcion's Corpus Paulinum (mid second century, our oldest witness!), I found, though few, but striking _textual_ evidence (conflate readings!) indicating that Marcion's text antedates all our known text-types at least in their actual state of appearence. Our extant textual transmission of the Pauline epistles in fact testifies to early contamination from two distinct letter editions affecting all our known "text-types" ("Western", Alex., Byz.). Those heavily focused on text-types should take notice that for the Pauline epistles we are most probably NOT dealing with ONE archetype of textual transmission. 3.) Therefore, theories of textual transmission based on the assumption that one of the "text-types" must somehow equal the autograph, or that text-types are the one and only decisive features do not hold water (at least not for the Pauline epistles). Granted this situation, the focus on "text-types" will lead us nowhere, at least not to the autographs. The initial stages of textual transmission are found beyond the "text-types". Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Wed Jun 12 14:29:55 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA06413; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:28:52 -0400 Message-Id: <199606121824.OAA16684@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:24:46 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: Theories of trans. (#2) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 14390 Thanks to the list members for their comments on my question. I'll try to give quick responses to the most obvious points, and then end with an example for your consideration. 1) Jim West noted: >As I have understood it, use of the Fathers is hazardous because we do not >know exactly their habits of citation. Do they cite from manuscript or >memory? Since we do not know, it seems that using them as primary sources >for textual reconstruction is a bit risky. This is indeed the general supposition, but it is false in some instances, and I hate to make generalizations unless I have investigated EVERY citation in an author, and examined EVERY possible parallel (and, yes, that means taking all 5 volumes of Biblia Patristica, and looking up EACH reference for a verse...). A quick example. The "apparently" odd (= non-standard) citations of the gospels by Justin were variously attributed to lapses of memory (so Semisch in 1848), use of extra-canonical gospels (so Credner in 1832), use of pre-synoptic traditions (so Bousset in 1891), dependence upon a post-synoptic harmony (so von Engelhardt in 1878), etc. The conclusion from all of these dismissive statements was that "Justin's text need not be taken seriously." I beg to differ. As the work of Smit Sibenga on Justin's OT citations has shown, what were dismissed at an earlier stage of scholarship as "lapses of memory" or "careless citations" because they agreed with NEITHER the LXX NOR with the MT are now seen as accurate citations from the "Old Greek" which has echoes in some of the Qumran documents. Ditto for Justin's gospel citations, as investigated by Bellinzoni. Sometimes they MAY be "loose," but in other instances, they are repeated by Justin as many as three times, and in precisely the same deviating fashion, AND THEY HAVE PARALLELS IN OTHER SECOND AND EARLY THIRD CENTURY SOURCES. This suggests to me that Justin was citing a tradition know to him in his day, and that he was doing so with great accuracy. (I'll end this post with an example from Justin...) 2) Vincent Broman noted: >I think the 2d-3d cent. evidence is well-trod ground that we are all taking >for granted. It is useful, but substantially biased as a sample, and >it doesn't solve the problem of explaining the history of the text. He then goes on to give a hypothetical, which I will not repoduce here. I am not sure how "well-trod" this is, for many contemporary scholars seem to have no idea of what has been done by people like Alfred Resch, Bousset, Schmidtke and others in the last century. Permit me to quote F.C. Burkitt: "[Clement of Alexandria's gospel citations] cut off the only channel by which we might have thought to connect the 'non-Western' text, as an organic whole, with apostolic times. With Clement's evidence before us we must recognise that the earliest texts of the Gospels were fundamentally 'Western' in every country of which we have knowledge, even in Egypt. If we have any real trust in antiquity, any real belief in the continuity of Chrisitan tradition, we must be prepared to admit many 'Western' readings as authentic, as alone having a historical claim to originality." The quotation is from Burkitt's "introduction" to Barnard's study (TaS V.5 [1899], pp. xvii-xviii) of "Clement of Alexandria's Biblical Text." Kenyon's studies led him to the same conclusion (see his evaluation of the text of Justin, Marcion, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria in his _The Text of the Greek Bible_ 3rd rev. ed. with A. Adams [1975], p. 169). More recently, M. Mees' exhaustive study of Clement's text (_Die Zitate aus dem Neuen Testamen bei Clemens von Alexandrien_ [1970]), in which the results of his verse-by-verse study were summarized on a book-by-book basis, reached similar conclusions. I know that these empirical findings clash with the pet theories of the Westcott-Hort crowd, as well as the Byzantine crowd...on the other hand, facts are facts. As for the Fathers being a "biased sample," I cannot see how they are any more biased than the preserved manuscripts. Both have been selectively preserved (not a fragment of the Judaic-Christian gospels survives, nor does a fragment of Marcion--all we have are quotations...), selectively revised and edited, etc. 3) Bob Waltz wrote: >First, most authors did not cite precisely. This is particularly true of >the earliest: Ignatius, Justin, etc. But Tertullian wasn't overly precise, >either. And even Origen suffered occasional lapses of memory. We've already handled that; see #1 above, and we'll close with a concrete example. Note also: we only charge "loose citation" when the Father ("particularly...the earliest"!!) doesn't agree with OUR text; do the later Fathers cite "more accurately" because they actually cite more accurately, or just because they have a text which is closer to ours? (This is too cute a circular argument: let the evidence be your guide.) >Second, the writings of these authors are often badly preserved. Irenaeus >and Origen, for instance, wrote in Greek but are preserved primarily in >Latin. And in the case of Origen, at least, Rufinus's translation was more >than a little biased. This too is a common supposition, and is undoubtedly true in SOME instances. However, I remember a paper in the NT TC seminar at the SBL some 5 or 7 years ago, in which F. Stanley Jones compared Rufinus' Latin translation of the Pseudo-Clementine "Recognitions" with the Syriac of the same, and found that Rufinus was a VERY ACCURATE translator, all things considered (Syriac grammar vs. Latin grammar, idioms, etc.). >And even when we possess the texts in the original language, our *manuscripts* >are generally recent, and often thoroughly corrupt. My concluding example should shed light on this matter. >For these problems, I refer you to Fee's essays in Epp & Fee. I'm not sure >I like Fee's solutions, but it shows the magnitude of the problem. I know Gordon's analysis well; I did one of the jacket blurbs for that book for Eerdmans. Gordon's approach and Fathers he deals with are a bit later than the area I cover, and so I'll leave all that for another afternoon. 4) Now to an example (Matt 19.17/Mark 10.18/Luke 18.19): A) JUSTIN: Dial. 101.2 (Justin dies 163-167; the Dial. is probably from the 140s or 150s; we have two VERY late MSS, one from 1346 and one from 1541): "One is good, my Father in the heavens." Since we "know" [ ;-)] Justin was a "sloppy" scholar, who had early-onset Alzheimers, and worked from VERY early but VERY corrupt manuscripts, and since we "know" that Justin often took liberties with the text, the phrase "my Father in the heavens" must be his own expansion, a lapse of memory, his own addition for clarity, or one too many glasses of Chianti, right? It CANNOT be part of the Ur-text, because none of the "big" MS or traditions (Alexandrian, Byzantine, etc.) have it. And if that is not the case, then it is clear that these LATE MSS of Justin have been corrupted in their long history of transmission, right? If we had a 4th cent. MS of Justin, "my Father in the heavens" wouldn't be there, right? B) EPHREM: Commentary on the Diatessaron, XV.9, in BOTH the original Syriac and the Armenian (2 MSS) reads: "One is good, the/my Father who [is] in the heaven." Gee. Ephrem died in 373, and the Syriac MS of the Commentary is FIFTH century!!! And Tatian, of course, composed the Diatessaron (the gospel harmony upon which Ephrem was commenting) about 172, on the basis of the gospel texts current then. And this citation agrees PRECISELY with Justin's, allowing for the differences in Syriac and Greek. Justin's "heavens" is plural, and Ephrem's is singular, but otherwise... C) IRENAEUS: Haer. V.7.25 (pre-185): "One is good, the/my Father in the heavens." Gee. Back in the West, Irenaeus, that bastion of orthodoxy, cites the passage in PRECISELY the same form as Justin, save that Justin tucks a "mou" in after "pater". Hmmm. Do I see a trend forming??? D) HIPPOLYTUS: Haer. V.7.25 (pre-222): "One is good, the/my Father in the heavens." This heresy-fighter agrees EXACTLY with Irenaeus' version of the passage, even down to the lack of a "mou." With Irenaeus and Justin, "heavens" is plural. E) CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: Strom. V.10.63 (composed c. 207): "One is good, the/my Father." A relief isn't it? At least we are rid of that awkward "in the heavens" stuff, which only exists in the very earliest witnesses. But we are still saddled with a vestige of Justin's text: FATHER. F) PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE HOMILIES: XVI.3.4 (c. 260 for the Ur-text): "For one is good, the/my Father in the heavens." Oops! Still the full text, a la Justin, surviving, with the plural "heavens." The Pseudo-Clementines, incidentally, are thought to be of Syrian origin... G) VETUS LATINA MS e (apud Matthew, V cent.): "Unus est bonus, pater." Gee. At least this second-most-ancient manuscript (only "a" is older, and it is chock full of Western-text readings, and "Justinisms"--such as the light at the baptism of Jesus....) doesn't have the "in the heavens" stuff, but it still has that pesky "Father." When WILL we be rid of it? "Out, out, damn Father!" H) VETUS LATINA MS d (apud Luke, V cent.): "Nemo bonus nisi unus Deus pater." Well, what CAN we expect of the Latin column of Bezae?! Of COURSE it must be corrupt, right? Note that not only is the pesky "Father" still around, but, in place of "in the heavens," we now have "God"--so it is "God the Father" who is good, not the Son, right??? Just as in Justin and the earlier texts, it was the "Father in the heaven(s)" who is good, not the guy Jesus, standing before you. ---- I rest my case. Note: = Anyone have an EARLIER version of this passage, from ANY source? I'm waiting.... = Are the manuscripts of Justin, Irenaeus, Ephrem, etc., accurately transmitting the text? Because of their agreement--in some cases VERBATIM agreement--there seems to be no doubt but that the manuscripts ARE transmitting the text of Justin, Irenaeus, Ephrem, the Pseudo-Clementines, etc., accurately. = Are the Fathers citing inaccurately, from memory, carelessly, through a wine-clouded haze? The agreement of ALL these EARLIEST sources suggests not. = Why does this reading, the earliest we possess (ALL of the sources cited are fifth cent. and earlier, with MOST of them pre-250), and one which is widely disseminated geographically (from Lyons to Alexandria, from Edessa to Carthage, from Rome to the Levant), why does this reading fade from the manuscript tradition? The reason is that it highlights--even more sharply than the present canonical text does--a point which was theologically unacceptable in later times: Jesus was not "God" or to be identified with the "Father-God" in the heavens. If you doubt this, compare Mark 10.17-18 with Matthew 19.16-17. Mark's "good" no longer modifies "teacher," for that is what causes the embarrassing reply from Jesus; Matthew moves it to modify "deed." Notice that Mark's "call me" has been transformed into "ask me." It is clear that Christological sensitivities have been ruffled in this passage, and we see even more evidence of that in the variant "the/my Father in the heaven[s]". This example is one of many I have stumbled across by combing the earliest Fathers verse by verse (some others are in "What Text Can NT Textual Criticism Ultimately Reach?" in _New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Church History_, edd. B. Aland and J. Delobel [1994]). It is hard, tiring work. But occasionally the results are gratifying. It seems to me we have the earliest recoverable version of this passage before us, one which dates back to the time of Justin: the middle third of the second century. Finally, two comments on two points raised by M. Robinson in his two posts in response to my original post. First, on Clement of Alexandria: >...the quotation of Mk.10 in Clem.Alex's "Who is the Rich Man that will be >saved?" is a case in point -- a direct quote, but so corrupted that it is >hard to believe any MS read the same as Clement gives, even within the >worst of the western tradition... Hmmm. First, I don't know for sure if it is corrupted, for I would have to check all the early Fathers, as I did for "one is good..." (I gave it a cursory look years ago, and I seem to recall some vague hints that Clement was not the only one with some such variant here--the variants were not as neatly grouped as the example I have given above, but Clement was not, if I recall correctly, a "one-off".) Second, let us assume for the sake of discussion, however, that Clement IS the only Father or MS with this citation, and that Justin was a drunk, and that Origen cited sloppily, and that Ephrem was constantly retouching the text, and that Ignatius had Alzheimers. I must confess that I find it odd that this "careless" handling of the text, this "freedom" with which the Fathers are accused (such as Clement here in QDS), is NEVER assumed to have affected the MS tradition of the NT--when it seems to me it clearly did (e.g.: the "non-interpolations," the pericope adulterae [Jn. 8], the 4 "endings" of Mark, John 21, etc., etc., etc.). I will be the first person to state it: THE FATHERS CANNOT BE FOLLOWED BLINDLY, FOR THEY OFTEN *DO* CITE CARELESSLY OR DELIBERATELY ALTER THE TEXT FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES. Having said that, I must also state that MS SCRIBES APPEAR TO HAVE DONE SO AS WELL, and NEITHER THE FATHERS *NOR* THE MSS ALWAYS CITE/TRANSMIT CARELESSLY. To Robinson's second point: >I agree on this point, but I should mention that I would be quite content >to have a NT text constructed from the consensus (majority) testimony of >the fathers of the first five centuries, since I have no doubts regarding >the texttypical nature of an edition constructed on that basis. It might >not be purely Byzantine, but it would come close. I ALWAYS "have doubts" over what I will find--as the above case of Justin, Irenaeus, Ephtem, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, the Pseudo-Clementines, and two Vetus Latina MSS demonstrates--until I have done the work. As Conan Doyle had Holmes remark: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before collecting all the evidence." To that I will say "Amen." --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 13 08:57:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA09177; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 08:55:49 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 96 07:52 CDT X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) Subject: Re: Theories of trans. (#2) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 9554 I'll try to keep this post under control, but I still feel the urge to talk. :-) On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) wrote: >Thanks to the list members for their comments on my question. I'll try to >give quick responses to the most obvious points, and then end with an >example for your consideration. > >1) Jim West noted: > >>As I have understood it, use of the Fathers is hazardous because we do not >>know exactly their habits of citation. Do they cite from manuscript or >>memory? Since we do not know, it seems that using them as primary sources >>for textual reconstruction is a bit risky. > >This is indeed the general supposition, but it is false in some instances, >and I hate to make generalizations unless I have investigated EVERY citation >in an author, and examined EVERY possible parallel (and, yes, that means >taking all 5 volumes of Biblia Patristica, and looking up EACH reference for >a verse...). [...] I, at least, did not mean to imply that the fathers *could not* be critically reconstructed, merely that, for the most part, they *have not* been reconstructed. Once they are, of course, then they become very important for criticism. To give an example of my own, there is at least one place in Paul where I would adopt a reading supported by only two minuscules plus an assortment of fathers. (Admittedly the two minuscules are 1739 and 6.) The reading is Eph. 5:31, where UBS/GNT reads KAI PROSKOLLHSETAI PROS THN GUNAIKA AUTOU. This text, however, occurs in *four* different forms in the manuscripts (parallelling variously LXXmss+Mark 10:7, LXXA, and Matt. 19:5), while the short text is read by 1739 6 and (according to various authorities) Cyprian Jerome Marcion Origen Tertullian. Given that the short reading best explains the others, and that none of the others has good ms. support (B 1175 1881 Byz vs. A P 33 81 vg vs. 01* vs. D* F G), the short reading is obviously to be preferred. >2) Vincent Broman noted: >>I think the 2d-3d cent. evidence is well-trod ground that we are all taking >>for granted. It is useful, but substantially biased as a sample, and >>it doesn't solve the problem of explaining the history of the text. > >He then goes on to give a hypothetical, which I will not repoduce here. > >I am not sure how "well-trod" this is, for many contemporary scholars seem >to have no idea of what has been done by people like Alfred Resch, Bousset, >Schmidtke and others in the last century. [...] With this I am inclined to agree... though once again I stress the need for critical editions before we proceed too far. > >I know that these empirical findings clash with the pet theories of the >Westcott-Hort crowd, as well as the Byzantine crowd...on the other hand, >facts are facts. > >As for the Fathers being a "biased sample," I cannot see how they are any >more biased than the preserved manuscripts. Both have been selectively >preserved (not a fragment of the Judaic-Christian gospels survives, nor does >a fragment of Marcion--all we have are quotations...), selectively revised >and edited, etc. I agree. >3) Bob Waltz wrote: > >>First, most authors did not cite precisely. This is particularly true of >>the earliest: Ignatius, Justin, etc. But Tertullian wasn't overly precise, >>either. And even Origen suffered occasional lapses of memory. > >We've already handled that; see #1 above, and we'll close with a concrete >example. Note also: we only charge "loose citation" when the Father >("particularly...the earliest"!!) doesn't agree with OUR text; do the later >Fathers cite "more accurately" because they actually cite more accurately, >or just because they have a text which is closer to ours? (This is too cute >a circular argument: let the evidence be your guide.) Examples, unfortunately, don't prove a rule one way or the other. Each father must be examined individually, and *thoroughly*, before we can cite a rule. I'm willing to concede that people have often dismissed this or that work too easily -- but your argument cuts both ways. We must examine everything on a case-by-case basis. >>Second, the writings of these authors are often badly preserved. Irenaeus >>and Origen, for instance, wrote in Greek but are preserved primarily in >>Latin. And in the case of Origen, at least, Rufinus's translation was more >>than a little biased. > >This too is a common supposition, and is undoubtedly true in SOME instances. So it's a matter of figuring out which cases. >However, I remember a paper in the NT TC seminar at the SBL some 5 or 7 >years ago, in which F. Stanley Jones compared Rufinus' Latin translation of >the Pseudo-Clementine "Recognitions" with the Syriac of the same, and found >that Rufinus was a VERY ACCURATE translator, all things considered (Syriac >grammar vs. Latin grammar, idioms, etc.). The only instance in which I've studied the matter at all it Origen. But in that case it is clear that Rufinus adapted Origen's text significantly -- probably to conform to an Old Latin version, though it might have been to conform to Rufinus's own prejudices. In any case, the difference between the surviving Greek fragments and Rufinus's Latin is very large. I'm willing to concede that this may be exceptional, though. [remainder omitted] schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) wrote: >I too think that the earliest witnesses to NT text are highly significant "to >the issue of how the text originated and was then transmitted". Since a good >deal of the citations from the early fathers (and some of the early Papyri) do >not fit very well to the framework of text-types, I suspect their significance >is ruled down by most scholars (exceptions are for example Amphoux, >Boismard/Lamouille, and those devoted to Diatessaron studies). I personally >refrained from taking this type of evidence into account, because the >discussion >started with "text-types" and how to describe them. Nevertheless, >encouraged by >W.L. Petersen, I my express some textual criticism "heresy" (cf. Bob Waltz). > >1.) The obstacle (in our actual discussion already emphasized by Waltz, >Robinson, and West) concerning the reliability of citations, to my mind, is >overemphasized. It is true that there was an uncritical use of church father >testimonies without taking into account context, style, preferrences, etc. >to an >extend that one may well call this kind of use an abuse. But nevertheless, >things change, and there are recent methodological contributions in order to >evaluate the reliability of this kind of evidence (cf. for example B. Aland, >Petersen, Clabeaux, Schmid). > >2.) When reconstructing Marcion's Corpus Paulinum (mid second century, our >oldest witness!), I found, though few, but striking _textual_ evidence >(conflate >readings!) indicating that Marcion's text antedates all our known >text-types at >least in their actual state of appearence. Our extant textual transmission of >the Pauline epistles in fact testifies to early contamination from two >distinct >letter editions affecting all our known "text-types" ("Western", Alex., >Byz.). >Those heavily focused on text-types should take notice that for the Pauline >epistles we are most probably NOT dealing with ONE archetype of textual >transmission. > >3.) Therefore, theories of textual transmission based on the assumption >that one >of the "text-types" must somehow equal the autograph, or that text-types >are the >one and only decisive features do not hold water (at least not for the Pauline >epistles). Granted this situation, the focus on "text-types" will lead us >nowhere, at least not to the autographs. The initial stages of textual >transmission are found beyond the "text-types". I will concede that all text-types are more or less removed from the original (although the cases of p66-p75-B and p46-B show that they are often not very far removed from the original; for these manuscripts, all of a common text-type, to have diverged as much as they have shows that the *types* were almost certainly in existence by the mid-second century). However, text-types serve a very important function: they allow us to *control* manuscripts. That is, they give us a hint as to which readings go back to the remote exemplar of the manuscript, and which are the result of recent copying. I agree that, once fathers have been critically edited, they become important witnesses. But only single witnesses! And I, for one, am troubled by the idea of basing my text too strongly on intermittent witnesses such as the fathers. If we had a *truly* complete text of Origen's commentaries on Paul, for instance, I would give it great weight. Given the state of the evidence, though, I can only consider those commentaries as a supplement. As for the independence of the fathers from existing text-types, I would ask a question: How much of this independence is found in the Greek fathers (as opposed to the Latin)? It seems to me that the Greek fathers often conform to text-types (e.g., in Paul, Origen and family 1739 are fairly close; in the Catholics, Didymus goes largely with the Alexandrian witnesses). It's the Latin fathers that often have the wildest texts -- e.g. Ambrosiaster agrees most regularly with D-F-G, but has a strong tendency to swing over to p46-B (but *not* Aleph-A-C-I-33-bo). Now I think those p46-B-Ambrosiaster agreements important -- but it just seems to me (and I could be wrong) that these mixed-up sorts of patristic texts are usually in Latin. My $1.98, or whatever this is worth. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 13 10:47:35 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA09750; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 10:46:01 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 09:42:48 -0500 (CDT) From: "Larry W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Theories of trans. (#2) In-Reply-To: <199606121824.OAA16684@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1101 A very interesting piece from Wm. Petersen on early citations of Mt 19:17. Thanks to Bill for taking time to log all the citations/references. I do, however, want to log a much more modest contribution of my own, by way of a hesitation to accept right away Bill's proposal for the cause/meaning of the variation twixt some of the early Fathers and the majority of surviving mss evidence. First, I fail to see how the variation between "God" and "my Father in heaven" reflects any major christological variation, Bill. I think your shooting at shadows here. I do,however, find it interesting that the latter variant is simply the *well known* opening address of the Paternoster, with the substituion of "mou" for "hemon". Seems entirely likely to me that Justin, et alia, simply (and freely) preferred that more familiar liturgical phrase, thus making their piety/usage more directly connected with Jesus' own. And this esp. in the Dial. 101 context, where Justin's point is to emphasize Jesus' humility (citing Ps 21/22 extensively). Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 13 14:24:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA11049; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 14:23:36 -0400 Message-ID: <31C05CD7.69243DDD@repurk.mw.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 11:24:23 -0700 From: Alan Repurk Organization: I do not speak for my organization X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b3 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu CC: lars@repurk.mw.com, wlp1@psu.edu Subject: Re: Theories of trans. (#2) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2090 Larry W. Hurtado wrote: > > A very interesting piece from Wm. Petersen on early citations of Mt > 19:17. Thanks to Bill for taking time to log all the > citations/references. > I do, however, want to log a much more modest contribution of my > own, by way of a hesitation to accept right away Bill's proposal for the > cause/meaning of the variation twixt some of the early Fathers and the > majority of surviving mss evidence. First, I fail to see how the > variation between "God" and "my Father in heaven" reflects any major > christological variation, Bill. I think your shooting at shadows here. > I do,however, find it interesting that the latter variant is > simply the *well known* opening address of the Paternoster, with the > substituion of "mou" for "hemon". Seems entirely likely to me that > Justin, et alia, simply (and freely) preferred that more familiar > liturgical phrase, thus making their piety/usage more directly connected > with Jesus' own. And this esp. in the Dial. 101 context, where Justin's > point is to emphasize Jesus' humility (citing Ps 21/22 extensively). > > Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba Gentlemen First of all I would like to say that I thought that the citations were extrordinary, and ask under what circumstances the citations could be quoted, aside from looking up all the references myself, which I just may do. Also, in answer to your statement, Larry, that you don't see much theological significance between the two renderings I would like to relate that on more than one occasion I have used these passages to attempt to show that Jesus was correcting the person that called Him good to show that the title of 'good' was not to be applied to himself, but only to His Father. In spite of what I think is very clear language I could not get the other individual to agree to this meaning. Part of the reason is that the language as we have received it is just ambiguous enough to allow for more than one interpretation. I do not think this would be the case with the quotes that William supplied. -lars From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 14 08:56:24 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA14140; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 08:55:08 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 08:51:55 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: jwest@SunBelt.Net (Jim West) Subject: ZPE Article X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <01I5W5RWM3SY8YBNC1@InfoAve.Net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 235 Does anyone have a copy of Klaus Wachtel's article in ZPE: "p64/p67: Fragmente des Mt. evangeliums aus dem 1 Jahrhundert" that they would be willing to copy and send to me? Thanks, Jim West 321 Main St. Petros TN 37845 USA From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 14 10:46:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA14693; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 10:45:44 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 09:42:29 -0500 (CDT) From: "Larry W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Theories of trans. (#2) In-Reply-To: <31C05CD7.69243DDD@repurk.mw.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1960 On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, Alan Repurk wrote: > > Also, in answer to your statement, Larry, that you don't see much > theological significance between the two renderings I would like to > relate that on more than one occasion I have used these passages > to attempt to show that Jesus was correcting the person that called > Him good to show that the title of 'good' was not to be applied to > himself, but only to His Father. In spite of what I think is very > clear language I could not get the other individual to agree to this > meaning. Part of the reason is that the language as we have received > it is just ambiguous enough to allow for more than one interpretation. > > I do not think this would be the case with the quotes that William > supplied. Well, I really can't say what your chances of apologetic/evangelistic success would be with this or that contemporary and this or that textual variant. I don't really think that's relevant. The issue I was speaking to was Wm. Petersen's suggestion that the "my father in heaven" variant was suppressed/replaced with "God" in the interests of high christology. My reasons for demurring are (1) with either variant one easily gets the impression of Jesus expressing some distinction between him being called "good" and calling "God/the Father" good. That is, either way some level of distinction is there twixt Jesus & . . . the Father/God, whatever. (2) Second, and a bit more telling for me, the variant which Bill suggests might have been seen as problemmatic christologically is freely used by Fathers (e.g., Justin, Irenaeus, etc.) whose christological views are commonly (and, I think, correctly) seen as "high" christology, involving some kind of real divinity of Christ (with the corollary of worship of Christ). So, if the variant would have been seen as problematic for high christology, why would it have been used/favored in these passages by these fathers? Larry Hurtado From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 14 12:01:44 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA15134; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 12:00:11 -0400 Message-ID: <31C18CAF.527E6358@repurk.mw.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 09:00:47 -0700 From: Alan Repurk Organization: I do not speak for my organization X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b3 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu CC: lars@repurk.mw.com Subject: Re: Theories of trans. (#2) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3254 Larry W. Hurtado wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, Alan Repurk wrote: > > > > Also, in answer to your statement, Larry, that you don't see much > > theological significance between the two renderings I would like to > > relate that on more than one occasion I have used these passages > > to attempt to show that Jesus was correcting the person that called > > Him good to show that the title of 'good' was not to be applied to > > himself, but only to His Father. In spite of what I think is very > > clear language I could not get the other individual to agree to this > > meaning. Part of the reason is that the language as we have received > > it is just ambiguous enough to allow for more than one interpretation. > > > > I do not think this would be the case with the quotes that William > > supplied. > > Well, I really can't say what your chances of apologetic/evangelistic > success would be with this or that contemporary and this or that textual > variant. I don't really think that's relevant. The issue I was speaking > to was Wm. Petersen's suggestion that the "my father in heaven" variant > was suppressed/replaced with "God" in the interests of high christology. > My reasons for demurring are (1) with either variant one easily gets the > impression of Jesus expressing some distinction between him being called > "good" and calling "God/the Father" good. That is, either way some level > of distinction is there twixt Jesus & . . . the Father/God, whatever. > (2) Second, and a bit more telling for me, the variant which Bill > suggests might have been seen as problemmatic christologically is freely > used by Fathers (e.g., Justin, Irenaeus, etc.) whose christological views > are commonly (and, I think, correctly) seen as "high" christology, > involving some kind of real divinity of Christ (with the corollary of > worship of Christ). So, if the variant would have been seen as > problematic for high christology, why would it have been used/favored in > these passages by these fathers? > > Larry Hurtado It is true that I see plenty of ambiguity in quotes from the Church Fathers. I have not had the oportunity to study them in depth, but I do plan to spend some time doing so. I do get the feeling that their writings have been compromised by centuries of Christological battles, yet there are quotes by some Fathers which remain from the time period which William refered which lead me to believe that some understood the nature of Christ to be a created being, not equal to His Father. Of course by the fourth century those with that viewpoint were not popular, likely to be persecuted, and certainly their writings have been largely destroyed. So what we have to remember them by are comments from their critics which certainly can not be taken as unbiased. Therefore, because of the evolution of thought from the time that the apostles were alive up to the time of the fourth century when the Trinitarian Creeds were fully developed I think that statements like 'only the Father in Heaven is good.' may have been completely acceptable in say the second century and somewhat embarrassing in the third century and completely unaceptable in the fourth century. Just a lay person's, uneducated opinion, -lars From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 14 18:10:50 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA16641; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 18:09:46 -0400 Message-Id: <199606142206.WAA96492@r02n06.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 18:06:30 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: Theories of trans.--continued Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 15802 Thanks again to all the respondents to my second post (#2). Some comments in response to the various correspondents. (1) After agreeing on several points, Bob Waltz remarks: >Examples, unfortunately, don't prove a rule one way or the other. Each >father must be examined individually, and *thoroughly*, before we can >cite a rule. I'm willing to concede that people have often dismissed >this or that work too easily -- but your argument cuts both ways. >We must examine everything on a case-by-case basis. I agree that "each father must be studied individually and thoroughly," which is precisely why I made my original post. I re-ask the question I asked in it: How can one presume to discuss the genesis of the NT text and theories of transmission if one consistently ignores the oldest recoverable evidence, namely, the Fathers? If such work had been done, then the example I adduced would be familiar to everyone, as would all similar examples, and we would be talking about how Justin, Marcion, Clement of Al., etc., fit into the history of transmission, rather than making excuses about their citations being "loose" or their MS tradition being corrupt, etc., etc. These are simply pretexts (as Schmid noted in his post) for avoiding the uncomfortable truth that NONE of the earliest Fathers dominantly agree with ANY later textual "family" (Alexnadrian, Byzantine, etc.). (But again, none of this is new: see the quotation from Burkitt in my original post; Burkitt was writing nearly a century ago...) Indeed, the Fathers OFTEN show a cavalier attitude to the text--an attitude which is most likely identical with the scribes of their day (after all, THEY were the [somewhat-] educated "elite"; scribes were mere hewers of wood, lesser minds...). But sometimes they do not, and that is where we should get busy... To my way of thinking, an example "proves" a lot more than rhetoric. We now have a specific example in front of us, supported by no less than eight sources from the early church, geographically spread from Lyons to Edessa to Alexandria to Rome, and by language from Latin to Greek to Syriac to Armenian, which all have essentially the same deviating reading. We have cut away the cant about the manuscripts of the Fathers having been corrupted during their transmission, and we have also pared away the obfuscation about "loose" citations among the Fathers (N.B.: *both* are there, *sometimes*; but the "loose" ones *cannot* be used in a blanket dismissal of the Fathers or early apocyrphal documents). 2) Larry Hurtado wrote: >I do, however, want to log a much more modest contribution of my >own, by way of a hesitation to accept right away Bill's proposal for the >cause/meaning of the variation twixt some of the early Fathers and the >majority of surviving mss evidence. First, I fail to see how the >variation between "God" and "my Father in heaven" reflects any major >christological variation, Bill. I think your shooting at shadows here. I think a look at the text will help clarify this. (I take the same position as Alan Repurk said he'd *tried* to float in his discussion with someone...) First, *even if* the text had "God" (which it does not...we'll come to that later in the next paragraph, under "Second,..."), there IS a significant difference, IN THIS CONTEXT, between "God" and "my Father in heaven." Jesus is NOT "the Father in heaven," therefore, if only *one* is good, then Jesus cannot be good--only the "Father in heaven." On the other hand, if one says, "Only one is good, God," then Jesus CAN--by later Christological theory--be "good" for, although he is on earth (and not "in heaven"), he is "god." That is a BIG difference, and goes exactly to the point I was making by urging people to compare the changes in Matt 19.16-17 when compared with Mark 10.17-18. Christology is the issue in the changes in the canonical text as it now stands; Christology also appears to play a role in the interpolation (or omission) of the phrase "my Father in the heavens." Second, the citation in Justin reads: eis estin agathos, o pater mou o en tois ouranois. The "eis estin agathos" is UNIQUELY MATTHEAN. Matthew 19.17 reads: eis estin o agathos. while Mark and Luke both read: oudeis agathos ei me eis o theos. There IS NO "theos" in Matthew's text. So the comparison Hurtado attempts to make ("I fail to see how the variation between "God" and "my Father in heaven" reflects any major christological variation") is simply a non liquet. Justin's reading, if actually from the Matthean parallel, moves the Matthean text BACK in the direction of a "low" Christology: "Don't call me (Jesus) good; only God (the Father in heaven) is good" (= Mark, Luke). The q.e.d. of the Mark/Luke version is that Jesus is not god. (That, of course, is why this passage generates the interest it has; if it were whether it were 200 or 500 denarii, we'd be doing other things...) Larry continues: >I do,however, find it interesting that the latter variant is >simply the *well known* opening address of the Paternoster, with the >substituion of "mou" for "hemon". Seems entirely likely to me that >Justin, et alia, simply (and freely) preferred that more familiar >liturgical phrase, thus making their piety/usage more directly connected >with Jesus' own. And this esp. in the Dial. 101 context, where Justin's >point is to emphasize Jesus' humility (citing Ps 21/22 extensively). This, indeed, strikes me--if I may quote Larry himself?--as "shooting at shadows." I don't see it in Justin. But even more important is that we are NOT just talking about Justin here, BUT ALSO: Ephrem (= Tatian), Hippolytus, Irenaeus, and the Pseudo-Clementines for the FULL text, and Clement of Alexandria and Vetus Lat. MSS a and d for the abbreviated version. Did they all ALSO, all INDEPENDENTLY think of the Pater Noster here, and SPONTANEOUSLY change their citation of Jesus' words to reflect it? (Occam had a razor...) (Just a question: Why are we prone to say the early Fathers cite "loosely," and that THEIR MS tradition has been corrupted, rather than that the early Fathers sometimes cite accurately, and that OUR NT MS tradition has been corrupted? Or why are we prone to say that Justin reached out to...uh, well,...ahhh, yes! the "Our Father" to explain this variant--when, if that were so, we still have to account for all the other instances OF THE IDENTICAL VARIANT IN OTHER WORKS? [But, I forget: the author of the Pseudo-Clementines was citing Justin when he quoted the passage in Syriac his third century romance, right???]) Finally, Dr. Hurtado remarks that: >Second, and a bit more telling for me, the variant which Bill >suggests might have been seen as problemmatic christologically is freely >used by Fathers (e.g., Justin, Irenaeus, etc.) whose christological views >are commonly (and, I think, correctly) seen as "high" christology, >involving some kind of real divinity of Christ (with the corollary of >worship of Christ). Hmmm. It is news to me that Justin's Christology is "high" (I have not studied Irenaeus in detail, so I will not comment on him; I have spent time on Justin: NTS 36 [1990], 512-534; VigChr 46 [1992], 241-256). Justin's Christology, like that of much of the NT, is very "mixed," that is, a melange--quite probably cobbled together from all sorts of sources (the origins of many of which he might not have known), over a long period of time. Within the NT, think of the passage we've just seen in Mark ("Good Teacher"..."Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone"), or many other instances: Mark 11.12-14 & 11.20-25 (cursing of the fig tree): compare with the parallel in Matt 21.18-19 (Luke omits the whole embarrassing passage). Matthew DELETES the statement that "it was not the season for figs," which, in Mark, means Jesus didn't know when figs were ripe; Matthew also DELETES the statement "he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it," which, in Mark, means Jesus didn't know whether or not there were figs on the tree--something even the most inebriated Greek or Roman god could intuit. Or again: Luke 22.43-44 is disputed in the MSS, and, my friends, if I were "God," then I most certainly would have no need of "an angel from heaven appear[ing] to [me] and gave [me] strength." Etc. Christological issues--sometimes not familiar to us (remember that diophysites were torturing and murdering monophysites in the 400s-600s...)--are significant motives in changing the text of the NT. As for Justin's Christology, consider the following passage: (Dial. 126.1) "But if you knew, Trypho," I continued, "who He is that is called at one time the Angel of great counsel, and a Man by Ezekiel, and like the Son of man by Daniel, and a Child by Isaiah, and Christ and God to be worshipped by David, and Christ and a Stone by many, and Wisdom by Solomon, and Joseph and Judah and a Star by Moses, and the East by Zechariah, and the Suffering One and Jacob and Israel by Isaiah again, and a Rod, and Flower, and Cornerstone, and Son of God, you would not have blasphemed Him who has now come, and been born, and suffered, and ascended to heaven; who shall also come again, and then your twelve tribes shall mourn. (2) For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.... (127.1) ...wherever God says, "God went up from Abraham," or, "The Lord spoke to Moses," and "The Lord came down to behold the tower which the sons of men had built," or when "God shut Noah into the ark," you must not imagine that the unbegotten God Himself came down or went up from any place. (2) For the ineffable Father and Lord of all neither has come to any place, nor walks, nor sleeps, nor rises up, but remains in His own place.... How, then, could He talk with any one, or be seen by anyone, or appear on the smallest portion of the earth.... (4) Therefore, neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any other man, saw the Father and ineffable Lord of all, and also of Christ, but [saw] Him who was according to His will His Son, being God, and the Angel because He ministered to His will; whom it also pleased Him to be born a man by the Virgin; who was also fire when He conversed with Moses from the bush.... (128.1) "And that Christ, being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as a Man, and as an Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush..." (128.2-3) ...the power sent from the Father of all which appeared...is called Glory, because He appears in a vision sometimes that cannot be borne... This hardly suggests that Jesus was identical with "God the Father"; sounds like Jesus is CALLED a "god" because he was God's son...just as in Ex. 7.1 humans can be called "god," and the Jews are called God's "sons" and the Psalmist, God's "son." (Of course Jesus himself says that in John 10.22-39, esp. 34-36; but why pay attention to that, if it doesn't agree with current Trinitarian theology, right???) Justin DOES have passages which bespeak a relatively "high" Christology," and others which do not. Therefore, to categorize his Christology as "high" seems, to me, at least, unfair. Two more texts which inform (and have parallels with) Justin's mindset--and the mindset of early Christianity: (Aphrahat, Dem. XVII.1) ...they [the Jews] say thus, "You worship and serve a man who was begotten, a son of man who was crucified, and you call a son of men 'God'." And although God has no son, you say about this crucified Jesus that he is the Son of God.... Therefore, you are opposing God in that you call a man God. (XVII.2) ...while we grant to them [the Jews] that he is man, and at the same time we honor him and call him God and Lord, it is not in any strange fashion that we so call him, nor do we apply to him a novel name, which they [the Jews] themselves do not use. Yet it is a sure thing with us that Jesus our Lord is God, the Son of God, and the King, the King's Son, Light from light, Creator and Counselor, and Guide, and Way, and Redeemer, and Shepherd, Gatherer, and Door, and Pearl, and Lamp; and by many names is he surnamed. But we shall leave aside all of them, and prove concerning him that he who came from god is the son of god and god. (3) The venerated name of Godhead has been applied also to righteous men, and they have been held worthy to be called by it. And the men with whom God was well pleased, them he called "My sons" and "My friends." When he chose Moses his friend and his beloved and made him chief and teacher and priest unto his people he called him God. For he said to him: "I have made you a God unto Pharaoh." And he gave him His priest for a prophet, "And Aaron your brother shall speak for you to Pharaoh, and you shall be unto him a God, and he shall be unto you an interpreter." Thus not alone to the evil Pharaoh did He make Moses God, but also unto Aaron, the holy priest, He made Moses God. (4) Again, hear concerning the title Son of God, by which we have called Him. They [the Jews] say that "though God has no son, you make that crucified Jesus, the firstborn son of God." Yet He called Israel, "My firstborn; I have said unto you, let My Son go to serve me... Out of Egypt I have called my Son."... So also we call the Christ, the Son of God, for through him we have gained the knowledge of God; even as He called Israel, "My firstborn son," and as He said concerning Solomon, "He shall be to me a son." And we call him God, even as He surnamed Moses by His own name.... (5) For the name of Divinity is given for the highest honor in the world, and with whomsoever God is well please, He applied it to him.... (6)...Though He is the great King, He grudges not the name of Kingship to men. And though He is the great God, yet He grudged not the name of Godhead to the sons of flesh.... (7) ...no one should suppose that there is another God, either before or afterwards... 8) Now by these things the stubborn will be convinced that it is nothing strange that we call Christ the Son of God.... And they will be forced to own that the name of Godhead also belongs to Him [Christ], for He [God] associated the righteous also in the name of God. Finally, the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, the same document which, like Justin, reads "my Father in the heavens": (II.42) Therefore, the name God is applied in these ways: either because he to whom it is given is truly God, or because he is the servant of him who is truly [God]; and for the honour of the sender, that his authority may be full, he that is sent is called by the name of him who send, as is often done in respect of angels:... For the Most High God, who alone holds the power of all things, has divided all the nations of the earth into seventy-two parts, and over these He has appointed angels as princes. But to the one among the archangels who is greatest, was committed the government of those who, before all others, received the worship and knowledge of the Most High God... But Christ is God of princes, who is Judge of all... But of course, this is all old hat, for it is all pre-Christian, found in Philo, in his discussion of Ex. 7.1 and elsewhere (try on Q. in Gen., II.62, for size): "The oracle was given by God. For nothing mortal can be made in the likeness of the most high One and Father of the universe, but only in that of the second God, who is His Logos." It may not be the Christology of now, but I have a pretty good inkling that it was the Christology of THEN, and that is what I am researching--NOT what I may or may not subscribe to NOW. --Petersen, Penn. State Univ. From owner-tc-list Sat Jun 15 09:16:42 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA18263; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 09:14:03 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Jun 96 08:10 CDT X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) Subject: Re: Theories of trans.--continued Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1748 On Fri, 14 Jun 1996, wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) wrote, in part: > >To my way of thinking, an example "proves" a lot more than rhetoric. I'm sorry, but I can't let this pass. I have no objections to Peterson's examples, but this statement is "not only wrong but wrong-headed." You can prove *anything* using examples. You can find a man who says a Hindu mystic "cured" him of his cancer by telling him to stand on his head for a week. You can find materials that get colder when exposed to heat. You can even find examples of Westcott & Hort agreeing with Codex Bezae against Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (an infamous list of nine, in fact...). The *only* basis for scientific study is statistical. Examples serve to *illustrate* rules, not to define them. I'll give you a case in point. (I'd call it an example, but it might confuse things.) Climb to the top of a building and drop a rock and a feather. See which one falls to the ground first. The rock, right? On the face of it, this seems to violate the law of universal gravitation. But nobody questions gravitation. Why? Because Galileo gathered the data in *hundreds* of experiments, rolling balls down inclined planes. Then Newton took this data, organized it, and derived a law. And that law *works* -- despite a few oddities like feathers being held up by air pressure. So please, don't cite examples to prove anything. Unless it's statistical, it's not science, it's folklore. And if you don't think science matters in this field, then what are you doing typing at a computer rather than writing on linen paper with a quill pen (or, more likely, out on your land looking at the rear ends of a couple of oxen as you plow your field...)? :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Sun Jun 16 16:29:56 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA21584; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 16:27:25 -0400 Message-Id: <199606162023.QAA18404@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 16:23:48 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: On "examples" and "proof"... Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 6170 I agree with Waltz's comment totally. If he reads the portion of my post which he himself quotes, he will see why. He draws this quote from my post: >>To my way of thinking, an example "proves" a lot more than rhetoric. He then takes me to task for failing to note that "examples can be used to prove anything." That is not what I am saying, and Waltz must know from statistics (which he praises in his post) that an absolute claim needs only ONE exception to be invalidated. In the case at issue here, I have seen lots of RHETORIC (which is, after all, what I contrast "example" with; I did not contrast it with statistics, as Waltz's post would lead one to think...) being used to make all sorts of claims. We all recall examples from the list's short history: the fathers cite inaccurately; the fathers' MS tradition has been corrupted in the history of their transmission; the Byzantine (or Alexandrian) text MUST have been the earliest text; discussion of the history of the text (in most posts on TC) commences in the fourth century, ignoring the second and third. The question in my original post was: Why are we talking this way when the empirical evidence from the second, third and fourth cents. either invalidates or "brackets" (i.e., severely restricts and limits) the claims being made? I have capitalized my reservations about the fathers/versions/AND NT MSS throughout my posts. I make no absolue claims as to what I "know" we will find--for I do not. All I have said--and I have presented the TEXTUAL evidence for it--is that we CANNOT presume that the fathers cite carelessly ALL THE TIME, or that their MS tradition has been corrupted ALL THE TIME, for the EVIDENCE EMPIRICALLY DOES NOT SUPPORT THESE DOGMATIC, ABSOLUTE ASSERTIONS. And only ONE example is necessary to falsify these claims. If those statements are modified to reflect the empirical facts (e.g., that Justin's text has many "Western" elements in it, and few [if any?] Byzantine elements; see M. Mees' conclusions on a book-by-book basis for Clement of Al's text; etc.), then I have no objection. Like anyone, I can produce examples where the patristic citations DO appear "loose" and where the MS tradition probably HAS been corrupted. But--as I have--I can ALSO produce instances where it does NOT appear the citation is loose or the transmission has been corrupted. All I ask is that the same, empirical textual evidence be presented to back up the claims, statements, and assertions often being made solely on the basis of rhetoric. Indeed, that is the "scientific" way, isn't it? Rhetoric and pet theories--whether ecclesiastically espoused, or propounded on the basis of personal convictions--just don't make it. Evidence does. And when absolute claims are made, only ONE example is needed to falsify it. I am more than happy to use statistics, which I often do in my work. By the way, how many Byzantine or Alexandrian readings are there in Justin, or Tertullian, or the Didache??? Statistics anyone??? Indeed, let's use examples and statistics, for then, at least, we will all be speaking the same language, examining the same evidence. Cheers! --Petersen, Penn State Univ. PS: Two more examples from Justin: Justin (Apol. 15.16) substitutes "nous" for "kardia" when citing Matt 6.21/Luke 12.34. The identical substitution is found in Clem. Al. Strom. 7.12.77, QDS 17.1, and in Macarius, Hom. 43.3. The QDS passage, like Justin, contains an interpolation tacked on as well: it is the "nous tou anthropou" in both. (Macarius is fourth cent., Syria/Mesopotamia, but Greek appears to have been the Homilies' original language). (These readings are, incidentally, absent from the apparatus of the IGNT Luke, and demonstrate how careful one has to be when using it: one STILL needs to manually check EVERYTHING via the "Biblia Patristica" volumes...) Seems to me that this is a rather precise textual tradition, which circulated in the very early church, and was quoted identically by two of the earliest fathers.... At Matt 5.16, where the critical text now reads "lampsato to fos humon," Justin reads (at Apol. 16.2) "lampsato de humon ta kala erga" ("pur" has been cited earlier in Justin's text; he has no "fos"). The "erga/opera [Lat.]" reading shows up in the following: A) Clem. Al., Strom. 3.4.36 B) Clem. Al., Strom. 4.26.171 (gee, at least Clement is consistent....) C) Eusebius, Comm. in Ps., 28 D) Tertullian, De cultu fem. 13 E) Tertullian, De idolatria (gee, at least Tertullian is consistent...) F) Origen, Ex. ad martyr. 18 G) Origen, In ev. Ioan. 2.1.5 (hmmm... Origen is consistent in his citation as well...) Eusebius (c. 300) is the latest of these sources; Justin is the earliest (c. 150). That means this variant had a lifespan of at least a century and a half, flourishing BEFORE the oldest of our uncials, and its genesis antedates ANY of the papyri (save P-52) by AT LEAST 25-75 years. Only G)-Origen, In ev. Ioan., has a "fos" cognate ("fotos") in his citation... Again, an early variant, widespread (Latin, Greek; Rome, Alexandria, Caesarea, Carthage), which is cited either verbatim or in a very similar form by all of the above. Strikes me like a legitimate variant, the earliest version of the text we have, right? (If anyone has an earlier citation/MS, please inform us....) Lest I be credited with these findings, they are from A.J. Bellinzoni's 30-year-old monograph (well, almost: it appeared in 1967): "The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr" (Brill, Supp.NT 17), originally a dissertation he did under Koester's direction at Harvard. The first is from pp. 90-92, and the second is from pp. 92-94. Those who have German would do well to look at Koester's own "Synoptische Ueberlieferung bei den Apolstolischen Vaetern" (Berlin, 1957). A. Resch's century-old stuff ("Aussercanonische Paralleltexte" and also his "Agrapha") is still invaluable as a rich mine of parallels from the apostolic period. These old codgers were no fools, and frequently had a broader grasp of the textual tradition of the NT than is commonly in evidence today. Ciao! From owner-tc-list Sun Jun 16 20:21:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA22036; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 20:20:33 -0400 Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 20:20:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: Upcoming this month (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1486 I think many on the list will be interested in this message from James Tauber, director of the Electronic New Testament Manuscript Project. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 04:05:37 +0800 (WST) From: James K. Tauber To: announce@entmp.org Subject: Upcoming this month This month should prove to be a significant month for the Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project in a number of respects. Firstly, the manuscript room will be officially opened and a handful of manuscript images made available for viewing. Second, the new manuscript catalogue (at http://www.entmp.org/catalogue) will be extended to include the uncials. Amongst other things, the new catalogue allows one to search for manuscripts containing a particular book, chapter or even verse of the New Testament. Finally, the web pages will shift physical location from my old 486 connected at the University of Western Australia to iiNet Technologies (http://www.iinet.net.au/), a local Internet Service Provider that has most generously agreed to host the Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project. James K. Tauber http://www.entmp.org/people/jtauber Associate Director, Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 17 06:07:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA23071; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 05:52:09 -0400 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 10:46:14 GMT Subject: Re: Theories of trans.--continued Priority: normal X-mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1048 Dr Waltz writes that statistics are science, example is folklore. Statistics is doubtless a kind of science, some examples are no doubt folklore. But in our discipline (as in any other), statistics are meaningless without a skilled interpretation. With regard to examples, what do we have _but_ examples? I should also add that philology traditionally gave particular weight to the significant reading, one of which might prove a relationship between 2 mss more conclusively than forty less telling readings. Before anybody tells me that I'm referring to the study of the classic, I know. But the principle has also been used in NT text. crit., and I think that we should keep it in mind. But we were not discussing the relationship between mss (in which statistics is used), but the evidence of our second century sources, which Bill had suggested had been overlooked in earlier mailings. David Parker DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 17 08:05:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA23256; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 08:04:00 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 96 07:00 CDT X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) Subject: Re: On "examples" and "proof"... Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 10368 On Sun, 16 Jun 1996, wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) wrote: >I agree with Waltz's comment totally. If he reads the portion of my post >which he himself quotes, he will see why. All right, my apologies. I guess we *are* on the same side in this particular sub-debate. I think it's just that those of us with scientific training get subjected to so much hearsay evidence that we get hypersensitive. At least, I do. So let me say that I am *not* in disagreement with Peterson. But I would clear up a few points. (This is probably going to be incredibly boring, but I don't want to be accused of fuzzy language.) >He draws this quote from my post: > >>>To my way of thinking, an example "proves" a lot more than rhetoric. > >He then takes me to task for failing to note that "examples can be used to >prove anything." That is not what I am saying, and Waltz must know from >statistics (which he praises in his post) that an absolute claim needs only >ONE exception to be invalidated. True -- but a good scientist will never make an absolute claim. Oh, we are often guilty of loose language (I've done it on this list), but a true scientist would not say "33 is an Alexandrian text," but rather "33 agrees with the Alexandrian witnesses in 86 of 110 instances observed instances" (or some such). A scientific approach is to make a hypothesis about data. This hypothesis *must* include a mathematical measure, and have a way of measuring "goodness of fit." Observations are then made, and the experimenter examines the data. If the data comes close enough to the model, then the model is, tentatively, accepted. How much correlation we need, of course, depends on the subject under examination. In the physics lab, we considered ourselves to be doing a lousy job if our correlation was less than 97% (a correlation coefficient cannot exceed 100%). In medicine, a 50% correlation is miraculous. Determining correlation for textual relationships might be harder; we have a finite data set. I'll have to think about that. Most scientists believe in something. I myself believe in the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy (more strongly than I believe in God, I fear). But a true scientist expresses all things in probabilities. It's just that Conservation of Mass/Energy is 99.9% sure.... It's a good thing, too. If you ever have the opportunity to study quantum mechanics (not something I recommend :-), you'll learn that *anything* can happen. It's just that some things are *highly* unlikely. (Almost as unlikely as anyone caring about this post.) So scientists will not let *one* example destroy a theory. It just reduces the correlation coefficient.... >In the case at issue here, I have seen lots of RHETORIC (which is, after >all, what I contrast "example" with; I did not contrast it with statistics, >as Waltz's post would lead one to think...) being used to make all sorts of >claims. We all recall examples from the list's short history: the fathers >cite inaccurately; the fathers' MS tradition has been corrupted in the >history of their transmission; the Byzantine (or Alexandrian) text MUST >have been the earliest text; discussion of the history of the text (in most >posts on TC) commences in the fourth century, ignoring the second and third. > >The question in my original post was: Why are we talking this way when the >empirical evidence from the second, third and fourth cents. either >invalidates or "brackets" (i.e., severely restricts and limits) the claims >being made? > >I have capitalized my reservations about the fathers/versions/AND NT MSS >throughout my posts. I make no absolue claims as to what I "know" we will >find--for I do not. All I have said--and I have presented the TEXTUAL >evidence for it--is that we CANNOT presume that the fathers cite carelessly >ALL THE TIME, or that their MS tradition has been corrupted ALL THE TIME, >for the EVIDENCE EMPIRICALLY DOES NOT SUPPORT THESE DOGMATIC, ABSOLUTE >ASSERTIONS. And only ONE example is necessary to falsify these claims. If >those statements are modified to reflect the empirical facts (e.g., that >Justin's text has many "Western" elements in it, and few [if any?] >Byzantine elements; see M. Mees' conclusions on a book-by-book basis for >Clement of Al's text; etc.), then I have no objection. Amen to that. Not having had time to go over *all* available evidence (who of us has?), I was content to accept others' hasty statements. It would appear that I (among others) was wrong. >Like anyone, I can produce examples where the patristic citations DO appear >"loose" and where the MS tradition probably HAS been corrupted. But--as I >have--I can ALSO produce instances where it does NOT appear the citation is >loose or the transmission has been corrupted. All I ask is that the same, >empirical textual evidence be presented to back up the claims, statements, >and assertions often being made solely on the basis of rhetoric. Something I have always tried to do -- though it has often been difficult in the case of the Fathers. In *my* library, at least, the evidence is inadequate. And I will admit to a possibly irrational prejudice in favour of manuscripts over patristic citations. Probably because I can examime the manuscript for any reading I want.... >Indeed, that is the "scientific" way, isn't it? Rhetoric and pet >theories--whether ecclesiastically espoused, or propounded on the basis of >personal convictions--just don't make it. Evidence does. And when absolute >claims are made, only ONE example is needed to falsify it. See comments above. >I am more than happy to use statistics, which I often do in my work. By the >way, how many Byzantine or Alexandrian readings are there in Justin, or >Tertullian, or the Didache??? Statistics anyone??? Indeed, let's use >examples and statistics, for then, at least, we will all be speaking the >same language, examining the same evidence. I can't offer much; my databases are built around continuous text manuscripts. The only place where I've examined the fathers is in Paul, and even there I've only done two: Ambrosiaster and Origen. And the evidence for Origen is rather iffy, since some comes from Greek fragments and some from the Latin. And, of course, Origen sometimes cited a passage more than once and in more than one form. (In a lot of instances, I just had to say that I don't *know* Origen's reading.) And -- before people ask -- yes, I *did* examine readings section by section; there was no statistically significant difference. So I'm giving statistics only for Paul as a whole, because a larger sample has more statistical significance (and because that saves me having to retype the whole thing, as well as re-extract the data from my database). Note that p46 and C have significant lacune, and so their number of near-singular agreements will be slightly smaller. Note also that 33 is Byzantine in Romans, and so their *is* a shift in its relations between Romans and other books which I have not noted here. Similarly with 1175 in Romans and Thessalonians and 330 in the latter part of Hebrews. These affect the overall statistics only slightly. In any case, here are the relations of two fathers to assorted major manuscripts. To save time, agreements (except near-singular agreements) are expressed as percentages. Origen (144 readings checked; of these, 64 were Byzantine) % agreement in Manuscript % agreement non-Byzantines near-singulars p46 59% 81% 7 Aleph 58% 87% 7 A 53% 78% 3 B 62% 89% 10 C 53% 79% 2 D 44% 67% 5 G 43% 68% 6 L 47% 67%* 0 33 54% 79% 1 81 56% 74% 1 330 42% 69%** 0 1175 47% 80% 0 1505 46% 55%** 0 1739 73% 90% 7 2127 50% 63% 0 * sample involves only 6 readings ** sample involves fewer than 14 readings (10% of overall sample) It is evident that Origen has a text closely related to family 1739 (whatever *that* is). Ambrosiaster (378 readings checked; of these, 130 were Byzantine) % agreement in Manuscript % agreement non-Byzantines near-singulars p46 43% 64% 25 Aleph 37% 68% 5 A 36% 63% 5 B 40% 70% 24 C 41% 66% 2 D 65% 87% 62 G 66% 84% 59 L 37% 75%* 1 33 40% 68% 11 81 38% 62% 3 330 37% 64% 4 1175 42% 78% 2 1505 41% 70% 3 1739 42% 70% 6 2127 40% 62% 0 b 74% 93% 67 WW Vulgate 54% 82% 27 * sample involves only 8 readings It will be observed that Ambrosiaster is strongly "Western" -- but also has a tendency toward p46/B (this is *not* just the so-called "Western" tendency of p46 and B; a reading supported by p46 B D G is almost certainly not going to show up as a near-singular). I realize these are relatively late fathers, dating from the period *after* text-types had become established. But I offer the data for whatever it may be worth. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 17 09:20:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA23551; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 09:19:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 96 08:16 CDT X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) Subject: Re: Theories of trans.--continued Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3129 On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, DC PARKER wrote: >Dr Waltz writes that statistics are science, example is folklore. First, let me apologize if I have given the impression that I have a doctorate. I don't, and I don't have any formal training in textual studies. I have a bachelor's in physics and math, and about seven years' worth of fanatic interest in textual criticism. But formal training -- none. >Statistics is doubtless a kind of science, some examples are no >doubt folklore. But in our discipline (as in any other), statistics are >meaningless without a skilled interpretation. With regard to >examples, what do we have _but_ examples? Agreed in part; we have a finite number of manuscripts, with a finite number of variations. So we cannot conduct "experiments" to gather more data. But the mass of data we already have is too much to be comprehended. We *must* summarize. And I will maintain that the only way we can summarize is statistically. Let me give an example of the danger of examples. W. L. Richards, in his extended study of the Johannine Epistles ("The Classification of the Greek Manuscripts of the Johannine Epistles," SBL Dissertation Series 35) claims that he can identify a manuscript's text-type based on a mere five readings (pp. 188-189). But the strongly Alexandrian ms. 81 has only three of these readings, and the purely Alexandrian 33 has only *one* of them! I agree that statistics need to be carefully prepared and intelligently evaluated. (We all know how disastrous the "differences from TR" statistic was for Streeter!) And examples are the only way to make things clear. But *only* statistical methods can give reliable results. >I should also add that philology traditionally gave particular weight to >the significant reading, one of which might prove a relationship >between 2 mss more conclusively than forty less telling readings. >Before anybody tells me that I'm referring to the study of the classic, I >know. But the principle has also been used in NT text. crit., and I >think that we should keep it in mind. Agreed -- but even the "significant reading" can be handled statistically. The method I use is the "near-singular reading." In my tables of results (such as the one I sent in my previous post), I give the number of near-singular agreements between all witnesses. These are generally *highly* significant readings. High rates of agreement here are a very strong indicator of kinship. However, *low* rates of agreement here do not necessarily imply lack of kinship. Like most statistics, it is something we must use carefully. >But we were not discussing the relationship between mss (in >which statistics is used), but the evidence of our second century >sources, which Bill had suggested had been overlooked in earlier >mailings. To date, we have not prepared statistics for most fathers. But if good critical editions of the fathers were available, there is no reason why we could not. With the fathers as with the manuscripts, knowledge of the sources *must* precede final decisions about readings. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 17 09:33:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA23639; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 09:32:17 -0400 X-SnapMAIL: 2.0.2 Message-ID: <000021BE.sm@dts.edu> Subject: OT Quantitative Analysis Date: Mon, 17 Jun 96 08:32:05 CST From: Mark_OBrien@dts.edu (Mark OBrien) To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu Organization: Dallas Theological Seminary X-HoloGate: 1.1.7c Lines: 3438 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 560 Just to change the subject a little from current discussions... Can anybody steer me towards any (if any?) books or articles describing attempts to conduct quantitative analysis of Hebrew MSS? Of special interest to me is any such work done with the Qumran biblical materials. I'm not even sure if anyone has ever worked up a way of doing this with the Hebrew MSS. Any leads would be appreciated. Thanks! Regards, Mark O'Brien Dallas Theological Seminary ---- "To be ignorant of what happened before you were born is ever to remain a child." -- Cicero From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 17 10:56:34 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA24081; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 10:55:38 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 09:52:23 -0500 (CDT) From: "Larry W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Theories of trans.--continued In-Reply-To: <199606142206.WAA96492@r02n06.cac.psu.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2150 Once again, we can thank Wm. Petersen for his lengthy posting about the textual variants at Mt. 19:16-17 and the christological issues he raised in his first long post. But once again I must express a couple of small reservations. 1) As to the variants to be considered, in fact "theos" *is* one, in some witnesses at Mt. 19:17, as a consultation of NA will show. So, I don't see how mentioning this is a "non liquet". 2) More seriously, as to Justin's christology, it is of course complex, as is the whole line of christological discussion that goes from the NT through the first 5 centuries, including the famous classical creeds. Why, otherwise, Bill, do you think it took so long?? For Justin, Jesus is genuinely a man, and the "Son/Logos" is (to use Justin's phrase) "numerically distinct" from the Father--no question. But, Bill, the lengthy quote where Justin finds Christ in many OT categories/titles is quite beside the point of whether Justin's christology is "high" or not. Justin's christology has been frequently studied, of course, and it's not Chalcedon, because it's still 2nd cent. But Justin clearly holds among his views of Christ/the Logos/Son the view that the the Son/Logos is the direct expression of God, worthy of worship, etc. Justin is not an adoptionist, so the complexity does not hide the fact of Justin's high christology. 3) The same "high" tradition is reflected also in Irenaeus, and the other early Fathers. So, Bill, (key point here): If the variant "My Father in Heaven" = something like adoptionism, etc., why would these Fathers have preferred it at these points? 4) If you look at Justin's passage in context, as I requested, you will see that J. is making the point of Christ's model humility/modesty, which shows that he is the fulfilment of OT passages (e.g., Ps 22). In this context, he uses the "my Father in Heaven" variant, which helps illustrate Christ's exemplary humility/modesty. Moreover, it *is* a fact that the variant is nearly a dead-ringer for the familiar opening of the Matt. version of the Lord's Prayer. Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 17 12:30:15 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA24618; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 12:29:04 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 12:25:44 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: jwest@SunBelt.Net (Jim West) Subject: virus X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <01I60K4ZP4968X2GGL@InfoAve.Net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2227 For your Info: >************************************************************ > WARNING!!!!!!! INTERNET VIRUS >************************************************************ > >The FCC released a warning last Wednesday concerning a matter of major >importance to any regular user of the Internet. Apparently a new computer >virus has been engineered by a user of AMERICA ON LINE that is >unparalleled in its destructive capability. Other more well-known viruses >such as "Stoned", "Airwolf" and Michaelangelo" pale in comparison to the >prospects of this newest creation by a warped mentality. What makes this >virus so terrifying, said the FCC, is the fact that no program needs to be >exchanged for a new computer to be infected. It can be spread through the >existing email systems of the Internet. Once a Computer is infected, one >of several things can happen. If the computer contains a hard drive, that >will most likely be destroyed. > > If the program is not stopped, the computer's processor will be placed in >an nth-complexity infinite binary loop -which can severely damage the >processor if left running that way too long. Unfortunately, most novice >computer users will not realize what is happening until it is far too >late. Luckily, there is one sure means of detecting what is now known as >the "Good Times" virus. It always travels to new computers the same way in >a text email message with the subject line reading "Good Times". Avoiding >infection is easy once the file has been received simply by NOT READING >IT! > >The act of loading the file into the mail server's ASCII buffer causes the >"Good Times" mainline program to initialize and execute. > >The program is highly intelligent- it will send copies of itself to >everyone whose email address is contained in a receive-mail file or a >sent-mail file, if it can find one. It will then proceed to trash the >computer it is running on. The bottom line there is - if you receive a >file with the subject line "Good Times", delete it immediately! Do not >read it" Rest assured that whoever's name was on the "From" line was >surely struck by the virus. Warn your friends and local system users of >this newest threat to the Internet! > From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 17 12:30:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA24613; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 12:28:55 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 12:25:33 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: jwest@SunBelt.Net (Jim West) Subject: Re:] E-mail Virus X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <01I60K4RMG8I8X2GGL@InfoAve.Net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2227 For your Info: >************************************************************ > WARNING!!!!!!! INTERNET VIRUS >************************************************************ > >The FCC released a warning last Wednesday concerning a matter of major >importance to any regular user of the Internet. Apparently a new computer >virus has been engineered by a user of AMERICA ON LINE that is >unparalleled in its destructive capability. Other more well-known viruses >such as "Stoned", "Airwolf" and Michaelangelo" pale in comparison to the >prospects of this newest creation by a warped mentality. What makes this >virus so terrifying, said the FCC, is the fact that no program needs to be >exchanged for a new computer to be infected. It can be spread through the >existing email systems of the Internet. Once a Computer is infected, one >of several things can happen. If the computer contains a hard drive, that >will most likely be destroyed. > > If the program is not stopped, the computer's processor will be placed in >an nth-complexity infinite binary loop -which can severely damage the >processor if left running that way too long. Unfortunately, most novice >computer users will not realize what is happening until it is far too >late. Luckily, there is one sure means of detecting what is now known as >the "Good Times" virus. It always travels to new computers the same way in >a text email message with the subject line reading "Good Times". Avoiding >infection is easy once the file has been received simply by NOT READING >IT! > >The act of loading the file into the mail server's ASCII buffer causes the >"Good Times" mainline program to initialize and execute. > >The program is highly intelligent- it will send copies of itself to >everyone whose email address is contained in a receive-mail file or a >sent-mail file, if it can find one. It will then proceed to trash the >computer it is running on. The bottom line there is - if you receive a >file with the subject line "Good Times", delete it immediately! Do not >read it" Rest assured that whoever's name was on the "From" line was >surely struck by the virus. Warn your friends and local system users of >this newest threat to the Internet! > From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 17 13:15:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA24944; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 13:14:14 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 96 10:09:57 PDT Message-Id: <9606171709.AA01379@Np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <01I60K4RMG8I8X2GGL@InfoAve.Net> (jwest@SunBelt.Net) Subject: Re: ] E-mail Virus Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 949 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > WARNING!!!!!!! INTERNET VIRUS Please don't propagate this warning any further. It is laced with amusing double-talk and technical impossibilities. Ordinary garden-variety email cannot spread viruses unless they send you a _program_ and tell you to trustingly run it on your machine and you fall for it. Vincent Broman, code 783 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div. San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641 === PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@np.nosc.mil === -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMcWREWCU4mTNq7IdAQGj0QP/ex93FcDjEy6TzYgzcQJ7JrtSMp5fwZQB foGJeFn2PjRH6FSbIgvHmi93tUVQCz4LMbDN5Mpn1cTXkdCcSF9e8uw4Dq3fjp8m 07T/quYIyIOXrcwLqLpHMK5kgpVKq1Nw9uAs371k/mpTsA65NPyErPnzBJFz58Cz Ts21awt0fLk= =5eed -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 17 14:01:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA25261; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 13:59:58 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960617175623.51bfbe60@gpo.iol.ie> X-Sender: mauros@gpo.iol.ie X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 18:56:23 +0100 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" Subject: Re: virus Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2552 At 12:25 17/06/96 -0400, you wrote: >For your Info: > >>************************************************************ >> WARNING!!!!!!! INTERNET VIRUS >>************************************************************ >> >>The FCC released a warning last Wednesday concerning a matter of major >>importance to any regular user of the Internet. Apparently a new computer >>virus has been engineered by a user of AMERICA ON LINE that is >>unparalleled in its destructive capability. Other more well-known viruses >>such as "Stoned", "Airwolf" and Michaelangelo" pale in comparison to the >>prospects of this newest creation by a warped mentality. What makes this >>virus so terrifying, said the FCC, is the fact that no program needs to be >>exchanged for a new computer to be infected. It can be spread through the >>existing email systems of the Internet. Once a Computer is infected, one >>of several things can happen. If the computer contains a hard drive, that >>will most likely be destroyed. >> >> If the program is not stopped, the computer's processor will be placed in >>an nth-complexity infinite binary loop -which can severely damage the >>processor if left running that way too long. Unfortunately, most novice >>computer users will not realize what is happening until it is far too >>late. Luckily, there is one sure means of detecting what is now known as >>the "Good Times" virus. It always travels to new computers the same way in >>a text email message with the subject line reading "Good Times". Avoiding >>infection is easy once the file has been received simply by NOT READING >>IT! >> >>The act of loading the file into the mail server's ASCII buffer causes the >>"Good Times" mainline program to initialize and execute. >> >>The program is highly intelligent- it will send copies of itself to >>everyone whose email address is contained in a receive-mail file or a >>sent-mail file, if it can find one. It will then proceed to trash the >>computer it is running on. The bottom line there is - if you receive a >>file with the subject line "Good Times", delete it immediately! Do not >>read it" Rest assured that whoever's name was on the "From" line was >>surely struck by the virus. Warn your friends and local system users of >>this newest threat to the Internet! >> > > The irresponsibility of the author of this message in spreading to the entire list a two year old joke is only exceeded by his technical illiteracy in swallowing whole such "magic" words as "an nth-complexity infinite binary loop" Regards, From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 17 14:19:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA25344; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 14:18:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 11:14:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: dwilkins@ucr.campus.mci.net (Don Wilkins) Subject: Re: On "examples" and "proof"... Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 5322 William L. Petersen said: >PS: Two more examples from Justin: > >Justin (Apol. 15.16) substitutes "nous" for "kardia" when citing Matt >6.21/Luke 12.34. The identical substitution is found in Clem. Al. Strom. >7.12.77, QDS 17.1, and in Macarius, Hom. 43.3. The QDS passage, like >Justin, contains an interpolation tacked on as well: it is the "nous tou >anthropou" in both. (Macarius is fourth cent., Syria/Mesopotamia, but Greek >appears to have been the Homilies' original language). (These readings are, >incidentally, absent from the apparatus of the IGNT Luke, and demonstrate >how careful one has to be when using it: one STILL needs to manually check >EVERYTHING via the "Biblia Patristica" volumes...) Seems to me that this is >a rather precise textual tradition, which circulated in the very early >church, and was quoted identically by two of the earliest fathers.... > >At Matt 5.16, where the critical text now reads "lampsato to fos humon," >Justin reads (at Apol. 16.2) "lampsato de humon ta kala erga" ("pur" has >been cited earlier in Justin's text; he has no "fos"). The "erga/opera >[Lat.]" reading shows up in the following: > >A) Clem. Al., Strom. 3.4.36 >B) Clem. Al., Strom. 4.26.171 > (gee, at least Clement is consistent....) >C) Eusebius, Comm. in Ps., 28 >D) Tertullian, De cultu fem. 13 >E) Tertullian, De idolatria > (gee, at least Tertullian is consistent...) >F) Origen, Ex. ad martyr. 18 >G) Origen, In ev. Ioan. 2.1.5 > (hmmm... Origen is consistent in his citation as well...) > > >Eusebius (c. 300) is the latest of these sources; Justin is the earliest >(c. 150). That means this variant had a lifespan of at least a century and >a half, flourishing BEFORE the oldest of our uncials, and its genesis >antedates ANY of the papyri (save P-52) by AT LEAST 25-75 years. Only >G)-Origen, In ev. Ioan., has a "fos" cognate ("fotos") in his citation... >Again, an early variant, widespread (Latin, Greek; Rome, Alexandria, >Caesarea, Carthage), which is cited either verbatim or in a very similar >form by all of the above. Strikes me like a legitimate variant, the >earliest version of the text we have, right? (If anyone has an earlier >citation/MS, please inform us....) I regret not having had the time to read all the posts and consequently being ignorant of much that has been said. However, I would like to comment on this postscript. In many "citations" a textual variation seems to be nothing more than a paraphrase of the autograph and hardly worthy of being considered a true variant. The substitution of nous for kardia strikes me as an obvious example of this, so that its occurrence even in early authors can probably be written off as coincidence. The case of lampsato ktl. seems more interesting, so I did a few searches on the TLG. It appears, first of all, that Justin's "lampsato de humon ta kala erga" (with or without "de") occurs nowhere else. Granted, one can find variations on Matthew's "humon ta kala erga" with lampsato elsewhere, but the more paraphrastic the form in the fathers, the more tenuous the reference. I apparently don't understand the comment "gee, at least Clement is consistent...." because in fact Clement has "lampsatw to phos humon" twice in his Excerpta ex Theodoto (1.3.1 and 2.41.3), following Matthew exactly. On the other hand, in Strom. 3.4.36 he has "ta agatha humon erga lampsato" (different word order and agatha for kala) and in Strom. 4.26.171 he has "lampsato gar sou ta erga". These variations strike me as paraphrases, especially in light of Clement's citations in the Excerpta. Moreover, I also did a search of "lampsato to fos humon" and found it to be comparatively prolific: Clement (already cited), Gregory of Nyssa (at least 3 times), Basil (at least 4 times), Origen (Contr. Celsum 5.10, 3 times in ev. Ioan., once in ev. Matt., and once in Frag....Corinth.), at least once in Asterius (comm. in Psalmos, 4th cent), many times in Chrysostom, at least once in Didymus the Blind (Frag. in Psalmos), at least 3 times in Macarius (Sermones 64, Hom. spirit., and Epist. magna), at least twice in John of Damascus, and at least 3 times in Theodoretus (Interp. in Psalmos, Explan. in Cant., and Interp. in xii epist...Pauli). These include some later fathers, but not much later than the fourth cent. and in any case one may ask why better examples of the lampsato...erga variation are not more common. Mr. Petersen's reference to Origen's Ex. ad martyr has "lampsanton autou ton kalon ergon", which again could be viewed as mere paraphrase, and I must either admit confusion or misunderstanding of his reference to ev. Ioan. 2.1.5, where I find only "para to lampein autou ta erga emprosthen ton anthropon photos". This latter case has to be viewed either as a conflation or (more likely) paraphrase as well, and I fail to see how it contributes to the defense of lampsato...erga as a legitimate variant. Unfortunately I do not have convenient access to Tertullian (who is not included on the PHI disk), or I would have searched there as well. If I have missed or oversimplified something I apologize in advance (especially to Mr. Petersen), and hope that I have at least contributed additional useful citations. Don Wilkins UC Riverside Don Wilkins UC Riverside From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 17 14:31:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA25381; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 14:30:19 -0400 Message-ID: <31C5A44D.58CB620@repurk.mw.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 11:30:37 -0700 From: Alan Repurk Organization: I do not speak for my organization X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b3 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Luke 23:43 - UNCIAL and punctuation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 118 Anyone here ever heard of punctuation found in an Aramaic manuscript of this verse held by the Vatican ? tia -lars From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 17 15:51:37 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA25918; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:50:27 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:42:27 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: jwest@SunBelt.Net (Jim West) Subject: sorry X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <01I60QZWF2028YFZ39@InfoAve.Net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 326 I am dreadfully sorry that I passed on a message from the kingdom of dupedom. I had hoped to be of help- but the messages I have received have indicated that it is better to let people discover things for themselves. My computer literacy is obviously not as advanced as many of yours. Again I apologize. Yours, Jim West From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 17 16:01:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA25978; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 16:00:50 -0400 From: "John C. Hurd" Message-Id: <199606171957.PAA25869@chass.utoronto.ca> Subject: Re: sorry To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:57:31 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <01I60QZWF2028YFZ39@InfoAve.Net> from "Jim West" at Jun 17, 96 03:42:27 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 457 Jim, don't feel bad! I did the same thing myself with this same warning a year or so ago. -- John Hurd ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: Prof. John C. Hurd Internet: hurd@chass.utoronto.ca :: :: 49 Wanless Ave. Office tel.: (416) 485-2429 :: :: Toronto, Ont. M4N 1V5 Office fax: (416) 485-7320 :: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 17 17:03:36 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA26205; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 17:02:23 -0400 Message-Id: <199606172059.QAA98110@r05n01.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 16:59:03 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William Petersen) Subject: Re: Theories of trans.--continued Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 7206 Thanks to Dr. Hurtado for their comments. A couple quick replies (I am away for a week commencing Wednesday, so carry on...): Re Hurtado: 1) Thanks, Larry, for pointing out the variant "theos" in the NA apparatus (I was working from memory when I wrote). My point still remains, however: the earliest reading with this variant (if one ignores Justin et al.) is MS C, which is 5th cent., then MS W, f-13, and later... If I understand your suggestion correctly, it is that (1) this text--first attested in the 5th cent.--was extant in Justin's time (c. 150), that (2) Justin knew it, and that (3) Justin substituted "pater mou ktl." for "theos". Since there is no attestation (at least in NA or elsewhere--at least as far as I know) for "theos" before MS C, this scenario seems to me highly unlikely. (Anything is possible in this business, but I would take your suggestion more seriously if there were earlier evidence for the variant--which is clearly a confltion with the Marcan and Lucan parallels...) 2) Some years ago, we discussed a similar situation on IOUDAIOS, Larry, and I still don't buy it. The situation is, to my mind, much more complex than you suggest. Note carefully: Justin denies that "the Father-" God in heaven has EVER appeared on earth, in ANY form. He (the "Father-"God in heaven) never has and, apparently, never will. Rather, he uses a _created being_ (cf. Philo, Origen, etc.), his "Son"--Justin also speaks of this Son as "the Angel" (Dial. 127.4)--to do his bidding. This "Son" or "angel" is "the power...which is called Glory"--terminology which comes from intertestamental Judaism. The key texts here are Ex. 7.1, in which Moses (a mortal man) is made "God" (or "a God" to pharoah), and Ex. 23.21, in which the Jews, heading into the wilderness, are warned to offer the angel "no defiance; he would not pardon such a fault, FOR MY NAME IS IN HIM." (Cp. Justin's discussion of the passage in Dial. 75: Jesus is an angel, he is the "name" of God, but he is, one concludes, NOT the "Father-God" in the heavens, who alone is "good".) The idea that angels, humans, subsidiary "godlings" (such as the "logos") can bear the name "theos" is the central point--one which is affirmed as orthodox Christian belief by the orthodox Christian father Aphrahat. It is echoed in the quotation I provide from the Ep. Apost., and elsewhere (e.g., in Epiphanius' descriptions of Judaic-Christian groups...). No, Justin's Christology is not explicitly "adoptionistic"--although he certainly has overtones of that in his gloriously archaic baptism (the light in the Jordan; "this day I have begotton you")--but he certainly is not "orthodox" by Trinitarian standards. The line Justin is toeing is precisely that expressed by Aphrahat, the Ep. Apost., and by some of the Judaic Christians (as described by Epiphanius): Jesus was an "angel," the "son of god," a "man," the "logos"; he BEARS THE TITLE/NAME of "god" (the Father in the heavens), but HE is not "God" (the father in the heaven). But this all is an argument over what I merely conjectured to be the genesis of the variant; since I am sure Dr. Hurtado will admit that there are Christological variations (already discernible in the redactional differences among the synoptics--I provided examples) in the very earliest layers of the gospel tradition, I will not belabour the point further. This seems to me to be one more of them; if Dr. Hurtado disagrees, fine. But this passage is--and here we reach the Lord's prayer matter--not, at least in my mind, a mere slip of Justin's pen, or a "spontaneous" change on his part. The reason is that such an argument ignores the continuous, VERBATIM citation of the IDENTICAL variant for at least the next century or more. The original issue was: Do the fathers offer _some_ material which is reliable for use in TC? I say yes, and here is the evidence. I would note that no one has yet offered earlier citaions from any source--not to mention, multiple citations...--which rival these from Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and the Ps.-Clementines for antiquity. To the comments of Rev. Don Wilkins: 1) Wilkins writes: >In many "citations" a textual variation seems >to be nothing more than a paraphrase of the autograph and hardly worthy of >being considered a true variant. The substitution of nous for kardia >strikes me as an obvious example of this, so that its occurrence even in >early authors can probably be written off as coincidence. This is precisely the issue which precipitated this thread. The problem is that in _some_ cases, the "paraphrase" crops up again and again and again, across the centuries, across languages, and in VERBATIM form. Now, when does that cease to be a "paraphrase" and become a textual tradition worthy of consideration. I suggest looking back at my original example, in my post of 6/12/96 "Theories of transmission (#2)" for the example. Are ALL of these sources paraphrasing? (That strains even my great credulity...) The subtext here is our predisposition to regard ANYTHING which doesn't agree with our "pet" text (Byzantine, Alexandrian, etc.), as a "loose" citation, paraphrase, etc., and to ignore it. Consider the quote from Burkitt given in that post: we consistently find excuses to ignore the oldest evdience we possess. It is shocking. 2) Continuing: >It appears, first of all, that Justin's "lampsato de >humon ta kala erga" (with or without "de") occurs nowhere else. Granted, >one can find variations on Matthew's "humon ta kala erga" with lampsato >elsewhere, but the more paraphrastic the form in the fathers, the more >tenuous the reference. This is true, except that it ignores the fact that these fathers all are very early (if the variant is TRULY a happenstance, TRULY a coincidence, a "spontaneous" occurrence in each source, then why doesn't the "happenstance" continue throughout the ages? why don't later fathers make the same "slip"?), and come from the same age (Justin is the earliest at c. 150; Clement, Tertullian, and Origen are all rough contemporaries; Eusebius had access to Origen's library in his youth, via Pamphilius. There is, then, a chronological as well as, in the one instance (Origen-Eusebius) a LIVING link between these witnesses. That I, for one, am reluctant to write off as insignificant: a slip of the pen, a foggy memory, etc. As for my comment that Clement was "consistent," I was not inferring that all his citations were identical; rather, since he cites the same passage in a deviating form more than once, it is hard to say this was just a "slip." To close with another example: Justin cites a binary version of the Shema THREE TIMES in EXACTLY the same deviating form: "heart"-"power" (at Dial. 93.2, 93.3 and Apol. 16.6: all "kardias...ischuos"). A slip? A paraphrase? Oddly enough, the same binary Shema in Aphrahat (there seems to be an Aphrahat-Justin link, both textually and theologically???), some Diatessaronic witnesses, and in Vetus Latina MS k ("toto corde tuo et de totis viribus tuis."). Something is going on here, and we are remiss if we don't pay attention to it. Cheers! --Petersen, Penn State Univ. (not proofed) From owner-tc-list Tue Jun 18 04:54:37 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA28176; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 04:53:12 -0400 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 09:47:50 GMT Subject: Re: Theories of trans.--continued Priority: normal X-mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 580 By 'significant reading' I did not mean a class or type of reading, such as 'near singular', but the individual reading shared between a couple of mss so startling or so remarkable as to lead one to believe there to be a close relationship between them. One would have to sift all the material so as to be sure that there was no contradictory evidence, but it might be that one reading which was the pointer towards the relationship. David Parker DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list Tue Jun 18 12:11:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA29897; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 12:10:11 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 12:10:01 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: OT Quantitative Analysis In-Reply-To: <000021BE.sm@dts.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 841 I don't know specifically whether anything has been published that analyzes different Hebrew mss quantitatively, and I'd also be interested to learn if anything has been published. (I argued in my article that appeared in TC that OT text critics have not done the kind of in-depth comparative analysis of mss that their NT counterparts have done--see par. 33). One possible source for some data, however, might be the University of Stellenbosch, where Johann Cook and others were involved with a "Qumran Database Project" a few years ago. Is this project still ongoing, and, if so, what results have been gleaned to this point? Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From owner-tc-list Wed Jun 19 01:38:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA03504; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 01:35:54 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 01:35:45 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: Re: OT Quantitative Analysis Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 593 Johann Cook replied to me off-list that the Qumran database project at the University of Stellenbosch is still ongoing. When I was involved with it some years ago, we were comparing the Qumran biblical mss with the MT, LXX, P, T, and V pretty much word by word. As I recall, I worked on 1QIsa-a,b, 11QPs-a, and 11QpaleoLev. We weren't doing any quantitative analysis at the time. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From owner-tc-list Wed Jun 19 07:04:14 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA04227; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 06:59:19 -0400 From: Sigrid Peterson Message-Id: <199606191050.GAA17691@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: OT Quantitative Analysis To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 06:50:31 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "James R. Adair" at Jun 18, 96 12:10:01 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 476 I dimly recall reading *of* work done by Moshe Goshen-Gottstein, in surveying about a thousand medieval mss of the Hebrew-Aramaic text of Jewish Scriptures. I don't have access to my books this week,so I can't check this out myself, but I'd look first in Cross and Talmon's Qumran and the Biblical Text , and then in Yeivin's Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah , if not found in the former source. Sigrid Peterson UPenn petersig@ccat.sas.upenn.edu From owner-tc-list Wed Jun 19 13:36:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA06293; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 13:32:52 -0400 Message-Id: <199606191728.TAA103002@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 19 Jun 96 19:33:34 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: Theories of trans. (#2) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <199606121824.OAA16684@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 8659 After returning to Muenster I found some highly interesting examples from early Christian literature brought forth by William L. Petersen (Wed 12 Jun + Fri 14 Jun). The issue was the testimonies of (Gospel) quotations in patristic writings and their reliability. Concerning the MSS tradition of these writings I totally agree with W.L. Petersen. Usually their text is faithfully transmitted; the examples from "One is good, my/the father in heaven" (Matt 19.17/Mark 10.10/Luke 18.19) give abundant evidence. And I too am convinced that we have to consider church father testimonies seriously. However, I may express some hesitations concerning the case presented by W.L. Petersen. On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, he wrote: >Permit me to quote F.C. Burkitt: >"[Clement of Alexandria's gospel citations] cut off the only channel by >which we might have thought to connect the 'non-Western' text, as an organic >whole, with apostolic times. With Clement's evidence before us we must >recognise that the earliest texts of the Gospels were fundamentally >'Western' in every country of which we have knowledge, even in Egypt. If we >have any real trust in antiquity, any real belief in the continuity of >Chrisitan tradition, we must be prepared to admit many 'Western' readings as >authentic, as alone having a historical claim to originality." >The quotation is from Burkitt's "introduction" to Barnard's study (TaS V.5 >[1899], pp. xvii-xviii) of "Clement of Alexandria's Biblical Text." >Kenyon's studies led him to the same conclusion (see his evaluation of the >text of Justin, Marcion, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria in his _The >Text of the Greek Bible_ 3rd rev. ed. with A. Adams [1975], p. 169). More >recently, M. Mees' exhaustive study of Clement's text (_Die Zitate aus dem >Neuen Testamen bei Clemens von Alexandrien_ [1970]), in which the results of >his verse-by-verse study were summarized on a book-by-book basis, reached >similar conclusions. I may express some doubts wether M. Mees really "reached similar conclusions" (i.e. Burkitt-Barnard like). Permit me to quote from Mees (p. 106): "Dennoch duerfte die Burkitt-Barnard-These vom westlichen Charakter der Clemenszitate aus den Evangelien nicht mehr in der damals aufgestellten Form zu halten sein." At least Mees found nothing in Clement's Gospel citations that justifies the label "fundamentally 'Western'". [quoting Waltz:] >>Second, the writings of these authors are often badly preserved. Irenaeus >>and Origen, for instance, wrote in Greek but are preserved primarily in >>Latin. And in the case of Origen, at least, Rufinus's translation was more >>than a little biased. >This too is a common supposition, and is undoubtedly true in SOME instances. >However, I remember a paper in the NT TC seminar at the SBL some 5 or 7 >years ago, in which F. Stanley Jones compared Rufinus' Latin translation of >the Pseudo-Clementine "Recognitions" with the Syriac of the same, and found >that Rufinus was a VERY ACCURATE translator, all things considered (Syriac >grammar vs. Latin grammar, idioms, etc.). Rufin may turn out to be a RELATIVELY ACCURATE translator when compared to the Syriac translation of Pseudo-Clementine literature. But, comparing Rufin's translation of the (Pseudo-Origen) 'Dialog des Adamantius' with the Greek text reveals some striking differences in the renderings of the Pauline citations within this text (occasional droppings, interference of Rufin's Old-Latin text, etc.). W.L. Petersen further wrote: >Now to an example (Matt 19.17/Mark 10.18/Luke 18.19): >A) JUSTIN: Dial. 101.2 (Justin dies 163-167; the Dial. is probably from >the 140s or 150s; we have two VERY late MSS, one from 1346 and one from 1541): > "One is good, my Father in the heavens." >Since we "know" [ ;-)] Justin was a "sloppy" scholar, who had early-onset >Alzheimers, and worked from VERY early but VERY corrupt manuscripts, and >since we "know" that Justin often took liberties with the text, the phrase >"my Father in the heavens" must be his own expansion, a lapse of memory, his >own addition for clarity, or one too many glasses of Chianti, right? It >CANNOT be part of the Ur-text, because none of the "big" MS or traditions >(Alexandrian, Byzantine, etc.) have it. And if that is not the case, then >it is clear that these LATE MSS of Justin have been corrupted in their long >history of transmission, right? If we had a 4th cent. MS of Justin, "my >Father in the heavens" wouldn't be there, right? Nice. [omitting B) EPHREM...]: >C) IRENAEUS: Haer. V.7.25 (pre-185): > "One is good, the/my Father in the heavens." >Gee. Back in the West, Irenaeus, that bastion of orthodoxy, cites the >passage in PRECISELY the same form as Justin, save that Justin tucks a "mou" >in after "pater". Hmmm. Do I see a trend forming??? Well, Irenaeus, "that bastion of orthodoxy", cites this passage not from his own, but from a Marcosite (heresy!!!) source!!! Do I see another trend forming??? (BTW--- the source is misprinted, it should be read Haer. I.20.2) >D) HIPPOLYTUS: Haer. V.7.25 (pre-222): > "One is good, the/my Father in the heavens." >This heresy-fighter agrees EXACTLY with Irenaeus' version of the passage, >even down to the lack of a "mou." With Irenaeus and Justin, "heavens" is >plural. Well, the only thing one can expect from a heresy-fighter is fighting heresy. Therefore, nobody will be surprised finding the quotation given above as stemming from the Naassenes (heretics of the worst kind). (BTW--- another small misprint, it should be read Haer. V.7.26). The heresy trend is going on... >E) CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: Strom. V.10.63 (composed c. 207): > "One is good, the/my Father." >A relief isn't it? At least we are rid of that awkward "in the heavens" >stuff, which only exists in the very earliest witnesses. But we are still >saddled with a vestige of Justin's text: FATHER. Well, as we all know, Clement is one of the most erudite Christian teachers. Therefore, we might expect the full text. And there it is: "One is good, my father IN THE HEAVENS" (Paed. I.72.2). But, what about the heresy trend? Well, the most erudite Clement will not let us down. In Strom. II.114.3-6 Clement cites from a letter of Valentinus (the latter commenting/alluding to Matth. 19.17): "hEIS DE ESTIN AGAQOS...[...]...hO MONOS AGAQOS PATHR". To take it more serious, I may conclude that in fact our earliest sources for the FATHER (IN HEAVEN) are at least contemporary to Justin, but partly antedating him: Marcosites, Naassenes, Valentinus. I may add to the "heretic" chain the well known Marcion (definitely before 150 AD). Epiphanius testifies that the Marcionite Gospel read "One is good, THE FATHER". The "heretic" chain to my mind gives interesting hints to detect the possible source of this reading. The above mentioned (at least Marcion and Valentinus) in fact were Christian teachers heavily dependent on the separation of the one and only GOOD God revealed through Jesus Christ from the inferior creator God. The latter could be by no means called GOOD, but God. This is definitely true for Marcion. He deeply opposed the creator God (i.e. the God of the "Old" covenant, i.e. OT) and relied solely on the GOOD God revealed through Christ. Both, Valentinus and Marcion, teached _docetic_ HIGH-CHRISTOLOGY of the highest level. Jesus definitely was no human being, he descended from the highest realm of the GOOD God previously unknown to mankind. In this type of theology the sharp qualitative difference was NOT between Jesus (not good, not God) and God the FATHER (only God), but between the ONE AND ONLY *GOOD* God revealed through Christ and the creator God to whom the OT testifies. The text: "One is good, the/my father in heaven" seen in this context is the definite Gospel proof-text for all who wish to identify a GOOD God apart from a creator God. If then the one and only GOOD God of Matth 19,17parr was not identified with the heavenly father of Christ, the passage remained at least ambiguous to those teaching dualistic concepts. They must feel the need to clarify the passage and presumably they added the gloss FATHER (IN HEAVEN). >= Anyone have an EARLIER version of this passage, from ANY source? No, definitely not. But, most probably earlier SOURCES, indicating that this earliest version of this passage presumably was created within the context of dualistic theology. Therefore, though the earliest version attested in time and space, to my mind it cannot be judged "original", but clearely secondary. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Wed Jun 19 22:46:56 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA08267; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 22:45:27 -0400 Message-Id: <199606200242.WAA17979@erebus.rutgers.edu> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: rweis@rci.rutgers.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 22:45:17 +0000 Subject: Re: OT Quantitative Analysis Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.22) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3570 > On Wed, 19 Jun 1996 Sigrid Peterson wrote: > I dimly recall reading *of* work done by Moshe Goshen-Gottstein, in > surveying about a thousand medieval mss of the Hebrew-Aramaic text of > Jewish Scriptures. I don't have access to my books this week,so I can't > check this out myself, but I'd look first in Cross and Talmon's > Qumran and the Biblical Text , and then in Yeivin's > Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah , if not found in the > former source. The two crucial articles by Moshe Goshen-Gottstein are: "Die Jesaiah-Rolle und das Problem der hebraeischen Bibelhandschriften." _Biblica_ 35(1954) 429-442. "The Rise of the Tiberian Bible Text." In _Biblical and Other Studies_, 79-122. Edited by A. Altmann. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1963. In addition one might note Hartmut Gese's article: "Die hebraeischen Bibelhandschriften zum Dodekapropheton nach der Variantensammlung des Kennicott." _ZAW_ 69(1957) 55-69. For a discussion of such work by these two and others, one might profitably consult pages xix-xxvii of: D. Barthelemy. _Critique textuelle de l'Ancien Testament_. Volume 3, Ezechiel, Daniel et les 12 Prophetes. CTAT, 50/3. Fribourg: Editions universitaires; Goettingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. I think it is fair to say that Goshen-Gottstein's work persuaded a good many scholars that the vast bulk of variants found among the medieval Hebrew manuscripts were to to scribal activity *after* the establishment of the great Tiberian manuscripts, especially Aleppo. In the HUBP Sample Volume, and introduction to Isaiah, Goshen-Gottstein identifies a series of manuscripts containing variants that have a chance leading to a text form before the finalization of the Tiberian MT. Barthelemy, in the work cited above, identifies a similar list. Both lists are a very tiny minority out of the many available (e.g., in Kennicott and de Rossi). As a result quantitative analysis of the medieval manuscripts does not play a major role in current textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. In the case of the DSS I have no leads on studies and projects beyond those already indicated (by James Adair, I think). It does occur to me that quantitative analysis of these materials might be a particularly difficult task, however, even for books such as Isaiah and Psalms where we have (relatively speaking) a lot of materials. The mss are so fragmentary that there is often little or no shared text among several mss of the same book, making quantitative analysis among Qumran mss all but impossible. On the other hand, there frequently has been quantitative analysis of alignments between DSS mss and MT, LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch. These sometimes appear in editions of the mss. The early studies tended to use MT, LXX and SamPent as a kind of procrustean bed. Beginning with Emanuel Tov's article "A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls," _HUCA_ 53(1982) 11-27, this has changed. Some of the relevant literature is mentioned in Tov's _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_. Hope too much of this wasn't carrying coals to Newcastle. Richard Weis ******************************************************************************* Richard D. Weis rweis@rci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick Theological Seminary phone: 1-908-246-5591 17 Seminary Place FAX: 1-908-937-8185 New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1196 USA ******************************************************************************* From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 21 15:30:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA17904; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 15:28:03 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 15:24:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Theories of trans.--continued In-Reply-To: <199606142206.WAA96492@r02n06.cac.psu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2283 On Fri, 14 Jun 1996, William L. Petersen wrote: > (Just a question: Why are we prone to say the early Fathers cite "loosely," > and that THEIR MS tradition has been corrupted, rather than that the early > Fathers sometimes cite accurately, and that OUR NT MS tradition has been > corrupted? Regardless of the remainder of Petersen's nearly-interminable post regarding what I consider a more peripheral issue, this point above can quite simply be addressed by asking the converse: Why should we assume that the early fathers cite "accurately" from MSS before them containing readings which are no longer extant or which are preserved in only rare cases? A cardinal rule of examining patristic citation is to see whether, after quoting a passage containing a specific variant, the Father then proceeds to comment on that specific variant. If he does not so do, the variant quoted should be considered as suspect, and this, in my opinion, regardless of which direction the variant might tend (others will automatically reject only Byzantine variants in such cases; I obviously would at least question any and all variants in this specific case). Further, the demonstrable situation of multiple citations of the same variant in differing forms by a single father give serious pause to any consideration that he is necessarily using a manuscript before him. He might be quoting from memory, and this might drift into allusion or misquotation, but then again, he might be using many different MSS, and merely be totally indiscriminate as to the specific wording of the text cited. In that case, there would be little more to the concept of "the" text of a Father than a myth which needs to be exploded. Basically, I consider patristic quotations valuable only for giving some insight into the historical textual situation of the Father's own era. I do not think that patristic quotations should ever become significant or primary determiners of the original NT wording. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 21 15:51:43 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA18021; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 15:49:44 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 15:46:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: On "examples" and "proof"... In-Reply-To: <199606162023.QAA18404@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1878 On Sun, 16 Jun 1996, William L. Petersen wrote: > I am more than happy to use statistics, which I often do in my work. By the > way, how many Byzantine or Alexandrian readings are there in Justin, or > Tertullian, or the Didache??? Statistics anyone??? Indeed, let's use > examples and statistics, for then, at least, we will all be speaking the > same language, examining the same evidence. Since I too am equally willing to use statistics, I would only ask that statistical data be properly utilized. E.g., once someone cites how many "Alexandrian" readings there are in Justin or Tertullian, I want to know how many of those same readings are simultaneously "Byzantine"; similarly with any "Western" or "Caesarean" readings also found in early fathers. >From within a Byzantine-priority perspective, readings which are dually-shared by both the Byzantine and any other texttype are simply Byzantine readings from which the other texttype(s) happened not to depart. Once this point is granted, and once patristic idiosyncracies are discounted, I have little doubt that one will find the non-Egyptian fathers preceding the fourth century to be far more "Byzantine" in overall character than otherwise has traditionally been claimed. Note that this point has nothing to do with the supposed "distinctive" Byzantine readings which Hort and others have attempted to use to "prove" non-existence of the Byzantine Textform in the pre-fourth century era, but rather involves ALL the extant variants known in the patristic writings. Bring on the statistics, gentlemen..... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Wed Jun 26 20:14:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA13787; Wed, 26 Jun 1996 20:12:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 17:08:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: dwilkins@ucr.campus.mci.net (Don Wilkins) Subject: Re: Theories of trans.--continued Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4305 William Petersen wrote: >To the comments of Rev. Don Wilkins: > >1) Wilkins writes: >>In many "citations" a textual variation seems >>to be nothing more than a paraphrase of the autograph and hardly worthy of >>being considered a true variant. The substitution of nous for kardia >>strikes me as an obvious example of this, so that its occurrence even in >>early authors can probably be written off as coincidence. > >This is precisely the issue which precipitated this thread. The problem is >that in _some_ cases, the "paraphrase" crops up again and again and again, >across the centuries, across languages, and in VERBATIM form. Now, when >does that cease to be a "paraphrase" and become a textual tradition worthy >of consideration. I suggest looking back at my original example, in my post >of 6/12/96 "Theories of transmission (#2)" for the example. Are ALL of >these sources paraphrasing? (That strains even my great credulity...) I apologize for the delay in responding to your post. Thanks to Jimmy Adair, I was able to look at your original example (BTW, you flatter me with the "Rev." title; I am a mere lecturer. Feel free to call me Don if you wish). I ran TLG searches on hEIS ESTIN hO AGAQOS (with and without the article). With the article, it occurred only once outside Matthew in Origen's commentary on Matthew. Without the article, it occurred in Justin (the passage you cited) and, as Ulrich Schmid has already noted, in Epiphanius' Panarion, where the phrase hO PATHR EN TOIS OURANOIS follows. This created a problem for me, in that I ran searches thereafter (to confirm my initial searches) in Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Clement (using the TLG) and was unable to find any versions of the statements you cite. It is the policy of the TLG administrators to use the best sources, but you obviously have other good sources to which you and U. Schmid were referring. >2) Continuing: >>It appears, first of all, that Justin's "lampsato de >>humon ta kala erga" (with or without "de") occurs nowhere else. Granted, >>one can find variations on Matthew's "humon ta kala erga" with lampsato >>elsewhere, but the more paraphrastic the form in the fathers, the more >>tenuous the reference. > >This is true, except that it ignores the fact that these fathers all are >very early (if the variant is TRULY a happenstance, TRULY a coincidence, a >"spontaneous" occurrence in each source, then why doesn't the "happenstance" >continue throughout the ages? why don't later fathers make the same >"slip"?), and come from the same age (Justin is the earliest at c. 150; >Clement, Tertullian, and Origen are all rough contemporaries; Eusebius had >access to Origen's library in his youth, via Pamphilius. There is, then, a >chronological as well as, in the one instance (Origen-Eusebius) a LIVING >link between these witnesses. That I, for one, am reluctant to write off as >insignificant: a slip of the pen, a foggy memory, etc. Well, if these are paraphrastic citations, they would not be "slips"; and why should they be duplicated by others? Would not the same paraphrases and random errors be less likely to be repeated if one has access to a text of the scriptures, or is working from memory of the text? I would think different authors would paraphrase in different ways to suit their purposes. >As for my comment that Clement was "consistent," I was not inferring that >all his citations were identical; rather, since he cites the same passage >in a deviating form more than once, it is hard to say this was just a "slip." The key to your argument (as I see it) is the word "deviating". I gather that you are willing to hypothesize an Ur-text behind deviating forms of a "citation" given by a single author, and extend the hypothesis to cover other authors whom you see as providing similar citations. You seem to be doing the same thing with Justin's Shema. Why couldn't the deviation merely be an abbreviated rendering of the original? Should we or should we not apply Ockham's razor? Having said all that, let me again apologize if I have dug up any dead horses as a result of coming into the discussion late and ill-prepared. If that is the case, I will try to either catch up or butt out as gracefully as possible. Don Wilkins UC Riverside Don Wilkins UC Riverside From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 27 06:56:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA15748; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 06:54:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 06:50:53 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: jwest@SunBelt.Net (Jim West) Subject: Mk 14:72 X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <01I6E7CC18UA8WZXTW@InfoAve.Net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 122 Could someone please explain to me how D, 565, etc read ERXATO for EPIBALON at the end of the verse. Thanks, Jim West From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 27 12:23:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA18419; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 12:21:59 -0400 Message-Id: <199606271617.SAA59042@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 27 Jun 96 18:22:56 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: Mk 14:72 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <01I6E7CC18UA8WZXTW@InfoAve.Net> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 320 On Thu, 27 Jun 1996, Jim West wrote: >Could someone please explain to me how D, 565, etc read ERXATO for EPIBALON >at the end of the verse. I wish someone could explain to me how EPIBALWN is to be understood. HRXATO simply smoothes away the problems with EPIBALWN (cf. Cranfield loc.cit.). Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 27 15:34:30 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA19683; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 15:31:36 -0400 Message-Id: <199606271928.PAA24664@r05n01.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 15:28:08 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William Petersen) Subject: Re: Mk 14:72 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 909 >On Thu, 27 Jun 1996, Jim West wrote: > >>Could someone please explain to me how D, 565, etc read ERXATO for EPIBALON >>at the end of the verse. > >I wish someone could explain to me how EPIBALWN is to be understood. HRXATO >simply smoothes away the problems with EPIBALWN (cf. Cranfield loc.cit.). > >Ulrich Schmid, Muenster > > Yes, and, picking up another thread in recent discussions, see also BAG under EPIBALLO (I have only the older edition at hand [1957], where it is on p. 289-90, under "2.b"), where BAG note: "The mng. of KAI EPIBALON EKLAIEN Mk 14:72 is in doubt...which latter sense is supported by the v.l. HRKSATO KLAIEIN in D theta, as well as the it., syr. sin." Note that the D reading is again supported by the Old Latins and the Old Syriac. Perhaps, as Dr. Schmid suggests, a smoothing, but then a very early one; perhaps somethings else... Cheers! --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list Fri Jun 28 10:38:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA23605; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 10:37:04 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960628143413.360f5c1a@gpo.iol.ie> X-Sender: mauros@gpo.iol.ie X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 15:34:13 +0100 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" Subject: Mark 14:72 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 973 Jim West asked: >> Could someone please explain to me how D, 565, etc read ERXATO for EPIBALON at the end of the verse.<< Perhaps Robert H. Gundry's "Mark" hints at the answer on p.891? "We do not know for sure what EPIBALWN means. If it means ' putting [ his cloak ] over [ his head ] ' why the omission of 'his cloak' ( to say nothing about 'his head' cf. 11:7)?. If it means beginning ( plus a finite verb where English would put an infinitive ), why does not Mark use his favourite HRCATO, instead [ as in D Q 565 latt sy(s,p,h) co(sa) goth arm geo] ............. Thus a good translation would be ' he proceeded to weep '." So, could it be, Jim, that scribes, altogether better acquainted with Mark's vocabularly than we are, simply slipped into a familiar verb --- 18 examples of aorist middle 3rd sg,( 8 of 3rd. pl.) out of 27 instances of ARXW in Mark ? Regards, Maurice Maurice A. O'Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ] mauros@iol.ie [using Eudora Pro v 2.2 ]