Wed Mar 13 03:51:54 1996

From majordom  Wed Mar 13 03:51:54 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA06671; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 03:51:54 +0500
Message-Id: <314699EE.15AD@uni-muenster.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 09:48:30 +0000
From: Klaus Wachtel 
Organization: Institut f. neutestamentliche Textforschung
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: MT/BT
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Length: 1884
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Status: O
X-Status: 

In response to Bart Ehrmanīs kind invitation to say something about the 
Byzantine text:

One thing I learned about the Byzantine text (BT) is that there is a 
difference between it and the Majority text (MT). The MT consists of all 
passages without any variation AND all those readings which are found in 
the majority of witnesses, no matter which and how many mss. differ from 
it in the same variation unit. As most of all deviations from the 
mainstream of the NT tradition are singular or subsingular readings, one 
cannot deny that the original text normally is preserved as MT ­ as e. 
g. swans normally are white. But there are numerous exceptions: swans 
with a black head and neck, or the Australian kind which is entirely 
black except for the wings, or, back to TC, majority readings which are 
not original according to the canons of textual criticism. Those 
readings I regard as Byzantine in the textcritical sense of the word, 
being the distinctive readings of the BT.

I think that two kinds of Byzantine readings should be distinguished: 
typical ones fitting Hortīs famous description ("smooth and attractive, 
but appreciably impoverished in sense and force" [Introduction, 135]), 
and untypical ones, harder majority readings which nevertheless can 
hardly be judged as original.

I would like to suggest one untypical Byzantine reading for discussion. 
In James 2,18 the majority of witnesses has EK instead of XWRIS. I think 
that
a) this reading canīt be original as it results in nonsense;
b) this reading is an error pointing to community of origin;
c) readings of this kind make it unlikely that the BT is the result of a 
recension aiming at lucidity and smoothness.

By the way, Bart, did I really say that the BT had "its roots in the 
fourth century"? If so I have to apologize. I meant "_before_ the fourth 
century".


Klaus Wachtel, INTF Muenster

Back