Two questions: First what is the paper that tracked the origin of the Kr group in the 13th century? I'm pretty sure Pickering will have something to say about it :) Second, are there good sources for the release of differing editions of the Byzantine text correlating with dynasties? I try to use TC primarily to understand different authors and periods and otherwise tend to just use the Antonides, RP, and TR for exegesis without much TC. A list and history of such editions would definitely interest me. Lastly, I'm still convinced something like text types will still exist, maybe "clusters" since I've seen the term used a lot. I'd find it humorous if it's replaced with the Byzantine text superfamily, some subfamilies, and then clusters of similar manuscripts that disagree with it based on mathematical similarities. The idea's here to stay, but I'm interested in what it's next form is.
Yes and no. Yes there is a sense that each major Byz family can be considered independent. But no since some families don't even emerge and they do clearly emerge (Kr / family 35 is the clear example) until quite late in the medieval period and therefore cannot claim to be independent of others. it's an 'edition' put together around about 1300 and can't have any claim to be original in toto.
@@jamessheffield4173 Text-types are not editorial recensions. That some manuscripts are recensional is quite likely - e.g. Family 1. We need to distinguish families / clusters / and text-types. We have to distinguish those from recensions. We have to distinguish the production of a recension from the authorisation of a text. All different activities.
@@hefinjones9051 Right the so-called recensions of Lucian of Antioch and Rabbula of Edessa were made up to discredit the Apostolic Church texts. Blessings.
