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

Re: tc-list MS-relation to a text-type

Expand Messages
  • Robert B. Waltz
    ... There are some who would accept this. I can t agree. This assumes, in effect, that every manuscript of a type goes back to a common ancestor. This cannot
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 3, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      On 11/3/99, Dr. Ron Minton wrote:

      >Date sent: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:34:44 -0600
      >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.

      There are some who would accept this. I can't agree.

      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
      a text-type.

      (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
      (1).)

      -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

      Robert B. Waltz
      waltzmn@...

      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)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.