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

[tc-list] Textypes in Mark

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    It appears that a special group of witnesses can be quite easily distinguished in Mk, which is often called the Caesarean texttype . What do you think is the
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 29, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      It appears that a special group of witnesses can be quite easily
      distinguished in Mk, which is often called the "Caesarean texttype".
      What do you think is the reason that the "Caesarean texttype" is so much
      more prominent in Mk than in the other Gospels? Why is this texttype not
      equally present (but only in a weak secondary form) in the other Gospels?
      Isn't it a bit strange to have a special texttype for ONE Gospel? What is
      the reason for this special Markan feature?

      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      ------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/


      ---
      You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: listsaver-of-tc-list@...
      To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-525M@...-certr.org
    • Robert B. Waltz
      ... Streeter s answer was, of course, that people (scribes, in particular) paid less attention to Mark than to the other gospels, so that the manuscripts
      Message 2 of 2 , Jan 29, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        On 1/29/00, Wieland Willker wrote:

        >It appears that a special group of witnesses can be quite easily
        >distinguished in Mk, which is often called the "Caesarean texttype".
        >What do you think is the reason that the "Caesarean texttype" is so much
        >more prominent in Mk than in the other Gospels? Why is this texttype not
        >equally present (but only in a weak secondary form) in the other Gospels?
        >Isn't it a bit strange to have a special texttype for ONE Gospel? What is
        >the reason for this special Markan feature?

        Streeter's answer was, of course, that people (scribes, in particular)
        paid less attention to Mark than to the other gospels, so that the
        manuscripts suffered less Byzantine influence.

        Others would say that the "Caesarean" text doesn't exist, and so
        the question is moot. :-)

        I think Streeter is probably right. But I would make another observation:
        When people think of the "Caesarean" witnesses, they tend to think of
        the manuscripts Streeter listed in Mark. These witnesses are centered
        about Theta. Suppose, in some other book, the text-type centers
        around some other, unidentified, witness, and Theta just happens to
        have suffered Alexandrian or Byzantine mixture (or, perhaps, both).
        If you only look at the traditional "Caesarean" witnesses, they
        type might vanish. If you include this other, unidentified witness,
        it might be just as obvious in the other gospel as in Mark.

        Probably there is something of both involved. The "Caesarean" text
        has a rather vague definition -- essentially, non-Byzantine readings
        found in "Caesarean" witnesses. Which means that, until you know
        which witnesses are "Caesarean," you don't know which witnesses
        are "Caesarean." This is a slight problem. :-)

        Another thought: In Luke, the "Western" text differs from the
        Alexandrian to a greater extent than in the other gospels.
        If we assume that the "Caesarean" text is legitimately early --
        that is, that its readings came directly from the autographs,
        rather than by someone combining Alexandrian and "Western"
        readings -- then the fact that the "Western" text in Luke
        seems edited *will automatically make the "Caesarean" text
        look more like the Alexandrian*. In other words, as the number
        of non-genetically-significant variants (in this case, "Western"
        readings which arise by editing) increases, it becomes harder
        and harder to notice the genetically significant variants.

        So my suspicion is that we need to look at the data in new
        ways. If we do that, the "Caesarean" text might be much more
        obvious in the other gospels.

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

        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)

        ---
        You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: listsaver-of-tc-list@...
        To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-525M@...-certr.org
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.