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

Re: [textualcriticism] copies from a common vorlage

Expand Messages
  • Tommy Wasserman
    James wrote: 1) two extant mss thought to have been copied from a common ... In my article at:
    Message 1 of 20 , Nov 10 11:46 PM
      James wrote:

      1) two extant mss thought to have been copied from a common
      > exemplar, or 2) of any extant ms thought to have been copied from another
      > extant ms (i.e., its vorlage)? Relevant input will be appreciated.

      In my article at:
      http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol07/Wasserman2002/Wasserman2002.html

      you will find examples of both 1 and 2, i.e. the Patmos family, and related MSS (see also heading "other previously unknown pairs and families"). Otherwise I know of MSS 322 (XV) and 323 (XII), and there are probably some more cases.

      With regards

      Tommy Wasserman
      Centre for Theology and Religious Studies
      Lund University
      Sweden
    • Daniel Buck
      Tommy Wasserman wrote: ... exemplar, or 2) of any extant ms thought to have been copied from another extant ms (i.e., its vorlage)? Relevant input will be
      Message 2 of 20 , Nov 11 8:24 AM
        Tommy Wasserman wrote:

        James wrote:
        >> 1) two extant mss thought to have been copied from a common
        exemplar, or 2) of any extant ms thought to have been copied from
        another extant ms (i.e., its vorlage)? Relevant input will be
        appreciated.>>

        > In my article at:
        http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol07/Wasserman2002/Wasserman2002.html
        you will find examples of both 1 and 2, i.e. the Patmos family, and
        related MSS (see also heading "other previously unknown pairs and
        families"). Otherwise I know of MSS 322 (XV) and 323 (XII), and
        there are probably some more cases.>

        Daniel Buck adds:

        There is a set of three minuscules which, according to Burgon, have
        been corrected to identity by the same hand. These also all contain,
        in vermillion uncials, around the end of Mark 16:15, a notation to
        this effect:

        ‡FROM HERE TO THE END IN SOME COPIES IS NOT EXTANT, BUT IN THE
        ARCHTYPES ALL IS EXTANT

        (Wieland's online commentary has a rendition of the Gk text at
        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark-Ends.pdf)

        According to Maurice Robinson, the nature of MSS 20, 215 (which may
        be a copy of 20), and 300 indicates that they had a common exemplar
        which contained this colophon below 16:8, and due to lack of room
        because of the surrounding commentary was continued on the right
        hand leaf, below the text (which in 20 and 215 is at the end of
        v.15 and in 300 is 1½ words into verse 16).
        The portion on the left hand page then became illegible, and the
        colophon was then partially reproduced in the 'wrong' places in the
        three copies we now have.


        Daniel Buck
      • James Miller
        Thank you for pointing out this article, Tommy. I found it interesting and relevant to my interests in many ways. As I understand it after a fairly cursory
        Message 3 of 20 , Nov 11 2:32 PM
          Thank you for pointing out this article, Tommy. I found it interesting and
          relevant to my interests in many ways. As I understand it after a fairly
          cursory review, you've looked at excerpts of a few dozen NT manuscripts in
          an attempt to determine more precisely their relationships. Being familiar
          with the huge amount of data with which NT TC deals, I understand the need
          of sampling when attempting to determine textual relationships. I'm also
          generally familiar with the procedures of quantitative analysis and the
          results it aims to produce. The sampling you've done leads you to propose
          some adjustments to current notions about families and groups evidenced in
          these manuscripts, if I understood your argument correctly.

          I would like to pose some additional questions. First, at what remove does
          your Patmos family stand from its exemplar? Are points b, c, d, and e in
          your stemma diagram real conjectured manuscripts, or are they more like
          representational nodes in a tree that may be more complex but that have
          been presented here in the simplest form possible? Second, I didn't find
          much explanation for the relation of copy to vorlage you propose between
          1068 and 1065. I don't take issue with your findings, but I would be
          interested in knowing the criteria by which such relations are
          established. You mention dating and external characteristics and present
          location: are there other criteria? Have you come to this conclusion based
          on these considerations along with just the sample passages, or did you
          also examine other passages before concluding on the matter? If the
          conclusion is based on a sampling it seems to me a bit more reserve might
          be called for in characterizing this as a copy/vorlage relationship--maybe
          saying something like "the limited sampling gives a strong indication of a
          copy/vorlage relationship between these two mss" (please take what I'm
          saying as observations of someone fairly new to TC and trying to come to
          grips with its procedures--a sort of thinking out loud--rather than as
          criticism, which I am not qualified to offer). Can you, or anyone else
          onlist, point me to any study/article/essay on criteria for determining
          the copy/vorlage relationship? I have so far not found any and I believe
          this is because it is such a rarely-encountered possibility that no
          systematic approach for dealing with it has been developed. Rather, there
          seems a reliance on "self-evidentness" when such a relation is posed.

          In my own study, I find myself in a situation the reverse of what text
          criticism expects. Where biblical TC expects to confront a mass of fairly
          diverse (both chronologically and geographically) materials transmitting
          biblical texts, interrelations between which must be worked out in various
          more or less conjectural ways, I confront two copies of a given (non-NT)
          work transmitted in the same ms. I don't need to establish any sort of
          more external relation between these texts: the fact that they make up two
          parts of the same ms and were evidently included from the ms's initial
          production means there is no question of a relationship of time and place.
          They were copied in the same time and place, parts even (evidently) by the
          same scribe. The question is not one of how I might go about relating
          them, but rather just how intimate is the relation? Would such
          simultenaeity of time, place, and copyist be prima facie grounds among
          text critics for assuming such intimate relations as copy/vorlage or
          perhaps two copies from a common vorlage? My analysis of the texts
          indicates they cannot be copies from a common vorlage. I'd rather not
          invent my own criteria for arguing this, but if text critics have posed no
          such criteria, I may need to do some sort of invention.

          James

          On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Tommy Wasserman wrote:

          > James wrote:
          >
          > 1) two extant mss thought to have been copied from a common
          >> exemplar, or 2) of any extant ms thought to have been copied from another
          >> extant ms (i.e., its vorlage)? Relevant input will be appreciated.
          >
          > In my article at:
          > http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol07/Wasserman2002/Wasserman2002.html
          >
          > you will find examples of both 1 and 2, i.e. the Patmos family, and
          > related MSS (see also heading "other previously unknown pairs and
          > families"). Otherwise I know of MSS 322 (XV) and 323 (XII), and there
          > are probably some more cases.
          >
          > With regards
          >
          > Tommy Wasserman
          > Centre for Theology and Religious Studies
          > Lund University
          > Sweden
        • Tommy Wasserman
          ... It confirmed the existence of the Patmos family (three MSS, where 1385 is exemplar of 1169 and 1173, but not 1204. ... Yes,perhaps more complex. Note also
          Message 4 of 20 , Nov 12 6:29 AM
            James wrote:

            > The sampling you've done leads you to propose
            > some adjustments to current notions about families and groups
            > evidenced in
            > these manuscripts, if I understood your argument correctly.

            It confirmed the existence of the Patmos family (three MSS, where 1385
            is exemplar of 1169 and 1173, but not 1204.
            >
            > I would like to pose some additional questions. First, at what remove
            > does
            > your Patmos family stand from its exemplar? Are points b, c, d, and e
            > in
            > your stemma diagram real conjectured manuscripts, or are they more like
            > representational nodes in a tree that may be more complex but that have
            > been presented here in the simplest form possible?

            Yes,perhaps more complex. Note also the fact that MS 2295 stood very
            close to 1402, 725, but in closer to Mk 2146, 1549 and 651. Probably,
            the copyist used another exemplar in Mk.

            > Second, I didn't find
            > much explanation for the relation of copy to vorlage you propose
            > between
            > 1068 and 1065.

            I think I stated that if the dating is correct, logically the later MS
            has been copied from the earlier . In this case the dates are for MS
            1068, 1562 and for MS 1068, 1576, and the dates being so exact, I trust
            that the manuscript are explicitly dated, and, hence 1068 is the
            Vorlage.

            > "the limited sampling gives a strong indication of a
            > copy/vorlage relationship between these two mss" (please take what I'm
            > saying as observations of someone fairly new to TC and trying to come
            > to
            > grips with its procedures--a sort of thinking out loud--rather than as
            > criticism, which I am not qualified to offer). Can you, or anyone else
            > onlist, point me to any study/article/essay on criteria for determining
            > the copy/vorlage relationship? I have so far not found any and I
            > believe
            > this is because it is such a rarely-encountered possibility that no
            > systematic approach for dealing with it has been developed. Rather,
            > there
            > seems a reliance on "self-evidentness" when such a relation is posed.

            When we are on the family level, so to speak, even those variations
            which would be insignificant genealogically on the greater scale, take
            on significance, i.e. common ortographic variance and scribal errors. I
            suggest you read the relevant chapters in Westcott Hort, then maybe
            some articles by E.J. Epp and Fee in their "Studies..." (see the
            bibliography in my article ). Then you can also study the demonstration
            of such a method of family-reconstruction e.g. in the Lake-Ferrar
            group:

            Family 13 : (the Ferrar group) : the text according to Mark with a
            collation of Codex 28 of the Gospels / by Kirsopp and Silva Lake
            (London : Christophers, cop. 194).

            There are very much other relevant literature that you do well to study
            carefully, before you go on inventing your own methods...

            Good luck!

            Tommy

            >
            > In my own study, Good
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • James Miller
            I wrote a couple of related posts some months ago as I was doing some research. I ve now concluded the major part of that research and want to revisit and
            Message 5 of 20 , Apr 28, 2006
              I wrote a couple of related posts some months ago as I was doing some
              research. I've now concluded the major part of that research and want to
              revisit and maybe summarize the topics I was addressing in those threads.
              In my study I was facing a situation in which two copies of the same work
              are found in a single biblical manuscript, and trying to answer the
              question of how it might be proven or disproven that the two were copied
              from a common original. In my posts to the list, I asked about two
              things: 1) whether anyone knew of any study which had tried to
              prove/disprove that two manuscripts had been copied from the same original
              (excepting WH's brief treatment of the relation of B to S, which I already
              knew about); and 2) whether any study attempting to prove a copy/Vorlage
              relation exists.

              No one answered in the positive to 1), so I still assume that, apart from
              WH's brief discussion of a possible common exemplar for B and S, no one
              knows of any such study. I did not manage to find one, and perhaps one
              has never been done. To question 2) Tommy Wasserman pointed out a study
              he'd done to clarify family relations within a certain group of NT mss,
              during the course of which study he asserted a Vorlage/copy relationship
              between two mss within that group. To put it in the vernacular, this was
              "close, but no cigar." Tommy asserted the relationship in the article and
              noted a couple of factors that led him to believe such a relationship
              obtained, but he really didn't attempt to formally establish the
              Vorlage/copy relationship (that would have been worthy of a cigar, btw).
              In other words, the Vorlage/copy relationship was a concern quite
              incidental to the main aim of his study. With regard to point 2), then, I
              likewise have yet to run across any study preoccupied with an attempt to
              prove a possible Vorlage/copy relationship. If anyone can point me to
              such a study--one that does not simply assert the relation and then offer
              an indication or two that leads the author to believe the relationship
              obtains, doing so in a more or less offhand way, but rather one that
              attempts systematically to prove the relationship--I would be most
              grateful to know about it.

              Now, to respond to some old posts from the thread by Tommy and Wieland.

              On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Tommy Wasserman wrote:

              > When we are on the family level, so to speak, even those variations
              > which would be insignificant genealogically on the greater scale, take
              > on significance, i.e. common orthographic variance and scribal errors. I
              > suggest you read the relevant chapters in Westcott Hort, then maybe
              > some articles by E.J. Epp and Fee in their "Studies..." (see the
              > bibliography in my article ). Then you can also study the demonstration
              > of such a method of family-reconstruction e.g. in the Lake-Ferrar
              > group:
              >
              > Family 13 : (the Ferrar group) : the text according to Mark with a
              > collation of Codex 28 of the Gospels / by Kirsopp and Silva Lake
              > (London : Christophers, cop. 194).

              I had read over both WH and Epp and Fee quite carefully before making my
              posts. If there is anything I missed in their writings that somehow
              answers my questions, I would appreciate if you could more explicitly
              point it out to me. I still do not understand how a family reconstruction
              could bear on my questions. If the readings of two manuscripts show too
              much disparity from one another (like maybe to the degree that would lead
              scholars to place them in different families), no one would even consider
              addressing the question of a common exemplar or Vorlage/copy relationship
              between them. Or are you saying that one should only consider the
              possibility of Vorlage/copy relation or descent from an immediate common
              exemplar within the parameters of the family? I suppose if one were
              searching for cases to prove such relations, this could be a good starting
              criterion. But there can be other impetuses(i) for investigating such
              cases: WH's premise was, not only familial affinities between B and S, but
              also their similar ages and geographical origin and, perhaps even more
              importantly Tischendorf's assertion that the work of one and the same
              scribe was to be seen in both mss. In the case of my study, the fact that
              two copies of the same work were included within the same ms raises the
              likelihood (expectation?) that the two will have been copied from the same
              original. I'm not sure going to the level of families would be in any way
              decisive in proving/disproving descent from an immediate common exemplar
              in the case with which I deal. It could play some role in my argument,
              but it seems to me better to simply examine disparate readings and to try
              and account for them (e.g., are they accountable as patent scribal
              error?). If there seem to be too many, and many that are not accountable
              as scribal error, looking at familial affinities of the two texts could
              add some weight to the probability that they were not copied from a common
              exemplar. More helpful yet would be to simply look at other manuscripts,
              regardless of family, to see how they read relative to readings where my
              texts disagree. But it seems to me that dragging in family considerations
              is not going to be decisive in proving Vorlage/copy relations or descent
              from an immediate common exemplar. It would enter into the discussion
              only secondarily, if at all. With all due respect it seems to me that
              pointing to family relations as answering my queries is a bit like telling
              me to go out under the street light where there's more light to search for
              the dollar/euro bill I lost in my backyard.

              > There are very much other relevant literature that you do well to study
              > carefully, before you go on inventing your own methods...

              I have missed the relevant literature of which you speak. So, I kind of
              had to invent my own method--actually I adapted WH's reasoning for the
              most part, but rated my data on a strictly chronological basis.

              On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Wieland Willker wrote:

              James Miller writes:
              >> How would scholars and/or text critics go about
              >> establishing whether these two manuscripts were
              >> copies made from the same vorlage?
              >
              > Of course you can never be certain. It's always possible that there is
              > one intermediate copying step for one of them. Normally this is done via
              > agreement in error. You have to find some significant agreement in
              > (preferably singular) errors. The more strange or curious the errors
              > are, and the higher their number, the more probable is a common origin.
              > Compare f1 or f13. Additionally the two texts must be almost identical.

              This is, essentially, WH's reasoning. But it's not agreement in just any
              type of error. Scribes were known to correct blatant errors after all
              (even if while introducing new ones), weren't they? Why should we suppose
              that a scribe making a copy and finding in his original a blatant spelling
              or grammatical mistake would not correct it in his copy? I understand one
              of the fundamental suppositions of TC to be that scribes were prone to
              such "smoothing" even to the point of correcting unusual, though still
              sensible, readings. WH speak of a highly rarefied form of scribal error
              or "individualism(s)" which, if present in sufficient quantity and shared
              by two manuscripts thought to have been copied from a common original, can
              act to bolster the probability that they are direct descendents from a
              common exemplar.

              > This, then would of course suppose that there were errors in Paul's
              > autograph. :-) If we assume no errors in the autograph, the case gets
              > more difficult. Then, I think we can only say that if the two texts are
              > extremely similar, with only some errors here and there, and if the two
              > texts can explain the textual history as we know them, then it is
              > possible that they are what they suppose to be.

              He's making up his own methods, Tommy. What should we do with this guy?
              :) Actually, here's where a major problem arises and presents a red
              herring for the type of study I was trying to do--I mean in Wieland's
              closing sentence. The question of whether two manuscripts are direct
              descendants of a common exemplar can be asked and answered quite
              independently of the larger TC question of where those manuscripts fit
              within the conjectured stemma of all manuscripts. The Vorlage/copy
              relationship can likewise be so treated. The question of ultimate
              derivation of the manuscript tradition has no necessary connection to
              questions of Vorlage/copy relations or direct descent of two manuscripts
              from a common exemplar. It just happens that scholars attempting to
              answer questions about ultimate origins run across such relations as they
              study manuscripts, and they sometimes treat them as incidental concerns of
              their main aim (like Tommy Wasserman did). So whether "the two texts can
              explain the textual history as we know them" has nothing at all to do with
              the task I was trying to accomplish. Rather, it misguidedly introduces
              the aim of TC as though it provides some answer. It does not. It may be
              true that TC scholars could show a degree of interest in such
              relations--mainly insofar as they further the aim of explaining textual
              history--but that doesn't mean that someone whose aim is not so
              comprehensive as explaining textual history (rather it is trying to
              explain the relation of two manuscripts that seem to have a close
              connection--regardless of where these stand within the history) cannot
              pose the question independently of that pursuit. And that, ultimately, a
              resolution can be provided that makes little or no recourse to the
              question of the larger history of the manuscript tradition.

              On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Wieland Willker wrote:

              James Miller wrote:
              >> So, we can be certain of more distant relations, but
              >> when it comes to determining closer relations such as
              >> two copies from a common vorlage, we're always
              >> dealing with greater or lesser degrees of improbability.
              >
              > Well, there is nothing so remarkable about this. The scenario you
              > imagined IS very difficult to solve. How would you prove that something
              > is a direct copy of the autograph?
              >
              <snip>
              >
              > What do you want? Exact numbers? Well, perhaps they must agree more than
              > 99% of the time? And share 5 or more singular readings? I am not sure
              > but something along these lines would do, I think. There actually are
              > some MSS that have been claimed to be direct copies of existing MSS. An
              > analysis of these cases would give an idea about the degree of agreement
              > and error.
              >
              > What is your take on this?

              WH provide what seems like a sensible resolution with their criteria of
              agreement in a certain class of error. Unfortunately, they argue only
              negatively: they do _not_ find such agreement in error between B and S,
              and so conclusively dismiss the possibility of an immediate common
              exemplar. I was hoping to find a positive treatment, i.e., a case wherein
              some scholar argued in favor of a Vorlage/copy relation between 2
              manuscripts (and scholarship does seem confident that such relations do
              occasionally obtain) or where someone argued positively that two
              manuscripts must have been copied from the same Vorlage, applying in their
              argumentation WH's criteria and perhaps adding some new criteria or
              considerations of their own. But I haven't found any such treatment. It
              seems this sort of undertaking is considered too extraneous to the main
              aims of TC, or that it perhaps detracts from them, and so it is not
              pursued. Or perhaps I have been lazy or inattentive and have overlooked
              something. If the latter is not true, then it seems I am justified in
              making up my own methods where such questions need to be answered (they
              did need to be answered in my study).

              James
            • Tommy Wasserman
              Dear James, Honestly I think you need to read more background. Please examine the volumes in Studies and Documents series, about Family 13, that I referred you
              Message 6 of 20 , Apr 29, 2006
                Dear James,

                Honestly I think you need to read more background. Please examine the
                volumes in Studies and Documents series, about Family 13, that I
                referred you to in the original message, and why check out the volumes
                on Family Pi too in the same series (by Silva Lake, J. Geerlings et
                al.). Also check B. Aland et al. on the Syrische Ûberlieferung, where
                you have an appendix with a reconstruction of the HK Vorlage in some
                epistles, reconstructed with the help of a couple of Greek MSS,
                stemmatically close to the Vorlage (1505 1611 2138 et al). Don't
                confuse this with the relationship between 01 and 03, which are not
                close on the stemmatic level.

                This reconstruction by Aland, led to the exclusion of 2495 from further
                consideration. That MS is cited in Nestle-Aland, but not any more in
                the ECM volumes of the Catholic Epistles.

                There are many more examples of "codex elimination", e.g. 322 in the
                Catholic Ep. which has a valuable text, but derives from 323. I also
                mentioned other MSS in my original post I think.


                >
                >> There are very much other relevant literature that you do well to
                >> study
                >> carefully, before you go on inventing your own methods...
                >
                > I have missed the relevant literature of which you speak. So, I kind
                > of
                > had to invent my own method--actually I adapted WH's reasoning for the
                > most part, but rated my data on a strictly chronological basis.

                See above for some examples. Check out Robert Waltz Encyclopedia, which
                may offer additional references. Why not visit Stephen Carlson's
                homepage, he is working with these questions concretely. After you have
                surveyed the field, lock yourself in a room and study all available
                literature by Gerd Mink on his method. I will not go into details.
                >
                > He's making up his own methods, Tommy. What should we do with this
                > guy?

                Please, do not involve me in the polemic. I just gave you some helpful
                references, and do not have time to broaden the discussion, sorry.
                >

                > If the latter is not true, then it seems I am justified in
                > making up my own methods where such questions need to be answered (they
                > did need to be answered in my study).

                Okay, it can be good to be persistent, so go on with you methods, but
                then I advice you to do a limited study if possible, trying out the
                method on the small scale first. Send that study to a journal and have
                it reviewed properly. If it gets published, go on to next step.

                Good luck! And note that these are just references offered for help. I
                do not have time to discuss your methods, at this point, but I do look
                forward to see your name on an article somewhere...

                Tommy Wasserman
                Centre for Theology and Religous Studies
                Lund University
                Sweden
              • James Miller
                ... Thank you for that advice, Tommy. I ll respond later to your specific reading suggestions. But for now, just some points of clarification. I have a
                Message 7 of 20 , May 6, 2006
                  On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, Tommy Wasserman wrote:

                  > Honestly I think you need to read more background.

                  Thank you for that advice, Tommy. I'll respond later to your specific reading
                  suggestions. But for now, just some points of clarification. I have a feeling
                  we're somehow not on the same page, and this will be an attempt to determine if
                  that's the case. Imagine you are faced with the following scenario: you have a
                  full Bible manuscript in which brief excerpts from various biblical books are
                  included as a short separate work within the whole. Maybe something like a
                  mini-lectionary--mostly OT excerpts, but a couple of NT ones as well. The
                  mini-lectionary was obviously included in the initial production of the
                  manuscript. This is something like the scenario on which my study focuses.
                  Would the fact that the same range of text appears at two places within the
                  same manuscript raise for you the expectation that the two were copied from the
                  same exemplar? It did in the case of the manuscript I studied. For almost 400
                  years it has been the universal working conclusion that the two ranges of text
                  were copied from a common exemplar. I decided it was high time to test this
                  presumption. So, I was looking for ways to either prove or disprove the
                  working conclusion. In light of this, do you maintain I am going to find means
                  of so proving or disproving the working conclusion in the literature you point
                  out? If so, should I expect what I find there to simply augment, or rather to
                  supersede, what I was able to glean from WH's approach to the matter? Please
                  bear in mind that, while for others the question of familial relations between
                  these texts might be of prime interest, for me it is a yes or no question of
                  immediate ancestry. The two either were or were not arguably copied from the
                  same exemplar. The family question is for someone else's study, not mine.

                  I should also mention that my study does not really have a TC payload--other
                  than pointing out the oversight TC scholars have been making regarding texts
                  contained in this ms. My payload is actually a point about the history of
                  worship in connection with this work. I of course realize that the scenario
                  presented by this manuscript could have TC implications and that it could be
                  studied and used for more properly TC ends. For example I ran across what
                  appear to be a few singular readings that could be of interest to text critics,
                  and some other instances in which I found a reading in Greek that previously
                  seems to have had only versional support (I think they call these
                  "sub-singular" in NT TC)--perhaps equally interesting. But my immediate goal
                  was not text critical, so I'll either expand on those points in a subsequent
                  study, or will leave that to someone else who may read it and want to explore
                  those avenues.

                  > referred you to in the original message, and why check out the volumes
                  > on Family Pi too in the same series (by Silva Lake, J. Geerlings et
                  > al.).

                  I have Silva Lake's study on Family Pi, had read it previously, and have now
                  reread it. I'll respond on that and the other recommended readings later.

                  > See above for some examples. Check out Robert Waltz Encyclopedia, which
                  > may offer additional references. Why not visit Stephen Carlson's
                  > homepage, he is working with these questions concretely.

                  I've known about and used Waltz's encyclopedia for a number of years now--7 or
                  8 at least. I did use it to some extent as I was executing my study, but I am
                  expected to use mostly dead-tree resources and must engage with
                  well-established scholarship (e.g., WH) in the main. I've looked at Steven
                  Carlson's page: what in specific do you refer to there? His cladistics
                  approach? Nothing jumped out at me as being very relevant to my query, but
                  maybe I did not look carefully enough.

                  >> He's making up his own methods, Tommy. What should we do with this
                  >> guy?
                  >
                  > Please, do not involve me in the polemic. I just gave you some helpful

                  It's not a polemic, just a bit of ribbing.

                  > Good luck! And note that these are just references offered for help. I
                  > do not have time to discuss your methods, at this point, but I do look
                  > forward to see your name on an article somewhere...

                  We'll see if this work gets published. I _am_ writing an article for
                  publication now, but on a quite different topic. You're likely to see that
                  before anything appears regarding the study that is the subject of the present
                  thread. Too bad you don't have time. I'm afraid only with time could
                  productive dialogue on these issues be achieved. I always presume I could
                  stand to learn something new, regardless of my assumed expertise in a given
                  area: how about you?

                  James
                • Tommy Wasserman
                  James, ... Probably not on the same page. I haven t had time to respond in detail. My advice was very general, i.e. some bibliographic references that I
                  Message 8 of 20 , May 7, 2006
                    James,

                    > I have a feeling
                    > we're somehow not on the same page, and this will be an attempt to
                    > determine if
                    > that's the case.

                    Probably not on the same page. I haven't had time to respond in detail.
                    My advice was very general, i.e. some bibliographic references that I
                    thought might be helpful. Very good if you are already familiar with
                    the relevant literature. It is just that my warning system switched on
                    when you started talking about inventing your own methods...

                    > full Bible manuscript in which brief excerpts from various biblical
                    > books are
                    > included as a short separate work within the whole. Maybe something
                    > like a
                    > mini-lectionary--mostly OT excerpts, but a couple of NT ones as well.
                    > The
                    > mini-lectionary was obviously included in the initial production of the
                    > manuscript. This is something like the scenario on which my study
                    > focuses.

                    Interesting. I look forward to read your study. I wonder what kind of
                    manuscript this is...

                    > Would the fact that the same range of text appears at two places
                    > within the
                    > same manuscript raise for you the expectation that the two were copied
                    > from the
                    > same exemplar?

                    Not necessarily. For example, if a scribe was to produce a commentary
                    manuscript, I suppose he would normally choose an existing commentary
                    manuscript as his exemplar but this is not an absolute rule. Further,
                    if he did choose a commentary manuscript as exemplar the two texts
                    (lemma and commentary) could still be textually different (i.e. the NT
                    text included in the commentary). I still wonder what kind of
                    manuscript you are studying.

                    > It did in the case of the manuscript I studied. For almost 400
                    > years it has been the universal working conclusion that the two ranges
                    > of text
                    > were copied from a common exemplar. I decided it was high time to
                    > test this
                    > presumption. So, I was looking for ways to either prove or disprove
                    > the
                    > working conclusion. In light of this, do you maintain I am going to
                    > find means
                    > of so proving or disproving the working conclusion in the literature
                    > you point
                    > out?

                    Hopefully. You have two texts which, as proposed, are copied from a
                    common exemplar. Then you have lots of texts to use as control
                    manuscripts. If both MSS are "Byzantine" you will expect to find a very
                    high degree of common variants (+90%) and you cannot tell from e.g. a
                    quantitative analysis that they are close on the stemmatic level, so
                    that you can show that the two are immediately related, i.e. copied
                    from a common exemplar. What becomes interesting in your case is
                    "Leitfehler," provided that the two texts in a first step (e.g. a
                    quantitative analysis with a good number of control MSS) are shown to
                    be close. Then you can look for common and peculiar errors, spelling
                    and so on, and again compare with other MSS (if you have such detailed
                    collations for those other MSS, that is).



                    > If so, should I expect what I find there to simply augment, or rather
                    > to
                    > supersede, what I was able to glean from WH's approach to the matter?
                    > Please
                    > bear in mind that, while for others the question of familial relations
                    > between
                    > these texts might be of prime interest, for me it is a yes or no
                    > question of
                    > immediate ancestry. The two either were or were not arguably copied
                    > from the
                    > same exemplar. The family question is for someone else's study, not
                    > mine.

                    To the recommended literature, you can add Paul Maas, Textkritik, 3d
                    ed. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1957),
                    also available in English translation: Textual Criticism, tr. Barbara
                    Flower (Oxford: Clarendon, 1958).

                    > We'll see if this work gets published. I _am_ writing an article for
                    > publication now, but on a quite different topic. You're likely to see
                    > that
                    > before anything appears regarding the study that is the subject of the
                    > present
                    > thread.

                    Good luck again.

                    > Too bad you don't have time.
                    > I'm afraid only with time could
                    > productive dialogue on these issues be achieved. I always presume I
                    > could
                    > stand to learn something new, regardless of my assumed expertise in a
                    > given
                    > area: how about you?

                    Absolutely. Actually I have learnt a lot from this scholars on this
                    list, and the previous TC-list.

                    With kind regards

                    Tommy Wasserman
                    Centre for Theology and Religious Studies
                    Lund University
                    Sweden
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.