Re: tc-list MS-relation to a text-type
- On 11/3/99, Dr. Ron Minton wrote:
>Date sent: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:34:44 -0600There are some who would accept this. I can't agree.
>From: "Robert B. Waltz" <news1!waltzmn@...>
> >...There is actually a more fundamental question here: Is a text-type a
> > collection of *readings*, or a collection of *manuscripts*?
> > This is a question without a true answer, because we don't *have* a
> > definition for a text-type....
>Text-type = the theoretical text behind similar manuscripts.
This assumes, in effect, that every manuscript of a type goes back
to a common ancestor. This cannot be shown, and does *not* follow.
Presumably this means you agree with those who regard a text-type
as a collection of readings. This, too, remains disputed.
But even if you can get everyone (except me) to agree on your
definition of a text-type, the above is not a *practical*
definition. A definition, to be usable, must allow us to
recognize text-types. The above does not allow us to do so.
Take an example: The Koridethi Codex. Von Soden said it was
type I, i.e. "Western." Streeter said it was "Caesarean."
Today, we agree it's not "Western," and many would dissolve
the "Caesarean" text. So what text-type does Theta belong to?
A definition must allow us to
1) Define a text-type, that is, look through the tradition and
determine which text-types exist.
2) Determine what manuscripts belong to a text-type.
Given that people still call P46 Alexandrian, while some call
Theta "Caesasrean" and others claim it is not, it is clear
that we do not have a universally accepted definition of
(And yes, I know, Hurtado or somebody is going to quote Colwell
and Tune. Apart from being wrong, it's still not *universally
accepted.* Nor, be it noted, is it sufficiently precise, since
I can -- and *have* -- juggled boundary conditions to move
manuscripts in and out of text-types. In any case, while
Colwell fulfills condition (2), it does not fulfill condition
Robert B. Waltz
Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)