Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Critiques of pro-Byzantine Data ?
- On Tue, 3 May 2005 09:01:24 +0200 "Wieland Willker"
> Additionally one might add that scholars are sometimes biased fromScott] Thank you for your reply, Dr. Wieland !
> their perspective. When you have studied the Byzantine MSS for a
> long time you have seen hundreds of differences and consider those
> the standard of deviation.
> On the other hand, when you have studied most of the time
> Alexandrian, Western and Caesarean MSS the differences (in number
> and kind) between those MSS are your "standard". Since the variation
> is MUCH higher between the latter MSS, all Byzantine MSS look LIKE
> ONE to them. When already 01 and 03 are considered closely related,
> then all Byzantine MSS must be identical twins.
> From the first viewpoint the Byz MSS might look unrelated, but from
> the second they are VERY closely related.
> Best wishes
May I ask a follow-up question ? ...Which came first ? Did scholars
recognize the related "look" of the Byz MSS with Lake, Blake and New's
findings _subsequently_ showing that there are, in fact, few proven
genealogical relationships ? Or did Lake, Blake and New do their study
and publish their findings without having as thorough an understanding of
the Byz MSS as they should have (in which case they didn't recognize the
true interrelatedness of them) ?
[Bear in mind that I have not read their study and, therefore, know not
whereof I speak. :o)]