Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [lxx] Lucian's LXX

Expand Messages
  • Peter Papoutsis
    Dear Weiland: I know from dealing with the LXX in the Orthodox Church that the Church has no, and I mean NO standardized LXX text for both liturgical and
    Message 1 of 20 , Nov 8, 2004
      Dear Weiland:
       
       
      I know from dealing with the LXX in the Orthodox Church that the Church has no, and I mean NO standardized LXX text for both liturgical and Biblical readings. Lucian did make a


      Peter A. Papoutsis


      Do you Yahoo!?
      Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
    • Robert Kraft
      The designations are modern and arbitrary, based primarily on studies of the NT texts. According to UBS 4 (2001 printing) p. 19* Byz = The reading of the
      Message 2 of 20 , Nov 8, 2004
        The designations are modern and arbitrary, based primarily on studies of the NT
        texts. According to UBS\4 (2001 printing) p. 19* "Byz = The reading of the
        Byzantine witnesses, i.e. the text of the great majority of all Greek manuscripts,
        especially of the second millennium." There is also Byz\pt/ = "One part of the
        Byzantine text when its witness is divided, i.e., in contrast to another part."
        Thus even in the presumably more homogeneous NT MSS, the situation is complex since
        it is rare to find single MSS that include the entire NT (a MS is more likely to
        have only one of the sub-collections: e = gospels, a = acts, c = general epistles,
        p = Paul, r = Revelation).

        Thus in the NT, according to my Nestle\20 intro, "the socalled Koine, i.e. the
        general recension used in Antioch and later in Constantinople ... is represented in
        the gospels by MSS EFGH, in Acts and the letters by HL [that's not the same H as in
        the gospels!], in the Apocalypse/Revelation by 046, as well as by the majority of
        later MSS." These types of texts were put together in the modern editions by
        Erasmus (1516ff), Elzevier (1633), etc., and came to be called "textus receptus."

        With the even more complex LXX/OG anthology, I don't think things "gelled" in quite
        the same manner. A century ago, Swete wrote as follows in his Intro to the OT in
        Greek: "No one of the rival recensions became dominant and traditional, as in the
        case of the NT; among the later MSS groups may be discerned which answer more or
        less certainly to this recension or to that, but the greater number of the cursives
        present a text which appears to be the result of mixture rather than of any
        conscious attempt to decide between the contending types" (p. 86). As Swete
        explains before this sentence, Jerome tried to standardize things in terms of
        Origen's Hexaplaric text, but "fortunately the task was beyond his strength, and
        MSS and versions still survive which represent more or less fully the three
        recensions of the fourth century. ... A fusion of texts arose which affected the
        greater part of the copies in varying proportions." As a scholar of texts, Swete is
        pleased that more standardization did not occur. Not everyone would share that
        judgment, perhaps, but it probably fairly describes the situation even today. To an
        extent, Rahlfs becomes the "textus receptus" for academic purposes at least.

        Bob

        > On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Wieland Willker wrote:
        >
        > > On the Textualcriticism List the question came up, why Lucian's LXX
        > > recension failed to gain the same acceptance as his NT text (if one
        > > assumes for the record that this was the Byzantine text).
        > > My question to the list is: How widely spread was Lucian's LXX? What
        > > is the history of its distribution? I have read that the Psalter
        > > became the official text of the Orthodox church?
        > >
        > > AND
        > >
        > > > The Byzantine text of the NT really supplanted everything else and
        > > > became the dominant text of the Byzantine empire. As far as I see it,
        > > > this was not the case with Lucian's LXX text.
        > > >
        > > > My question:
        > > > If only Lucian's Psalter became the official text of the Orthodox
        > > > church, what texttype is the rest of the Orthodox LXX text?
        >
        > AND
        >
        > > I would like to ask this once again: What is the texttype of the
        > > Majority text LXX?
        >
        > My ca. 10 years of serious engagement with LXX texts and scholarship do
        > not permit me to make any sense of the phrase "Majority text LXX." Anyone
        > else here capable of processing Wieland's concept of a "Majority text
        > LXX?" If so, please jump in and alleviate the confusion.
        >
        > And, by the way, here's my question to you "once again:" how did the
        > "Majority text NT" become a majority?
        >
        > > From what I have read ("Invitation to the Septuagint" and "The
        > > Septuagint in Context") it seems that the Majority text is a derivative
        > > of Origen's 5th column of his Hexapla. Is this correct?
        >
        > The phrase "Majority text" does not occur in my edition of Invitation to
        > the Septuagint. I therefore conclude that you've read it into the text.
        > I suggest you either 1) point out where you find this phrase (or, more
        > likely, something you consider to have its import) or 2) adjust your
        > understanding to better fit what Jobes and Silva are really writing about.
        >
        > James
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >



        --
        Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
        227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
        kraft@...
        http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html
      • Peter Papoutsis
        Dear Weiland: I know from dealing with the LXX in the Orthodox Church that the Church has no, and I mean NO standardized LXX text for both liturgical and
        Message 3 of 20 , Nov 8, 2004
          Dear Weiland:
           
           
          I know from dealing with the LXX in the Orthodox Church that the Church has no, and I mean NO standardized LXX text for both liturgical and Biblical readings. Lucian did make a very important Septuagint recission, but the Holy Orthodox Church has never produced a standardized text. The closes the church came was Origin's attempts, but his porject was based off of a flawed premise as the age of the Hebrew text that he was dealing with at that time (which we now know that it was not that ancient).
           
          As for the Liturgical renderings of the LXX they do come from LXX texts, but the liturgical LXX readings have been heavilky edited to fit whatever liturgical rubric or pious expression the compiler was going for at that particular time.
           
          Many passages in Numbers & Leviticus in the Orthodox Liturgical texts are slightly edited down and condensed, and thus appear different from the Biblical text, but that is because the Biblical text was edited to fit a liturgical purpose.
           
          In closing, it should be noted that many modern Orthodox Christians regard Rahlf's LXX as the best LXX text and adhere to this text. The current Orthodox Study Bible is using the Rahlf's LXX edition as its Old Testament text. Thus, the Rahlf's LXX is the closest thing today to a "Majority" text as in the Marjority of Orthodox Chrstians accept this LXX as the best LXX there is.
           
          In addition, I have found that Codex Vaticanus is extremely close to the LXX text as published by the Apostoliki Diakonia as well as in the Orthodox Church's Liturgical renderings of the LXX, given the editing that I mentioned before.
           
          I hope this helped.
           
          Peter  


          Peter A. Papoutsis


          Do you Yahoo!?
          Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
        • Wieland Willker
          Thank you all for your helpful comments! I take it then that there is no such thing as a majority text of the LXX, not even a standard lectionary text of the
          Message 4 of 20 , Nov 9, 2004
            Thank you all for your helpful comments!
            I take it then that there is no such thing as a "majority text" of the
            LXX, not even a standard lectionary text of the LXX? This is very
            interesting, because it is in strong contrast to the NT. I think this
            cries for an explanation.

            So, can we say that there were two broad transmission lines, the
            Hexaplaric and the Lucianic and that a lot of mixture and variation
            happened between them?
            Have all the 1500+ MSS been test-collated to identify their type? How
            many groups or sub-groups have been identified? Or is it all chaos?
            Probably I have to read some more about this. I am surprised about my
            ignorance in this matter. :-)

            Best wishes
            Wieland
            <><
            ------------------------
            Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
            mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
            http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/
            Textcritical commentary:
            http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
          • James Miller
            Thanks for jumping in on this, Bob. ... I was hoping to move the discussion in the direction of how the NT text was standardized to the extent we can speak of
            Message 5 of 20 , Nov 9, 2004
              Thanks for jumping in on this, Bob.

              On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Robert Kraft wrote:

              > The designations are modern and arbitrary, based primarily on studies of the NT
              > texts. According to UBS\4 (2001 printing) p. 19* "Byz = The reading of the
              > Byzantine witnesses, i.e. the text of the great majority of all Greek manuscripts,
              > especially of the second millennium." There is also Byz\pt/ = "One part of the
              > Byzantine text when its witness is divided, i.e., in contrast to another part."
              > Thus even in the presumably more homogeneous NT MSS, the situation is complex since
              > it is rare to find single MSS that include the entire NT (a MS is more likely to
              > have only one of the sub-collections: e = gospels, a = acts, c = general epistles,
              > p = Paul, r = Revelation).
              >
              > Thus in the NT, according to my Nestle\20 intro, "the socalled Koine, i.e. the
              > general recension used in Antioch and later in Constantinople ... is represented in
              > the gospels by MSS EFGH, in Acts and the letters by HL [that's not the same H as in
              > the gospels!], in the Apocalypse/Revelation by 046, as well as by the majority of
              > later MSS." These types of texts were put together in the modern editions by
              > Erasmus (1516ff), Elzevier (1633), etc., and came to be called "textus receptus."

              I was hoping to move the discussion in the direction of how the NT text
              was standardized to the extent we can speak of a "majority text." Doing a
              bit of a refresher last night I think my notion about that is sound: the
              lectionary text is said to be Byzantine (ABD), as are the more numerous
              miniscules--a great many of which seem to date from around the turn of the
              millenium. My supposition is that the text of the miniscules should be
              the same as that of the lectionaries, and that it was standardized and
              thus became a majority owing to its official sanction by the church and
              the fact that it was the text read out at public worship. Does this seem
              sound to you? It is also the case that nearly the entirety of the NT was
              read in public worship through the course of the liturgical year, so it is
              possible to speak of a lectionary text on the one hand and the NT on the
              other somewhat interchangably. Can you offer some feedback on these
              working hypotheses?

              > With the even more complex LXX/OG anthology, I don't think things "gelled" in quite
              > the same manner. A century ago, Swete wrote as follows in his Intro to the OT in
              > Greek: "No one of the rival recensions became dominant and traditional, as in the
              > case of the NT; among the later MSS groups may be discerned which answer more or
              > less certainly to this recension or to that, but the greater number of the cursives
              > present a text which appears to be the result of mixture rather than of any
              > conscious attempt to decide between the contending types" (p. 86). As Swete
              > explains before this sentence, Jerome tried to standardize things in terms of
              > Origen's Hexaplaric text, but "fortunately the task was beyond his strength, and
              > MSS and versions still survive which represent more or less fully the three
              > recensions of the fourth century. ... A fusion of texts arose which affected the
              > greater part of the copies in varying proportions." As a scholar of texts, Swete is
              > pleased that more standardization did not occur. Not everyone would share that
              > judgment, perhaps, but it probably fairly describes the situation even today. To an
              > extent, Rahlfs becomes the "textus receptus" for academic purposes at least.

              Were my theory about the NT majority text to be correct (that it is
              essentially the liturgical text, fixed and abundant owing to its sanction
              by the church and its familiarity through being read out at public
              worship), I would next seek a cognate for this sort of dynamic for the OT.
              The situation is much different here, since the bulk of the OT text was,
              apparently, never read out at public worship. Only limited portions were.
              The limited portions that were so read did come to form a separate MS
              tradition (the Prophetologion) that was standardized and uniform. But the
              contents of that text accounts for probably less than 10% of the total
              text of the OT. In some ways it can form a sort of cognate to the
              majority text known in NT circles (in the sense that there is a
              standardized, abundant text sanctioned by the church), but in other ways
              it doesn't fit very well (it does not correspond in scope to our current
              OT). In any case, for the bulk of the LXX/OT, there was no political or
              social force driving a standardization of the text like there was for the
              NT, so there developed no good counterpart to the majority text of the NT.
              Comments on that?

              Thanks, James

              > > On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Wieland Willker wrote:
              > >
              > > > On the Textualcriticism List the question came up, why Lucian's LXX
              > > > recension failed to gain the same acceptance as his NT text (if one
              > > > assumes for the record that this was the Byzantine text).
              > > > My question to the list is: How widely spread was Lucian's LXX? What
              > > > is the history of its distribution? I have read that the Psalter
              > > > became the official text of the Orthodox church?
              > > >
              > > > AND
              > > >
              > > > > The Byzantine text of the NT really supplanted everything else and
              > > > > became the dominant text of the Byzantine empire. As far as I see it,
              > > > > this was not the case with Lucian's LXX text.
              > > > >
              > > > > My question:
              > > > > If only Lucian's Psalter became the official text of the Orthodox
              > > > > church, what texttype is the rest of the Orthodox LXX text?
              > >
              > > AND
              > >
              > > > I would like to ask this once again: What is the texttype of the
              > > > Majority text LXX?
              > >
              > > My ca. 10 years of serious engagement with LXX texts and scholarship do
              > > not permit me to make any sense of the phrase "Majority text LXX." Anyone
              > > else here capable of processing Wieland's concept of a "Majority text
              > > LXX?" If so, please jump in and alleviate the confusion.
              > >
              > > And, by the way, here's my question to you "once again:" how did the
              > > "Majority text NT" become a majority?
              > >
              > > > From what I have read ("Invitation to the Septuagint" and "The
              > > > Septuagint in Context") it seems that the Majority text is a derivative
              > > > of Origen's 5th column of his Hexapla. Is this correct?
              > >
              > > The phrase "Majority text" does not occur in my edition of Invitation to
              > > the Septuagint. I therefore conclude that you've read it into the text.
              > > I suggest you either 1) point out where you find this phrase (or, more
              > > likely, something you consider to have its import) or 2) adjust your
              > > understanding to better fit what Jobes and Silva are really writing about.
              > >
              > > James
              > >
            • Wieland Willker
              For some reason my original reply got lost in the digital space, so here is another one. First let me thank you all for your helpful comments regarding my
              Message 6 of 20 , Nov 10, 2004
                For some reason my original reply got lost in the digital space, so here
                is another one. First let me thank you all for your helpful comments
                regarding my question about a possible majority text of the LXX.

                James Miller wrote:
                > My supposition is that the text of the miniscules should
                > be the same as that of the lectionaries, and that it was
                > standardized and thus became a majority owing to its
                > official sanction by the church and the fact that it was the
                > text read out at public worship.


                This is definitely wrong. The Byz text did not arise out of the
                lectionary text, it was the other way round. The lectionaries have a
                distinct text, which is basically Byzantine, that is correct, but it is
                a very late text.
                The Byzantine text originated not in the 10th CE, but at the end of the
                3rd CE. The earliest substantial copies we have are Codex W/032 and A/02
                (both 5th CE). The origin of the Byz text is one of the great mysteria
                in NT TC. There is much speculation, but no facts.

                From your answers regarding my question about a majority text of the LXX
                I take it that there is no such thing, not even a lectionary text of the
                LXX. This is very interesting since it is a significant difference to
                the NT. It cries for an explanation.
                Your suggestion "that there was no political or social force driving a
                standardization of the text" is not really convincing to me because it
                was originally the LXX that was tried to get standardized (Origen's
                Hexapla, Lucian).
                If really Lucian is responsible for the origin of the Byzantine text of
                the NT (we don't really know that), and he also did an LXX recension,
                why did his NT supplant everything (99% of all MSS are now basically
                Byzantine), but his LXX failed to make that impact? Perhaps the
                authority of Origen was too strong?
                On the other hand it is certainly possible that Lucian has nothing to do
                with the origin of the Byzantine text of the NT. This supposition then
                would remove the above problem.

                Btw. how many of all LXX MSS are now basically Lucianic? Have all the
                1500+ MSS been test-collated to check their type? How much do we know
                about LXX texttypes and groups? I am wondering if this has ever been
                checked systematically?

                Best wishes
                Wieland
                <><
                ------------------------------------------------
                Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
                http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                Textcritical commentary:
                http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
              • James Miller
                Finally, a direct response. ... According to my sources, the Byzantine text-form simply did not exist in the second and third centuries, although many of the
                Message 7 of 20 , Nov 10, 2004
                  Finally, a direct response.

                  On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Wieland Willker wrote:

                  > James Miller wrote:
                  > > My supposition is that the text of the miniscules should
                  > > be the same as that of the lectionaries, and that it was
                  > > standardized and thus became a majority owing to its
                  > > official sanction by the church and the fact that it was the
                  > > text read out at public worship.
                  >
                  > This is definitely wrong. The Byz text did not arise out of the
                  > lectionary text, it was the other way round. The lectionaries have a
                  > distinct text, which is basically Byzantine, that is correct, but it is
                  > a very late text.
                  > The Byzantine text originated not in the 10th CE, but at the end of the
                  > 3rd CE. The earliest substantial copies we have are Codex W/032 and A/02
                  > (both 5th CE). The origin of the Byz text is one of the great mysteria
                  > in NT TC. There is much speculation, but no facts.

                  According to my sources, "the Byzantine text-form simply did not exist in
                  the second and third centuries, although many of the variants that were to
                  be found in it had already come into existence . . . The Majority text as
                  a full-fledged form of text, distinguishable from the Egyptian and
                  'Western' does not appear in history until about AD 350. NT citations
                  that are closer to the TR than to the Egyptian and 'Western' texts first
                  appear in a group of writers associated with the church of Antioch:
                  (list). But even so, these fathers had a NT only about 90% along the way
                  to the full Byzantine text of the later Middle Ages. The earliest Greek
                  MS to reflect this text is from Alexandria (Codex W, ca. 400--Luke 8:14 -
                  14:53 only) and is only about 85% Byzantine, while the earliest full
                  witnesses to it are uncials from the 8th and 9th centuries (list)--and
                  even these reflect a slightly earlier stage of the text finally found in
                  the TR." (Fee, "Studies and Documents" p 187) Confusing use of the labels
                  "Byzantine," TR and "Majority" but they seem largely synonymous and
                  interchangeable for Fee. Perhaps the basic concepts are too squishy to be
                  used in any categorical way.

                  On the lectionaries, from the same volume and author, we read "There are
                  presently 2,193 known lectionary MSS, the earliest fragments dating from
                  the 6th century and complete MSS from the eighth." (p 5) Now, in the case
                  of lectionaries, are we talking about text *form* ("these are texts
                  written not in regular canonical sequence, but in accordance with the
                  designated daily and weekly lessons" p 5) or text *type*? You and I seem
                  to agree, and ABD happens to exonerate us, that the lectionary is of the
                  Byzantine text type. Fee seems to want to think mainly of form when
                  addressing the lectionaries here though--he doesn't even mention the text
                  type. Seems to me like some rather obvious dots are not being connected.
                  You don't have to look very far in the literature to run across the
                  conventional lament that "the lectionaries have not received adequate
                  attention" (my paraphrase). There's a long-standing assumption among
                  scholars--most likely related to certain Protestant biases--that the
                  lectionary texts are of little interest since they will show mainly
                  accretions from later church practice. Whether the text is relatively
                  late or early, they still need to be taken more into consideration and
                  their text type(s) classified and collated against those now conjectured.
                  My assumption is that this will reveal heretofore unappreciated aspects of
                  textual transmission--i.e., that the majority text (NT) is uniform and
                  abundant because of its relation to the liturgical text sanctioned by the
                  church and familiar through recitation at public worship. Maybe I'm
                  wrong, but only more serious engagement with the lectionary MSS is going
                  to demonstrate that. So far, only arguments from silence can be made on
                  both sides. But I think my arguments are more provocative--and
                  scholarship loves provocativeness, doesn't it? (when it comes from someone
                  with the requisite credentials, anyway). To simplify, what I'm suggesting
                  is that perhaps the 6th century witnessed a *change* in the way the
                  ecclesiatical text was formatted: from being a continuous text more like
                  our modern NT's, its form was changed to reflect the course of readings
                  for the liturgical year. But the type (Byzantine) remained consistent. I
                  admit that more analysis and study is required to exonerate this notion.
                  But I also hold that noone arguing against it is on any better footing.

                  > From your answers regarding my question about a majority text of the LXX
                  > I take it that there is no such thing, not even a lectionary text of the
                  > LXX. This is very interesting since it is a significant difference to
                  > the NT. It cries for an explanation.

                  The OT lectionary text is the Prophetologion. It is highly uniform like
                  the Majority text type, but encompasses something like less than 10% of
                  our current OT. I still think the answer to the fact that there is no
                  cognate to the Majority NT text for the LXX lies in the fact that the
                  great bulk of the OT was not used liturgically, while the great bulk of
                  the NT was. There was thus no overarching social or political force (such
                  as the church represented from 300 to 1500) acting to standardize the text
                  as a whole--as what we now think of as the "Old Testament."

                  > Your suggestion "that there was no political or social force driving a
                  > standardization of the text" is not really convincing to me because it
                  > was originally the LXX that was tried to get standardized (Origen's
                  > Hexapla, Lucian).

                  How about the fact that the driving force for that effort was apologetic?
                  Origen wanted to have a textual base from which argumentation for
                  Christianity visa vis Judaism could be more legitimately made. And what
                  about the fact that the effort was essentially dropped after Origen's
                  death? You seem to be envisioning textual standardization as hinging on
                  personal valor or something. It seems unwise to me to ignore forces in
                  the larger social fabric when attempting to account for textual
                  standardization.

                  > If really Lucian is responsible for the origin of the Byzantine text of
                  > the NT (we don't really know that), and he also did an LXX recension,
                  > why did his NT supplant everything (99% of all MSS are now basically
                  > Byzantine), but his LXX failed to make that impact? Perhaps the
                  > authority of Origen was too strong?

                  If we don't really know Lucian is responsible for the origin of the
                  Byzantine text, what's the point of speculating about his, and Origen's,
                  personal roles in the process? Attribution in ancient authors and texts
                  should not be taken as modern scholarly citation or copyright attribution.
                  A text could become associated with someone's name or reputation for a
                  range of reasons that don't fit well into current scholarly notions of
                  attribution. Part of the problem here may be that scholarship (that
                  dealing most closely with MSS anyway) has not properly appreciated
                  attribution in ancient authors and is seeking to adapt it into a foreign
                  framework.

                  > Btw. how many of all LXX MSS are now basically Lucianic? Have all the
                  > 1500+ MSS been test-collated to check their type? How much do we know
                  > about LXX texttypes and groups? I am wondering if this has ever been
                  > checked systematically?

                  I don't know of any such widescale classification. The best place to find
                  out about LXX textual families that I know of is in the manuscript "keys"
                  to the Goettingen editions. Each scholar tries to interrelate the MS
                  evidence with which s/he has dealt and to give a list of textual families.
                  This could, theoretically, lay the groundwork for widescale categorization
                  of the texts into a few families or types like you seem to seek. And that
                  was the impetus for Rahlfs and other scholars of his era in starting this
                  and other such projects. So far as I can tell, this project is still in
                  very rudimentary stages--the whole of the project seeming to be at
                  something of a standstill and with many volumes still to be published.
                  Bob is probably the one to speak more authoritatively to status of that
                  project and the stage at which textual classification stands, though.
                  Let's hope he offers something.

                  Anyway, my supposition is that, were this project (Goettingen) to be
                  finally completed and something like the widescale categorization of MSS
                  and text types you're expecting to be done, we'd still be left with the
                  sort of squishiness and incompleteness we see in NT circles, where the
                  endeavor is relatively much further advanced (e.g., "TR," "Majority" and
                  "Byzantine" being used interchangeably, the lectionaries not having been
                  carefully examined to determine their place textually against the other
                  groups, etc).

                  James

                  PS Further questions worth reflecting on. The fathers (Asterius,
                  Cappadocians, Chrysostom, Theodoret) Fee speaks of as having used a
                  Byzantine text were ecclesiatical authorities, right? Are we to imagine
                  (if we presume that the NT text now contained in their works has not been
                  later modified) that these people were going into their private libraries,
                  grabbing a NT off the shelf, and sitting down to jot down some thoughts?
                  Alot of these works are sermons delivered at public worship, presumably
                  based on a text that was also read out publically just prior to the
                  sermon. Did someone just go grab a NT from somewhere for this reading, or
                  ask to borrow one from an attendee, or was it from a book that was used
                  specifically for such public readings at worship? I'm presuming we'd
                  agree that, by this era, we're not speaking of informal or impromptu
                  gatherings at someone's house for some prayer. Isn't it sort of presumed
                  that this is a full-blown, so-called "high church" setting? And if there
                  were such texts--lectionaries is how I would call them--can we not assume
                  that church officials would know them well, and even use or paraphrase
                  this text in works that were not public sermons? I'm willing to submit
                  that a connection remains to be made between the text as found in these
                  authors and that in the later lectionaries. It may well differ in some
                  ways. But I think there can be little doubt that we're dealing with a
                  lectionary tradition in these fathers. And I hold it unwise in the
                  extreme to exclude this and other lectionary elements prima facie from
                  considerations of textual standardization and development in general. It
                  seems to me that such an oversight is being made, and that some of your
                  assumptions on the issues we've been discussing hinge on this oversight.
                • Robert Kraft
                  Sorry, I don t really have time to respond in detail at this point, but perhaps a few quick observations can carry the discussion until after Thanksgiving,
                  Message 8 of 20 , Nov 10, 2004
                    Sorry, I don't really have time to respond in detail at this point, but perhaps a
                    few quick observations can carry the discussion until after Thanksgiving, when a
                    different set of pressures will encompass me (and us). For now, it's getting ready
                    for the San Antionio SBL circus.

                    1. I think a major factor in the discussion is technological -- the fact that while
                    there might conceptually be a unified "Bible" (or "OT" or "NT") prior to the
                    success of the printing press, in actuality it would be rare to actually possess or
                    even see such an item, and thus difficult to create and/or transmit a homogeneous
                    "text" of the sort this discussion assumes. How many "pandects" (entire Bible MSS)
                    have survived, and of what dates? How many separate MSS of the entire NT? Of the
                    LXX/OG? And as we move back behind the development of the mega-codex in the 4th
                    century, towards a mini-codex and scroll world, how does this affect the
                    discussion?

                    2. Classification of LXX/OG MSS for textcritical purposes has gone on for a very
                    long time, and although there are arguments about which labels are most appropriate
                    (as also in NT text criticism), it is generally pretty clear which MSS represent
                    which "families." I've always felt it unfortunate that the editors of the "Larger
                    Cambridge LXX" refused to group the MSS they cite -- presumably in the interests of
                    fostering objectivity -- despite the fact that such grouping was already fairly
                    well established for much of their evidence.

                    3. Creating appropriate labels was easier when the primary starting point was the
                    great uncials of the 4th-5th centuries, and the comments of people such as Jerome.
                    The discovery of hundreds of papyri and parchment fragments from earlier times has
                    called for rethinking of this whole procedure (see Eldon Epp, among others, on the
                    situation in NT TC circles). Barthelemy's work on Devanciers d'Aquila further
                    opened up various doors relative to LXX/OG studies, including the meaning of the
                    "Lucianic" (or "Antiochene") label, with which we still must struggle in attempting
                    to establish a more satisfactory approach.

                    4. On the lectionary problems, I have nothing to offer beyond what has already been
                    said. For LXX/OG, I suspect that a lectionary based approach will simply complicate
                    an already very complex situation, which doesn't mean that I don't think it is worth
                    pursuing. In NT TC, it has been and is being pursued with significant benefit.
                    Since lections presumably were derived from more consecutive biblical texts in the
                    first place, I'm not ready to argue that lectionaries produced the text type(s)
                    they represent, but they certainly would have been instrumental in preserving and
                    propogating such text, and thus are an important ingredient at least in the
                    identification, and probably also in the "standardization," of the "Byzantine" TR.

                    Now back to revising my theories about the continuities and discontinuities between
                    Greek book production in early Judaism and in earliest Christianity!

                    Bob

                    > Finally, a direct response.
                    >
                    > On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Wieland Willker wrote:
                    >
                    > > James Miller wrote:
                    > > > My supposition is that the text of the miniscules should
                    > > > be the same as that of the lectionaries, and that it was
                    > > > standardized and thus became a majority owing to its
                    > > > official sanction by the church and the fact that it was the
                    > > > text read out at public worship.
                    > >
                    > > This is definitely wrong. The Byz text did not arise out of the
                    > > lectionary text, it was the other way round. The lectionaries have a
                    > > distinct text, which is basically Byzantine, that is correct, but it is
                    > > a very late text.
                    > > The Byzantine text originated not in the 10th CE, but at the end of the
                    > > 3rd CE. The earliest substantial copies we have are Codex W/032 and A/02
                    > > (both 5th CE). The origin of the Byz text is one of the great mysteria
                    > > in NT TC. There is much speculation, but no facts.
                    >
                    > According to my sources, "the Byzantine text-form simply did not exist in
                    > the second and third centuries, although many of the variants that were to
                    > be found in it had already come into existence . . . The Majority text as
                    > a full-fledged form of text, distinguishable from the Egyptian and
                    > 'Western' does not appear in history until about AD 350. NT citations
                    > that are closer to the TR than to the Egyptian and 'Western' texts first
                    > appear in a group of writers associated with the church of Antioch:
                    > (list). But even so, these fathers had a NT only about 90% along the way
                    > to the full Byzantine text of the later Middle Ages. The earliest Greek
                    > MS to reflect this text is from Alexandria (Codex W, ca. 400--Luke 8:14 -
                    > 14:53 only) and is only about 85% Byzantine, while the earliest full
                    > witnesses to it are uncials from the 8th and 9th centuries (list)--and
                    > even these reflect a slightly earlier stage of the text finally found in
                    > the TR." (Fee, "Studies and Documents" p 187) Confusing use of the labels
                    > "Byzantine," TR and "Majority" but they seem largely synonymous and
                    > interchangeable for Fee. Perhaps the basic concepts are too squishy to be
                    > used in any categorical way.
                    >
                    > On the lectionaries, from the same volume and author, we read "There are
                    > presently 2,193 known lectionary MSS, the earliest fragments dating from
                    > the 6th century and complete MSS from the eighth." (p 5) Now, in the case
                    > of lectionaries, are we talking about text *form* ("these are texts
                    > written not in regular canonical sequence, but in accordance with the
                    > designated daily and weekly lessons" p 5) or text *type*? You and I seem
                    > to agree, and ABD happens to exonerate us, that the lectionary is of the
                    > Byzantine text type. Fee seems to want to think mainly of form when
                    > addressing the lectionaries here though--he doesn't even mention the text
                    > type. Seems to me like some rather obvious dots are not being connected.
                    > You don't have to look very far in the literature to run across the
                    > conventional lament that "the lectionaries have not received adequate
                    > attention" (my paraphrase). There's a long-standing assumption among
                    > scholars--most likely related to certain Protestant biases--that the
                    > lectionary texts are of little interest since they will show mainly
                    > accretions from later church practice. Whether the text is relatively
                    > late or early, they still need to be taken more into consideration and
                    > their text type(s) classified and collated against those now conjectured.
                    > My assumption is that this will reveal heretofore unappreciated aspects of
                    > textual transmission--i.e., that the majority text (NT) is uniform and
                    > abundant because of its relation to the liturgical text sanctioned by the
                    > church and familiar through recitation at public worship. Maybe I'm
                    > wrong, but only more serious engagement with the lectionary MSS is going
                    > to demonstrate that. So far, only arguments from silence can be made on
                    > both sides. But I think my arguments are more provocative--and
                    > scholarship loves provocativeness, doesn't it? (when it comes from someone
                    > with the requisite credentials, anyway). To simplify, what I'm suggesting
                    > is that perhaps the 6th century witnessed a *change* in the way the
                    > ecclesiatical text was formatted: from being a continuous text more like
                    > our modern NT's, its form was changed to reflect the course of readings
                    > for the liturgical year. But the type (Byzantine) remained consistent. I
                    > admit that more analysis and study is required to exonerate this notion.
                    > But I also hold that noone arguing against it is on any better footing.
                    >
                    > > From your answers regarding my question about a majority text of the LXX
                    > > I take it that there is no such thing, not even a lectionary text of the
                    > > LXX. This is very interesting since it is a significant difference to
                    > > the NT. It cries for an explanation.
                    >
                    > The OT lectionary text is the Prophetologion. It is highly uniform like
                    > the Majority text type, but encompasses something like less than 10% of
                    > our current OT. I still think the answer to the fact that there is no
                    > cognate to the Majority NT text for the LXX lies in the fact that the
                    > great bulk of the OT was not used liturgically, while the great bulk of
                    > the NT was. There was thus no overarching social or political force (such
                    > as the church represented from 300 to 1500) acting to standardize the text
                    > as a whole--as what we now think of as the "Old Testament."
                    >
                    > > Your suggestion "that there was no political or social force driving a
                    > > standardization of the text" is not really convincing to me because it
                    > > was originally the LXX that was tried to get standardized (Origen's
                    > > Hexapla, Lucian).
                    >
                    > How about the fact that the driving force for that effort was apologetic?
                    > Origen wanted to have a textual base from which argumentation for
                    > Christianity visa vis Judaism could be more legitimately made. And what
                    > about the fact that the effort was essentially dropped after Origen's
                    > death? You seem to be envisioning textual standardization as hinging on
                    > personal valor or something. It seems unwise to me to ignore forces in
                    > the larger social fabric when attempting to account for textual
                    > standardization.
                    >
                    > > If really Lucian is responsible for the origin of the Byzantine text of
                    > > the NT (we don't really know that), and he also did an LXX recension,
                    > > why did his NT supplant everything (99% of all MSS are now basically
                    > > Byzantine), but his LXX failed to make that impact? Perhaps the
                    > > authority of Origen was too strong?
                    >
                    > If we don't really know Lucian is responsible for the origin of the
                    > Byzantine text, what's the point of speculating about his, and Origen's,
                    > personal roles in the process? Attribution in ancient authors and texts
                    > should not be taken as modern scholarly citation or copyright attribution.
                    > A text could become associated with someone's name or reputation for a
                    > range of reasons that don't fit well into current scholarly notions of
                    > attribution. Part of the problem here may be that scholarship (that
                    > dealing most closely with MSS anyway) has not properly appreciated
                    > attribution in ancient authors and is seeking to adapt it into a foreign
                    > framework.
                    >
                    > > Btw. how many of all LXX MSS are now basically Lucianic? Have all the
                    > > 1500+ MSS been test-collated to check their type? How much do we know
                    > > about LXX texttypes and groups? I am wondering if this has ever been
                    > > checked systematically?
                    >
                    > I don't know of any such widescale classification. The best place to find
                    > out about LXX textual families that I know of is in the manuscript "keys"
                    > to the Goettingen editions. Each scholar tries to interrelate the MS
                    > evidence with which s/he has dealt and to give a list of textual families.
                    > This could, theoretically, lay the groundwork for widescale categorization
                    > of the texts into a few families or types like you seem to seek. And that
                    > was the impetus for Rahlfs and other scholars of his era in starting this
                    > and other such projects. So far as I can tell, this project is still in
                    > very rudimentary stages--the whole of the project seeming to be at
                    > something of a standstill and with many volumes still to be published.
                    > Bob is probably the one to speak more authoritatively to status of that
                    > project and the stage at which textual classification stands, though.
                    > Let's hope he offers something.
                    >
                    > Anyway, my supposition is that, were this project (Goettingen) to be
                    > finally completed and something like the widescale categorization of MSS
                    > and text types you're expecting to be done, we'd still be left with the
                    > sort of squishiness and incompleteness we see in NT circles, where the
                    > endeavor is relatively much further advanced (e.g., "TR," "Majority" and
                    > "Byzantine" being used interchangeably, the lectionaries not having been
                    > carefully examined to determine their place textually against the other
                    > groups, etc).
                    >
                    > James
                    >
                    > PS Further questions worth reflecting on. The fathers (Asterius,
                    > Cappadocians, Chrysostom, Theodoret) Fee speaks of as having used a
                    > Byzantine text were ecclesiatical authorities, right? Are we to imagine
                    > (if we presume that the NT text now contained in their works has not been
                    > later modified) that these people were going into their private libraries,
                    > grabbing a NT off the shelf, and sitting down to jot down some thoughts?
                    > Alot of these works are sermons delivered at public worship, presumably
                    > based on a text that was also read out publically just prior to the
                    > sermon. Did someone just go grab a NT from somewhere for this reading, or
                    > ask to borrow one from an attendee, or was it from a book that was used
                    > specifically for such public readings at worship? I'm presuming we'd
                    > agree that, by this era, we're not speaking of informal or impromptu
                    > gatherings at someone's house for some prayer. Isn't it sort of presumed
                    > that this is a full-blown, so-called "high church" setting? And if there
                    > were such texts--lectionaries is how I would call them--can we not assume
                    > that church officials would know them well, and even use or paraphrase
                    > this text in works that were not public sermons? I'm willing to submit
                    > that a connection remains to be made between the text as found in these
                    > authors and that in the later lectionaries. It may well differ in some
                    > ways. But I think there can be little doubt that we're dealing with a
                    > lectionary tradition in these fathers. And I hold it unwise in the
                    > extreme to exclude this and other lectionary elements prima facie from
                    > considerations of textual standardization and development in general. It
                    > seems to me that such an oversight is being made, and that some of your
                    > assumptions on the issues we've been discussing hinge on this oversight.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >



                    --
                    Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
                    227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
                    kraft@...
                    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html
                  • James Miller
                    I m wondering what is the relation of extant manuscripts of Exodus to Codex A s text of Exodus--whether the former be parts of a larger Bible or
                    Message 9 of 20 , Nov 16, 2004
                      I'm wondering what is the relation of extant manuscripts of Exodus to
                      Codex A's text of Exodus--whether the former be parts of a larger Bible or
                      independently-circulating Exodus manuscripts. Specifically I would be
                      interested to know whether any Exodus manuscripts are thought to have been
                      copied from A. Obviously the question applies primarily to post-5th
                      century manuscripts. I've not read anything that draws such direct links
                      between manuscripts, asserting that one or some was/were copied from
                      another. If there is any such resource that I may have overlooked, please
                      point it out. If such direct connections between extant manuscripts can't
                      be made, then can't the status of the text critical endeavor in LXX
                      studies be said to be at the stage of trying to group manuscripts together
                      according to shared characteristics? And that the aim of doing this would
                      be to determine the character of a conjectured common ancestor for each
                      group? The supposition in earlier times was that these groups would
                      resolve eventually into the 3 varieties mentioned by Jerome, if I
                      understand correctly, but doesn't the manuscript evidence thus far
                      collated make this supposition look untenable?

                      Thanks, James
                    • Robert Kraft
                      ... I don t think so, but if you examine Wevers Goettingen edition of Exodus, with special attention to the MSS most closely aligned with A, you will be able
                      Message 10 of 20 , Nov 16, 2004
                        Quick response:

                        > I'm wondering what is the relation of extant manuscripts of Exodus to
                        > Codex A's text of Exodus--whether the former be parts of a larger Bible or
                        > independently-circulating Exodus manuscripts. Specifically I would be
                        > interested to know whether any Exodus manuscripts are thought to have been
                        > copied from A.

                        I don't think so, but if you examine Wevers' Goettingen edition of Exodus, with
                        special attention to the MSS most closely aligned with A, you will be able to judge
                        for yourself.

                        > Obviously the question applies primarily to post-5th
                        > century manuscripts. I've not read anything that draws such direct links
                        > between manuscripts, asserting that one or some was/were copied from
                        > another.

                        Occasionally this is possible, often with very late MSS (14-16th centuries) where
                        something was copied in a monastic scriptorium, etc.

                        > If there is any such resource that I may have overlooked, please
                        > point it out. If such direct connections between extant manuscripts can't
                        > be made, then can't the status of the text critical endeavor in LXX
                        > studies be said to be at the stage of trying to group manuscripts together
                        > according to shared characteristics?

                        This has pretty much been done, at least for the Goettingen critical editions. The
                        "shared characteristics" tend to be textcritical in nature (shared errors, etc.)
                        rather than codicological (format features, scribal habits, etc.), since the goal
                        is to move behind the extant texts to their textual ancestors.

                        > And that the aim of doing this would
                        > be to determine the character of a conjectured common ancestor for each
                        > group?

                        Yes.

                        > The supposition in earlier times was that these groups would
                        > resolve eventually into the 3 varieties mentioned by Jerome, if I
                        > understand correctly, but doesn't the manuscript evidence thus far
                        > collated make this supposition look untenable?

                        Current evidence often gives us glimpses into the situation prior to the 4th-5th
                        century watershed, which problematizes the older "threefold" division approach. A
                        reasonable textcritical goal is the earliest recoverable text, judged passage by
                        passage rather than in terms of whole books or manuscripts.

                        Bob

                        > Thanks, James
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >



                        --
                        Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
                        227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
                        kraft@...
                        http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html
                      • James Miller
                        Thanks for your response, Bob. ... And the examination to determine MSS most closely aligned with A would involve scrutinizing the apparatus and sort of
                        Message 11 of 20 , Nov 16, 2004
                          Thanks for your response, Bob.

                          On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Robert Kraft wrote:

                          > I don't think so, but if you examine Wevers' Goettingen edition of Exodus, with
                          > special attention to the MSS most closely aligned with A, you will be able to judge
                          > for yourself.

                          And the examination to determine MSS most closely aligned with A would
                          involve scrutinizing the apparatus and sort of inferring where the various
                          witnesses listed agree with and diverge from one another (A being one)?
                          Wevers' "Rezensionen und Handschriftlichen-Gruppen" groups the miniscules
                          together in a clear way, presumably by family. But A is listed there in a
                          separate group "Unzialen und Papyri." This grouping seems to me one of
                          text form or material rather than familial alignment as determined through
                          similar readings or shared errors. Am I overlooking some place where he's
                          spoken of the text's character and aligned it with the groups he's given
                          for the miniscules? I don't brag about my facilities with German, but I
                          am able to muddle through with a dictionary. A first pass over the
                          introduction of this volume doesn't reveal any category into which A has
                          been grouped or any identification of it with other MSS which might
                          therefore be candidates for being copies.

                          Thanks, James
                        • Robert Kraft
                          Now that I have a few minutes to check out the situation, I m surprised to find that your are correct -- Wevers doesn t provide any guidance regarding allies
                          Message 12 of 20 , Nov 16, 2004
                            Now that I have a few minutes to check out the situation, I'm surprised to find
                            that your are correct -- Wevers doesn't provide any guidance regarding allies of
                            either A or B or F in his Goettingen edition! Sorry. My own early work with
                            Pentateuch manuscripts based on the Cambridge Larger LXX edition left me with the
                            impression that the closest minuscule to A was B-M's "y" = Gottingen 121.
                            Fortunately, I find that I do have on my shelf Wevers' Text History of the Greek
                            Exodus (1992) in which he provides great detail for all the witnesses, including
                            Alexandrinus. And it is in English!

                            So, he finds that the closest allies to A are his family italicized "b"
                            (19-108-118-314-537) which far outweighs all other groups. Surprisingly, his
                            italicized "y" group (121-318-392-527[partly]) does not rank very highly, but he
                            has the following comment on that: "The low ranking for the _y_ group in the A
                            tradition is partly offset by the strong support of the individual ms 121 [=B-M y]
                            which supported the A reading in 89 cases from the above list (whereas ms 318 had
                            37 instances, and 392, only 25). ... That the relationship between A and 121 is a
                            real one becomes even clearer when List 5 is examined (i.e. A readings with no more
                            than four further witnesses). Ms 121 supports A readings 35 times, wheras others in
                            the above list are insignificant; these are 319 with 8, 392 with 3, 318 and 509
                            with 2 each, and 59 with 1" (p.103).

                            That made me feel better. In terms of individual mss (not families), y/121 stands
                            closest to A. Exactly how that relationship came about is another matter, and why
                            it didn't hold for the otherwise close associates of y. Wevers gives long lists of
                            the relevant evidence.

                            Bob

                            > Thanks for your response, Bob.
                            >
                            > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Robert Kraft wrote:
                            >
                            > > I don't think so, but if you examine Wevers' Goettingen edition of Exodus, with
                            > > special attention to the MSS most closely aligned with A, you will be able to judge
                            > > for yourself.
                            >
                            > And the examination to determine MSS most closely aligned with A would
                            > involve scrutinizing the apparatus and sort of inferring where the various
                            > witnesses listed agree with and diverge from one another (A being one)?
                            > Wevers' "Rezensionen und Handschriftlichen-Gruppen" groups the miniscules
                            > together in a clear way, presumably by family. But A is listed there in a
                            > separate group "Unzialen und Papyri." This grouping seems to me one of
                            > text form or material rather than familial alignment as determined through
                            > similar readings or shared errors. Am I overlooking some place where he's
                            > spoken of the text's character and aligned it with the groups he's given
                            > for the miniscules? I don't brag about my facilities with German, but I
                            > am able to muddle through with a dictionary. A first pass over the
                            > introduction of this volume doesn't reveal any category into which A has
                            > been grouped or any identification of it with other MSS which might
                            > therefore be candidates for being copies.
                            >
                            > Thanks, James
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >



                            --
                            Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
                            227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
                            kraft@...
                            http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html
                          • Craig Ware
                            Thank you gentlemen, The information sent thus far have exceeded my expectations already. You have helped me get a greater grasp of sources and information to
                            Message 13 of 20 , Nov 17, 2004
                              Thank you gentlemen,
                              The information sent thus far have
                              exceeded my expectations already. You have helped me
                              get a greater grasp of sources and information to
                              explore. I expect to soon be able to provide my Hebrew
                              language friends to have a more open mind when it
                              comes to understanding the use of O.T. quotations from
                              the N.T..
                              --- Robert Kraft <kraft@...> wrote:

                              > Now that I have a few minutes to check out the
                              > situation, I'm surprised to find
                              > that your are correct -- Wevers doesn't provide any
                              > guidance regarding allies of
                              > either A or B or F in his Goettingen edition! Sorry.
                              > My own early work with
                              > Pentateuch manuscripts based on the Cambridge Larger
                              > LXX edition left me with the
                              > impression that the closest minuscule to A was B-M's
                              > "y" = Gottingen 121.
                              > Fortunately, I find that I do have on my shelf
                              > Wevers' Text History of the Greek
                              > Exodus (1992) in which he provides great detail for
                              > all the witnesses, including
                              > Alexandrinus. And it is in English!
                              >
                              > So, he finds that the closest allies to A are his
                              > family italicized "b"
                              > (19-108-118-314-537) which far outweighs all other
                              > groups. Surprisingly, his
                              > italicized "y" group (121-318-392-527[partly]) does
                              > not rank very highly, but he
                              > has the following comment on that: "The low ranking
                              > for the _y_ group in the A
                              > tradition is partly offset by the strong support of
                              > the individual ms 121 [=B-M y]
                              > which supported the A reading in 89 cases from the
                              > above list (whereas ms 318 had
                              > 37 instances, and 392, only 25). ... That the
                              > relationship between A and 121 is a
                              > real one becomes even clearer when List 5 is
                              > examined (i.e. A readings with no more
                              > than four further witnesses). Ms 121 supports A
                              > readings 35 times, wheras others in
                              > the above list are insignificant; these are 319 with
                              > 8, 392 with 3, 318 and 509
                              > with 2 each, and 59 with 1" (p.103).
                              >
                              > That made me feel better. In terms of individual mss
                              > (not families), y/121 stands
                              > closest to A. Exactly how that relationship came
                              > about is another matter, and why
                              > it didn't hold for the otherwise close associates of
                              > y. Wevers gives long lists of
                              > the relevant evidence.
                              >
                              > Bob
                              >
                              > > Thanks for your response, Bob.
                              > >
                              > > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Robert Kraft wrote:
                              > >
                              > > > I don't think so, but if you examine Wevers'
                              > Goettingen edition of Exodus, with
                              > > > special attention to the MSS most closely
                              > aligned with A, you will be able to judge
                              > > > for yourself.
                              > >
                              > > And the examination to determine MSS most closely
                              > aligned with A would
                              > > involve scrutinizing the apparatus and sort of
                              > inferring where the various
                              > > witnesses listed agree with and diverge from one
                              > another (A being one)?
                              > > Wevers' "Rezensionen und
                              > Handschriftlichen-Gruppen" groups the miniscules
                              > > together in a clear way, presumably by family.
                              > But A is listed there in a
                              > > separate group "Unzialen und Papyri." This
                              > grouping seems to me one of
                              > > text form or material rather than familial
                              > alignment as determined through
                              > > similar readings or shared errors. Am I
                              > overlooking some place where he's
                              > > spoken of the text's character and aligned it with
                              > the groups he's given
                              > > for the miniscules? I don't brag about my
                              > facilities with German, but I
                              > > am able to muddle through with a dictionary. A
                              > first pass over the
                              > > introduction of this volume doesn't reveal any
                              > category into which A has
                              > > been grouped or any identification of it with
                              > other MSS which might
                              > > therefore be candidates for being copies.
                              > >
                              > > Thanks, James
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > --
                              > Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of
                              > Pennsylvania
                              > 227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel.
                              > 215 898-5827
                              > kraft@...
                              > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html
                              >




                              __________________________________
                              Do you Yahoo!?
                              The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
                              http://my.yahoo.com
                            • James Miller
                              Thanks for checking that for me, Bob. I am familiar with Text History of the Greek Exodus and have definitely looked it over at some point. I don t think I
                              Message 14 of 20 , Nov 17, 2004
                                Thanks for checking that for me, Bob. I am familiar with Text History of
                                the Greek Exodus and have definitely looked it over at some point. I
                                don't think I have a copy here with me though. But the situation
                                presented by this case is a little disorienting: I would presume that the
                                Goettingen editions would be the most likely place to find this sort of
                                information. It's definitely the first place I would look. So, it seems
                                a little anomolous that in this case it must be found elsewhere. Should
                                we expect, as a general rule, to find this sort of information in the
                                Goettingen volumes themselves, or in other publications?

                                And, for A's Exodus text and its relation to that of other MSS. Can any
                                sort of rule be established on the basis of this example, e.g., it is the
                                exception to the rule that such direct relationships between MSS (as that
                                of Vorlage and copy) can be legitimately proposed? Is the situation
                                similar for LXX manuscripts as for NT ones, such that Metzger's
                                observation "instances of a known copy of another manuscript are
                                exceedingly rare" (Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, 54) holds equally true
                                for LXX manuscripts? Or is the rarity of such instances perhaps more or
                                less pronounced in the case of LXX MSS? And, finally, is the overall
                                situation such that one can typically only infer more indirect
                                relationships between MSS, and these with greater or lesser degrees of
                                confidence?

                                Thanks, James

                                On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Robert Kraft wrote:

                                >
                                > Now that I have a few minutes to check out the situation, I'm surprised to find
                                > that your are correct -- Wevers doesn't provide any guidance regarding allies of
                                > either A or B or F in his Goettingen edition! Sorry. My own early work with
                                > Pentateuch manuscripts based on the Cambridge Larger LXX edition left me with the
                                > impression that the closest minuscule to A was B-M's "y" = Gottingen 121.
                                > Fortunately, I find that I do have on my shelf Wevers' Text History of the Greek
                                > Exodus (1992) in which he provides great detail for all the witnesses, including
                                > Alexandrinus. And it is in English!
                                >
                                > So, he finds that the closest allies to A are his family italicized "b"
                                > (19-108-118-314-537) which far outweighs all other groups. Surprisingly, his
                                > italicized "y" group (121-318-392-527[partly]) does not rank very highly, but he
                                > has the following comment on that: "The low ranking for the _y_ group in the A
                                > tradition is partly offset by the strong support of the individual ms 121 [=B-M y]
                                > which supported the A reading in 89 cases from the above list (whereas ms 318 had
                                > 37 instances, and 392, only 25). ... That the relationship between A and 121 is a
                                > real one becomes even clearer when List 5 is examined (i.e. A readings with no more
                                > than four further witnesses). Ms 121 supports A readings 35 times, wheras others in
                                > the above list are insignificant; these are 319 with 8, 392 with 3, 318 and 509
                                > with 2 each, and 59 with 1" (p.103).
                                >
                                > That made me feel better. In terms of individual mss (not families), y/121 stands
                                > closest to A. Exactly how that relationship came about is another matter, and why
                                > it didn't hold for the otherwise close associates of y. Wevers gives long lists of
                                > the relevant evidence.
                                >
                                > Bob
                                >
                                > > Thanks for your response, Bob.
                                > >
                                > > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Robert Kraft wrote:
                                > >
                                > > > I don't think so, but if you examine Wevers' Goettingen edition of Exodus, with
                                > > > special attention to the MSS most closely aligned with A, you will be able to judge
                                > > > for yourself.
                                > >
                                > > And the examination to determine MSS most closely aligned with A would
                                > > involve scrutinizing the apparatus and sort of inferring where the various
                                > > witnesses listed agree with and diverge from one another (A being one)?
                                > > Wevers' "Rezensionen und Handschriftlichen-Gruppen" groups the miniscules
                                > > together in a clear way, presumably by family. But A is listed there in a
                                > > separate group "Unzialen und Papyri." This grouping seems to me one of
                                > > text form or material rather than familial alignment as determined through
                                > > similar readings or shared errors. Am I overlooking some place where he's
                                > > spoken of the text's character and aligned it with the groups he's given
                                > > for the miniscules? I don't brag about my facilities with German, but I
                                > > am able to muddle through with a dictionary. A first pass over the
                                > > introduction of this volume doesn't reveal any category into which A has
                                > > been grouped or any identification of it with other MSS which might
                                > > therefore be candidates for being copies.
                                > >
                                > > Thanks, James
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > --
                                > Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
                                > 227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
                                > kraft@...
                                > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                              • Robert Kraft
                                ... I agree with you, and as my first note suggested, I expected such information to be found in the text edition volume. Two possible answers occur to me: the
                                Message 15 of 20 , Nov 17, 2004
                                  > Thanks for checking that for me, Bob. I am familiar with Text History of
                                  > the Greek Exodus and have definitely looked it over at some point. I
                                  > don't think I have a copy here with me though. But the situation
                                  > presented by this case is a little disorienting: I would presume that the
                                  > Goettingen editions would be the most likely place to find this sort of
                                  > information. It's definitely the first place I would look. So, it seems
                                  > a little anomolous that in this case it must be found elsewhere. Should
                                  > we expect, as a general rule, to find this sort of information in the
                                  > Goettingen volumes themselves, or in other publications?

                                  I agree with you, and as my first note suggested, I expected such information to
                                  be found in the text edition volume. Two possible answers occur to me: the
                                  situation is so complex that Wevers (and the Goettingen advisors?) was
                                  uncomfortable trying to boil it down to a summary presentation; or the results
                                  reported in the Text History volume are too thin and/or inconclusive to conclude
                                  that the A-121(y) or the A-_b_ relationship is significant enough (relative to
                                  other family relationships) to require attention.

                                  My Genesis Goettingen volume seems to be off somewhere, but Leviticus shows the
                                  same pattern as Exodus -- it does not list A as having any close associates -- so I
                                  suspect Wevers handled things similarly, by putting such information into the
                                  supplementary volumes.

                                  > And, for A's Exodus text and its relation to that of other MSS. Can any
                                  > sort of rule be established on the basis of this example, e.g., it is the
                                  > exception to the rule that such direct relationships between MSS (as that
                                  > of Vorlage and copy) can be legitimately proposed?

                                  The tough word is "legitimately." All these things are relative, and one must
                                  decide at what point the list of agreements and disagreements is significant enough
                                  to suggest a special relationship. The case of A-121(y) is an interesting example,
                                  where the group of which 121 is normally a member does not normally (relative to
                                  most other groups) side with A in the variation units that are tested, but 121 as
                                  an individual ms does have a close relationship to A. How could this happen?
                                  Perhaps at a previous stage of its transmission, the text that came to be copied as
                                  121 had been collated with A (or a text-type close to A), and those "corrections"
                                  became part of the 121 text, while its normal allies did not go through a similar
                                  transmission process. Funny things happen in textual transmission!

                                  > Is the situation
                                  > similar for LXX manuscripts as for NT ones, such that Metzger's
                                  > observation "instances of a known copy of another manuscript are
                                  > exceedingly rare" (Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, 54) holds equally true
                                  > for LXX manuscripts? Or is the rarity of such instances perhaps more or
                                  > less pronounced in the case of LXX MSS?

                                  My gut reaction is that the situation would be similar for LXX/OG. But keep in mind
                                  that (1) editors normally ignore mss dated after the 16th century -- a somewhat
                                  arbitrary cutoff date -- and thus probably ignore some of the materials that are
                                  more likely to be copies of extant older mss, and (2) even for earlier dated mss,
                                  if it is quite clear that one is a copy of another, editors are most likely to
                                  ignore the copy and report only the supposed source ms. So short of visiting
                                  the Goettingen Project offices and checking out such possibilities, we probably
                                  won't know how many such situations exist.

                                  > And, finally, is the overall
                                  > situation such that one can typically only infer more indirect
                                  > relationships between MSS, and these with greater or lesser degrees of
                                  > confidence?

                                  If I understand your question correctly, I'd say yes, we are usually dealing with
                                  statistical inference. And even this requires great caution, since how one counts
                                  (and thus derives statistics) can differ greatly. Wevers has been very careful to
                                  attempt to isolate the more significant agreements, but not all textcritics operate
                                  that way. Agreement in omission may be less significant than agreement in
                                  an alternate reading, unless some pattern of omission is apparent. And with
                                  alternate readings (and presumed "additions"), supposed "errors" are more
                                  significant than preservation of the supposed "original" text, etc. But you
                                  probably knew all this. Carry on.

                                  Bob

                                  > Thanks, James
                                  >
                                  > On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Robert Kraft wrote:
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  > > Now that I have a few minutes to check out the situation, I'm surprised to find
                                  > > that your are correct -- Wevers doesn't provide any guidance regarding allies of
                                  > > either A or B or F in his Goettingen edition! Sorry. My own early work with
                                  > > Pentateuch manuscripts based on the Cambridge Larger LXX edition left me with the
                                  > > impression that the closest minuscule to A was B-M's "y" = Gottingen 121.
                                  > > Fortunately, I find that I do have on my shelf Wevers' Text History of the Greek
                                  > > Exodus (1992) in which he provides great detail for all the witnesses, including
                                  > > Alexandrinus. And it is in English!
                                  > >
                                  > > So, he finds that the closest allies to A are his family italicized "b"
                                  > > (19-108-118-314-537) which far outweighs all other groups. Surprisingly, his
                                  > > italicized "y" group (121-318-392-527[partly]) does not rank very highly, but he
                                  > > has the following comment on that: "The low ranking for the _y_ group in the A
                                  > > tradition is partly offset by the strong support of the individual ms 121 [=B-M y]
                                  > > which supported the A reading in 89 cases from the above list (whereas ms 318 had
                                  > > 37 instances, and 392, only 25). ... That the relationship between A and 121 is a
                                  > > real one becomes even clearer when List 5 is examined (i.e. A readings with no more
                                  > > than four further witnesses). Ms 121 supports A readings 35 times, wheras others in
                                  > > the above list are insignificant; these are 319 with 8, 392 with 3, 318 and 509
                                  > > with 2 each, and 59 with 1" (p.103).
                                  > >
                                  > > That made me feel better. In terms of individual mss (not families), y/121 stands
                                  > > closest to A. Exactly how that relationship came about is another matter, and why
                                  > > it didn't hold for the otherwise close associates of y. Wevers gives long lists of
                                  > > the relevant evidence.
                                  > >
                                  > > Bob
                                  > >
                                  > > > Thanks for your response, Bob.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Robert Kraft wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > > I don't think so, but if you examine Wevers' Goettingen edition of Exodus, with
                                  > > > > special attention to the MSS most closely aligned with A, you will be able to judge
                                  > > > > for yourself.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > And the examination to determine MSS most closely aligned with A would
                                  > > > involve scrutinizing the apparatus and sort of inferring where the various
                                  > > > witnesses listed agree with and diverge from one another (A being one)?
                                  > > > Wevers' "Rezensionen und Handschriftlichen-Gruppen" groups the miniscules
                                  > > > together in a clear way, presumably by family. But A is listed there in a
                                  > > > separate group "Unzialen und Papyri." This grouping seems to me one of
                                  > > > text form or material rather than familial alignment as determined through
                                  > > > similar readings or shared errors. Am I overlooking some place where he's
                                  > > > spoken of the text's character and aligned it with the groups he's given
                                  > > > for the miniscules? I don't brag about my facilities with German, but I
                                  > > > am able to muddle through with a dictionary. A first pass over the
                                  > > > introduction of this volume doesn't reveal any category into which A has
                                  > > > been grouped or any identification of it with other MSS which might
                                  > > > therefore be candidates for being copies.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Thanks, James
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > --
                                  > > Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
                                  > > 227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
                                  > > kraft@...
                                  > > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >



                                  --
                                  Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
                                  227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
                                  kraft@...
                                  http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.