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

7746Re: [textualcriticism] Re: p73--Byzantine, or just original?

Expand Messages
  • Mike Holmes
    Mar 20 9:32 PM
      Sorry, a correction: for "2013" read "2012": whereas Brill printed '2013' in the 2nd ed. of Ehrman and Holmes, the book actually appeared in November 2012.

      On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Mike Holmes <holmic@...> wrote:
      Hello, Steven,

      No, the date is not 1995. The 1st edition of Der Text de Neuen Testaments was published, as you indicated, in 1981; the ET was published in 1987, and the ET of the 2nd edition was published in 1989.  The 1995 date of Googlebooks is misleading; it likely is the date of a reprint, not the year of publication. So the five-level classification created by the Alands represents their views in the 1980’s.

      The essay in which Barbara Aland and Kurt Wachtel characterize the five-level system as “obsolete” is from 2013. Here is the context:

      “All of the manuscripts have been collated in the test passages at the Institute for Textual Research. The results were summarized by assigning the manuscripts to so-called categories.19 [note 19: See K. and B. Aland, Text of the New Testament, (2nd ed., 1989) 159–163 and 332–337.] Now that all test-passage collations are published, this preliminary classification has become obsolete. The specialist is given full access to the collations of the test passages themselves.” [B. Aland and K. Wachtel, "The Greek Minuscules, etc.", in Ehrman and Holmes, The Text of the NT, 2nd ed.  (Brill, 2013],  p. 77).


      On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Steven Avery <stevenavery@...> wrote:


      Daniel Buck

      Category V, by definition, contains "Manuscripts with a purely or predominantly Byzantine text." A Byzantine (fka 'Antiochian') text, by definition, contains readings without any support in 'Neutral' or 'Western' manuscripts.

      Not from Aland:

      The text of the New Testament: an introduction to the critical editions and to the theory and practice of modern textual criticism, 1995
      Kurt and Barbara Aland
      Actually there is no such thing as a "neutral" text of the New Testament. (p. 14)

      If you change it to Alexandrian, then you would be talking about that rarity:

      "distinctively Byzantine" or
      "distinctively Syrian" readings.

      However this involves some convoluted writing from Westcott and Hort than really has never been unpacked into a sensible presentation. And was particularly mangled by Kenyon. And I do not think Aland uses the phrase in any form, although he likes the weird Byzantine Imperial text type, a crafty method of poisoning the well of textual analysis.  However, since Aland does not consider these 1200+ cursives as having any "significance for textual criticism" (p. 163) one can understand his Hortian approach to phrases and constructs that support his perceived insignificance.

      In fact, I would be interested in the full section where Aland talks of "...together with omitting the witness of uncials with a purely Byzantine text " (p. 36).  It sounds like he is so adverse to Byzantine readings that he would like to omit even having to deal with Byzantine

      As for P73,  in 1995, it was described as "still unedited".

      The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research Essays on the Status Quaestionis (1995)
      The Papyrus Manuscripts of the New Testament
      Eldon Jay Epp
       (A fifth Bodmer papyrus. P73. also of the 7th century, contains only three verses of Matthew and is still unedited.)

      Mike Holmes

      Indeed, to add to Dirk's comment, Barbara Aland and Klaus Wachtel now consider that particular classification system to be "obsolete" (Aland and Wachtel, "The Greek Minuscules, etc.", in Ehrman and Holmes, The Text of the NT, 2nd ed., p. 77).

      Could you supply the whole quote. The year is 1995, right?

      In the Text of the NT, 1995, the translation of Der Text de Neuen Testaments, Aland made a whole presentation of his classification system as a supposed improvement.  If they already considered their 1981 system as obsolete, then why keep republishing?

      Steven Avery
      Bayside, NY

      Daniel Buck  wrote:
      > The wikipedia article for p73 states,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_73 > "The Greek text of this codex is a representative of the Byzantine text-type, but text is too brief for certainty. Aland placed it in Category V."  The Greek text of p73 in fact consists of about ten clearly identifiable letters and another seven that appear to match what would be expected in the adjacent text of Matthew 25:43-44 and 26:2-3.  Although there are textual variants just on either side of these excerpts (there's an h.t. later in v. 3 that would show up if we had even one more line fragment of identifiable text), there are none in the running text that could be determined even by letter-count. So there is absolutely no evidence of any distinctly Byzantine reading in this seventh-century papyrus. By assigning it to Category V, Aland was virtually admitting that the Byzantine text was original.

      Jeff Cate, Just curious... why would assigning P73 to Category V be an indication that Byz was "original"? The Alands date P73 to the VII century. They date some Cat V uncials earlier than that (026, 061, 022, 023, 024, 027, 042, 043, 064, 065, 0246, 0253, 0265?)... but none before the V century.

      Daniel Buck
      Inasmuch as the text of p73 contains no such readings, it is not Byzantine. Call it Byzantine, and you are identifying Byzantine with the Ausgangstext.

    • Show all 23 messages in this topic