Re: How Old Is the Harklensis Group's Text?
- Hi James,
Please see below...
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Vox Verax" <james.snapp@...> wrote:
> The Harklensis Group: it's a small collection of manuscripts that contain a text of the General Epistles which has very strong affinities to the base-text of the Harklean Syriac (produced in 616).
> The four flagship-manuscripts of the Harklensis Group are 1505, 1611, 2138, and 2495.
These do seem to be members of the same textual complex in the General Letters. See e.g. the table titled "James (INTF-General, 8 groups)" at my Views site:
MS 2495 is not in the PAM result for the INTF Jude data set so I can't say where it sits for Jude. (It might have been excluded through the vetting process done to keep sampling error tolerable.)
MSS 1505, 1611, 2138, etc. collocate in CMDS and DC analysis results for the General Letters. See, e.g.,
(These results are based on data generously made available by the INTF.)
> So: just how old is the text of the Harklensis Group?
It's hard to say what age the group is as a whole. We can set a "not later than" of 616 due to the repeated agreements with the Harclean Syriac. As for when and where the reading arose, does ZWHS show up in versions such as the Armenian and Georgian? These might serve as a proxy for the Old Syriac, which might date to the second century. My guess is that 1505 etc. were copied by people somehow associated with the miaphysite monastic community of Egypt (hence the relationship with the Harclean), possibly located in Syria, Palestine, or Egypt. (I am convinced that Streeter was right about local texts.)
> If "the conflation argument" shows that Byz is secondary to Alex (I > say this with the accent on "If") then why doesn't the existence of > this conflation in Jude verse 3 likewise demonstrate that the
> Harklensis Group's text of the General Epistles pre-dates the text
> of Codex Sinaiticus?
This particular reading (ZWHS) could easily predate Aleph. It could also have been a popular reading in the Eastern church when 1505 etc. were copied.
> And to follow-up: if the HG's text of Jude verse 3 pre-dates the
> text of Jude verse 3 found in Aleph, then what can be concluded
> about the age-order of the Byzantine text of Jude 3 if the shorter
> reading (without HMWN or UMWN) here is regarded as original, and the
> texts with HMWN (at different places) or UMWN are regarded as
> secondary, supplemented texts in which a word was added to make
> Jude's expression slightly more precise?
When dating groups, one needs to consider the group text as a whole. Each place where the text varies (a variation site) has its own history. However, the same witnesses often appear together in attestation lists across variation sites. So there are group histories as well. The history of a variation site does not necessarily agree with group histories. (Though it often does.) My feeling is that 1505 etc. as a group is later than Aleph, probably to be dated after the Chalcedon split (451). Nevertheless, it may preserve early readings.