> I have a feeling
> we're somehow not on the same page, and this will be an attempt to
> determine if
> that's the case.
Probably not on the same page. I haven't had time to respond in detail.
My advice was very general, i.e. some bibliographic references that I
thought might be helpful. Very good if you are already familiar with
the relevant literature. It is just that my warning system switched on
when you started talking about inventing your own methods...
> full Bible manuscript in which brief excerpts from various biblical
> books are
> included as a short separate work within the whole. Maybe something
> like a
> mini-lectionary--mostly OT excerpts, but a couple of NT ones as well.
> mini-lectionary was obviously included in the initial production of the
> manuscript. This is something like the scenario on which my study
Interesting. I look forward to read your study. I wonder what kind of
manuscript this is...
> Would the fact that the same range of text appears at two places
> within the
> same manuscript raise for you the expectation that the two were copied
> from the
> same exemplar?
Not necessarily. For example, if a scribe was to produce a commentary
manuscript, I suppose he would normally choose an existing commentary
manuscript as his exemplar but this is not an absolute rule. Further,
if he did choose a commentary manuscript as exemplar the two texts
(lemma and commentary) could still be textually different (i.e. the NT
text included in the commentary). I still wonder what kind of
manuscript you are studying.
> It did in the case of the manuscript I studied. For almost 400
> years it has been the universal working conclusion that the two ranges
> of text
> were copied from a common exemplar. I decided it was high time to
> test this
> presumption. So, I was looking for ways to either prove or disprove
> working conclusion. In light of this, do you maintain I am going to
> find means
> of so proving or disproving the working conclusion in the literature
> you point
Hopefully. You have two texts which, as proposed, are copied from a
common exemplar. Then you have lots of texts to use as control
manuscripts. If both MSS are "Byzantine" you will expect to find a very
high degree of common variants (+90%) and you cannot tell from e.g. a
quantitative analysis that they are close on the stemmatic level, so
that you can show that the two are immediately related, i.e. copied
from a common exemplar. What becomes interesting in your case is
"Leitfehler," provided that the two texts in a first step (e.g. a
quantitative analysis with a good number of control MSS) are shown to
be close. Then you can look for common and peculiar errors, spelling
and so on, and again compare with other MSS (if you have such detailed
collations for those other MSS, that is).
> If so, should I expect what I find there to simply augment, or rather
> supersede, what I was able to glean from WH's approach to the matter?
> bear in mind that, while for others the question of familial relations
> these texts might be of prime interest, for me it is a yes or no
> question of
> immediate ancestry. The two either were or were not arguably copied
> from the
> same exemplar. The family question is for someone else's study, not
To the recommended literature, you can add Paul Maas, Textkritik, 3d
ed. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1957),
also available in English translation: Textual Criticism, tr. Barbara
Flower (Oxford: Clarendon, 1958).
> We'll see if this work gets published. I _am_ writing an article for
> publication now, but on a quite different topic. You're likely to see
> before anything appears regarding the study that is the subject of the
Good luck again.
> Too bad you don't have time.
> I'm afraid only with time could
> productive dialogue on these issues be achieved. I always presume I
> stand to learn something new, regardless of my assumed expertise in a
> area: how about you?
Absolutely. Actually I have learnt a lot from this scholars on this
list, and the previous TC-list.
With kind regards
Centre for Theology and Religious Studies