From: Mark O'Brien (Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu)
Date: Thu Sep 28 1995 - 13:12:29 EDT
Original message sent on Wed, Sep 27 3:22 PM by firstname.lastname@example.org (Vincent
> email@example.com asked about Sturz:
>> I am curious
>> as to exactly what he does with internal evidence in his evaluations.
>> How does he deal with conflations...?
> Your curiosity will be rewarded by reading Sturz's book on the Byzantine
> text type yourself. There he gives evidence that no text type is immune
> to conflation and that the Byzantines are not specially prone to it.
> He also deals with other types of internal evidences in general terms.
I have read selected parts of his book, and I think I understand his
basic argument. However, if (and maybe I'm wrong on this) he is
arguing that the early forms of the text-types were independent and
unmixed, how does he adequately explain what appear to be relatively
Also, I would be interested in knowing your opinion on how well you
think that Sturz proved his argument that the Byzantine text-type
was as early as any of the others. Dan Wallace mentioned to us the
other day that he felt that Sturz did not adequately show clear
genealogical relationship with later Byzantine MSS to any significant
number of papyri, although he certainly claimed to have done so.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:28 EDT