How do YOU weigh Mss???

T

Timotheos

Guest
What are the determining factors for the way in which you weigh Mss?

Do you consider age most important?

Do you consider amount (i.e. the tallest stack of Mss saying the same thing)?

Do you consider the geographic locale it derives from?
 
I personally use all of the above with a weighted scale along the lines of First age, then "tallest stack" and then geographical region.

Then again.... the "tallest stack" would definitely.... "weigh" more...  8)
 
Timotheos said:
What are the determining factors for the way in which you weigh Mss?

Do you consider age most important?

Do you consider amount (i.e. the tallest stack of Mss saying the same thing)?

Do you consider the geographic locale it derives from?
Click to expand...

In order of priority:

1) oldest
2) most geographically distributed

I don't really take a majority into consideration unless it has the two above features
 
Number, age, historicity, geography, agreement, credibility, and internal considerations of context, not necessarily in that order.
 
I don't weigh the reliability of manuscripts at all, being but a humble student of the writings of others who work in the field of NTTC, and whose work I trust.

Age, broad geographical distribution, internal coherence of readings, in that order, seem most significant.

Number of manuscripts with a given reading doesn't come into it except in cases of indecision on other grounds; after all, when do you count?

Church Fathers cited examples of what "most" manuscripts read at a given point in their day, yet those represent definite "minority" readings in modern times.
Number, I think, must be considered a relatively weaker criterion.
 
Geographical distribution doesn't really have a bearing on the weight of a Mss.  After all, only 1 Ms can be distributed in 1 place, so it that is not really a distribution at all.  Now if we were weighing readings of 1 Ms, and we observe that a reading is distributed in many different locales, then that would be something. 

What I meant by geography is whether we favor readings from certain text-types or geographical locations over others?  I.e. W&H favored Vaticanus and by extension the Alexandrian location.  Robinson represents a Byzantine priority in part (however small) to the location of Byzantium.  However, he still weighs the Mss of that certain geographical region as heavier than say the Western text.
 
Timotheos said:
Geographical distribution doesn't really have a bearing on the weight of a Mss.  After all, only 1 Ms can be distributed in 1 place, so it that is not really a distribution at all.  Now if we were weighing readings of 1 Ms, and we observe that a reading is distributed in many different locales, then that would be something. 

What I meant by geography is whether we favor readings from certain text-types or geographical locations over others?  I.e. W&H favored Vaticanus and by extension the Alexandrian location.  Robinson represents a Byzantine priority in part (however small) to the location of Byzantium.  However, he still weighs the Mss of that certain geographical region as heavier than say the Western text.
Click to expand...

Ahhh... then I would agree. I don't subscribe to a particular text type.
 
Timotheos said:
Geographical distribution doesn't really have a bearing on the weight of a Mss.  After all, only 1 Ms can be distributed in 1 place, so it that is not really a distribution at all.  Now if we were weighing readings of 1 Ms, and we observe that a reading is distributed in many different locales, then that would be something.
Click to expand...

Indeed you are correct, and I was mixing my thoughts about weighting of manuscripts and weighting of readings in my post above, which isn't very sensible.

So...to answer the question asked; I would say age of manuscript would be most important single determinant of its TC "weight", though by no means a conclusive one, since "young" manuscripts can obviously contain ancient readings, and very old manuscripts can (and do) obviously preserve errors.

Internal coherence of readings, or "quality" of readings, a la Hort, would be next in importance, though again, even a consistent tendency toward excellent readings wouldn't guarantee correctness of all in any given manuscript.

Parenthetically, but still marginally on-topic regarding "geography", I despise the dishonest, question-begging KJVO-type arguments about manuscripts from Byzantium/Antioch being "holier", more "ordained of God", as it were, than those from Alexandria (which, being in Egypt, was of course an "evil empire" of sorts), nor incidentally do I put much stock in the local circumstances in which a manuscript was modernly discovered being an indicator of its value. (Again, KJVO types love to try to make hay with Tischendorf's discovery of the leaves of Codex Aleph at St. Catherine's at Sinai being in a basket of papers consigned for use as kindling, as though ignorance on the part of the monks there was a sign of the manuscript's  being "garbage"!)

Such superficial and tendentious handling of the facts surrounding  NTTC evidence is typical of KJVO types, but unworthy of genuine scholarship, and is obviously eschewed :) among honest people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top