1146Re: When Is A Neutral Reading Not Neutral?
- Aug 1 2:01 PMDear Malcolm,
MR3: ... "The whole idea of the necessity of some recension and
archtypical representation is historically invalid."
Are you saying that you do not believe that there was ever a Syrian
MR3: "Eusebius points this out about Lucian's alledged recension
(most English translations omit this section)."
We're getting away from the subject of tinted nomenclature, but I am
wondering what statement by Eusebius you have in mind, and what you
think it means. (Metzger wrote a nice essay about this in NTTS.)
MR3: "In addition the use of Alexandrian lump sums the distictive
qualties of the Neutral with the Alexandrian. It blurs and confuses."
Not at all; it brings things into focus by implying a sequence: the
"Alexandrian" Text emerged from the Proto-Alexandrian Text. For
instance: P75 is Proto-Alexandrian. 1241 is a mixed Alexandrian,
not Proto-Alexandrian, witness.
MR3: "The *Proto-Alexandrian* will also mislead in that it's
geographical (hint)tint will bypass and obviate all other and more
probable (IMHO) provenances - in particular Greece and the Ionian
coastal borders as well as inland Asia minor."
Only if one interprets the names as indicative of the area where the
texts originated rather than where they were primarily used. The
Proto-Alexandrian Text is the base-text of the earliest strata of the
Sahidic Version. That indicates that the Proto-Alexandrian Text is,
if not the local text of Alexandria, at least a local text somewhere
in Egypt. And when one looks at the somewhat later Egyptian versions
(Bohairic, Ethiopic), their base-text appears to be Alexandrian;
meanwhile the Alexandrian Text was not used as a base-text for any
translation being made anywhere else. Plus, we don't see the
Alexandrian Text being used much outside Egypt in the second
So I think it is safe to say that the Proto-Alexandrian Text was, at
the very least, /a/ local text of Egypt. We have to call the text-
types something. If one uses the term "Byzantine" then it seems
inconsistent to object to the terms "Proto-Alexandrian" and
MR3: "The idea of the necessity of Abschriften/archtypes via
recension(s) ... (this far and no further yet) to reach back to the
Autographs is a non sequitur."
Huh? My point about archetype-vs-autograph was in respect to your
statement that the text of the autographs is in extant manuscripts.
I was just pointing out that that's something taken on faith;
scientifically, limiting our resources to the contents of extant
witnesses, we can only reconstruct an archetype; the reception of
that archetype as the text of the autograph is not a given.
Yours in Christ,
Jim Snapp II
Curtisville Christian Church
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>