Re: Aleph vs. Byz in Clement's Text of Matthew
- --- In email@example.com, "james_snapp_jr" <voxverax@...> wrote:
> As I mentioned in the earlier post, the data in Carl P. Cosaert's book "The Text of the Gospels in Clement of Alexandria" has shown that there are 23 places where in the text where Clement agrees with either B or TR but not with both of them. And, of those 23
> places, Clement agrees with B eight times (35%) and with TR 15 times (65%).
> But what about Aleph? How does a head-to-head comparison between Aleph and the Byzantine Text look when compared to the text used by Clement? Let's find out.
> Once again, I will focus on the text of Matthew.
> Cosaert listed the readings of Aleph, and of Corrector-of-Aleph, although I am not sure why he bothered with Corrector-of-Aleph since he does not list Corrector-of-Aleph as a representative of any text-type. I have not included Corrector-of-Aleph in this list, so that the original testimony of Aleph will not be obscured or diluted.
Looking forward I think this subject is one of the few credentials of the Alexandrian text (early Patristic support) where you have some ammunition. I have faith though that this is partially because of Editor movement away from the Alexandrian text in the Transmission of Clement. I believe you acknowledge this phenomenon and our only related difference would be the quantity. In general though I think everyone would agree that earlier Patristics have relatively more Alexandrian than later and that earlier copies of the same Patristic also have relatively more Alexandrian than later. This supports the key criterion here and everywhere of direction, movement away from the Alexandrian. Therefore, a majority of Alexandrian in the early Patristics is not necessarily needed here.
Specifically Cosaert identifies Corrector-of-Aleph as Secondary Alexandrian on page 232. What has thrown you off is he neglects to identify it earlier on page 52. I assume you understand that his classifications of text-type for witnesses are assumptions in this book based on his understanding of Textual Criticism in general.
> When we compare this to the rates of special agreement between B and Clem verses TR, and between TR and Clem versus B, the results are fairly consistent (and would become more so, I think, if the effects of the incompetence of Aleph's copyist were to be undone). Clement and B agree against TR 38% of the time, and Clement and TR agree against B 62% of the time. So, taking Aleph and B as the
> definitive representatives of the Alexandrian Text of Matthew, and taking the TR as the definitive representative of the Byzantine Text of Matthew (which we shouldn't do, without first checking RP-2005, but we can get to that later), when we put the text-types head-to-head to see which one agrees with Clement more, the percentages look like this:
> In Matthew, Clement adopts an Alexandrian reading instead of a rival Byzantine reading 33.5% of the time.
> In Matthew, Clement adopts a Byzantine reading instead of a rival Alexandrian reading 66.5% of the time.
> So it seems fair to conclude that, given Cosaert's data, Clement's text of Matthew is twice as Byzantine as it is Alexandrian.
On page 226 Cosaert summarizes his results and shows that Aleph has 63% agreement with Clement and TR has 62%. So based on Cosaert perhaps the assertion regarding Clement's Alexandrianish should be relative rather than absolute. I can't help noticing though the significantly different results here between you and Cosaert (Professor Wallace simply states that Clement is an Alexandrian witness). The late great Raymond Brown would find this difference "fantastic" (over 60% is a landslide in politics). In order to try and compare Alephels to Alephels, Cosaert's results are based on agreement %s while your results are based on disagreement %s. Can you present a list of where you have edited (changed) the conclusion Cosaert made regarding specific agreements?