Wed Mar 13 18:40:37 1996
From majordom Wed Mar 13 18:40:37 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA10508; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 18:40:37 +0500
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 18:37:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: MT/BT
In-Reply-To: <314699EE.15AD@uni-muenster.de>
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Content-Length: 6980
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Status: O
X-Status:
On Wed, 13 Mar 1996, Klaus Wachtel wrote:
> One thing I learned about the Byzantine text (BT) is that there is a=20
> difference between it and the Majority text (MT). The MT consists of all=
=20
> passages without any variation AND all those readings which are found in=
=20
> the majority of witnesses, no matter which and how many mss. differ from=
=20
> it in the same variation unit. As most of all deviations from the=20
> mainstream of the NT tradition are singular or subsingular readings, one=
=20
> cannot deny that the original text normally is preserved as MT =AD as e.=
=20
> g. swans normally are white. But there are numerous exceptions: swans=20
> with a black head and neck, or the Australian kind which is entirely=20
> black except for the wings, or, back to TC, majority readings which are=
=20
> not original according to the canons of textual criticism. Those=20
> readings I regard as Byzantine in the textcritical sense of the word,=20
> being the distinctive readings of the BT.
I would agree with Klaus on this point, speaking from a Byzantine-priority
standpoint: mere numerical majority does not a "Byzantine" reading make.=
=20
However, in almost all cases where a 70%+ majority of pre-10th century=20
MSS read a certain way, I think in those cases the Byzantine text is well=
=20
determined and has a certain claim toward autograph originality. The=20
overwhelming majority of post-10th century minuscules are secondary in=20
cases such as 1 Jn.2:23 and 1 Jn.3:1, since that mere numerical majority=20
is not supported by the earlier testimony. This is probably a reason why=
=20
no "majority text" advocate I know actually holds to a strict numerical=20
majority principle, but either applies a stemmatic approach (as=20
Hodges/Farstad in Revelation or the Pericope Adultera) or favors a=20
specific Byzantine group or sub-group (Pickering favors Kr; I tend to=20
favor Kx).
> I think that two kinds of Byzantine readings should be distinguished:=20
> typical ones fitting Hort=B4s famous description ("smooth and attractive,=
=20
> but appreciably impoverished in sense and force" [Introduction, 135]),=20
> and untypical ones, harder majority readings which nevertheless can=20
> hardly be judged as original.
I would differ with Klaus here, since I tend to find upon closer=20
examination the very Byzantine readings which are considered to fit=20
Hort's description often turn out to be part of a far more complex=20
textual situation which cannot be dismissed in a paragraph or two (as=20
does Metzger in his Textual Commentary).
> I would like to suggest one untypical Byzantine reading for discussion.=
=20
> In James 2,18 the majority of witnesses has EK instead of XWRIS. I think=
=20
> that
> a) this reading can't 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=
=20
> recension aiming at lucidity and smoothness.
This is interesting indeed, coming from Klaus. I think that his point=20
(c) is quite significant, and I too have maintained such a point. =20
However, at the variant unit in question, my own edition of the Greek=20
text does read EK, following an unquestioned "K" designation from Von=20
Soden, and also happening to be the majority or "M" reading as reported=20
in N27 (but of course "M" does NOT always mean "Byzantine", as Klaus=20
pointed out).=20
I do not think that points (a) and (b) above will hold, though I would=20
agree that the reading does imply a "community of origin", which I would=20
localize in the autograph. But whether the EK reading is in fact an=20
"error" which "results in nonsense" is unclear. =20
Had this been an error, producing a clearly "more difficult" reading, the=
=20
question still remains as to why scribes would not act in accordance with=
=20
their supposed tendencies and correct the reading to the "easier" and=20
certainly clearer XWRIS. I still maintain that difficulty of=20
interpretation would be a primary cause for scribes to alter the text to=20
an easier reading, and for them to leave in one so obviously difficult of=
=20
interpretation as EK could only imply continuance of the autograph=20
reading coupled with a general scribal faithfulness, even in the face of=20
difficult hermeneutics. =20
Certainly the final clause containing EK caused no difficulty (DEICW SOI=20
EK TWN ERGWN MOU THN PISTIN MOU; Byztxt); why then should it be thought=20
nonsense to preface that clause with DEICON MOI THN PISTIN SOU EK TWN=20
ERGWN SOU (again, Byztxt). I would read it thus, allowing for the=20
interpretative difficulty, with emphasis indicated by _ _:
"Show me _your_ faith from _your_ works, and I will show you _my_ faith=20
from _my_ works."
If read with this emphasis, I see no interpretative problem. On the=20
other hand, a scribe could easily fail to see the intended emphasis (as=20
witnessed by various scribes omitting the first SOU, changing EK to=20
XWRIS, reversing the word order to SOI DEICW, and omitting the final MOU,=
=20
as reported in the N27 text), and thus change the text dramatically from=20
what appeared above to the following (according to N27):
"Show me your faith _apart from_ works, and I will show _you_ the faith fro=
m=20
my works."
There is no question that the alternative Byzantine and N27 texts provide=
=20
a dramatically different interpretation of the passage. However, I=20
suggest that the Byzantine reading is not at all "nonsense," but quite=20
sensible when read properly; also that the current critical text actually=
=20
favors the "easier" reading, which could only have come about as a=20
reaction to the "more difficult" Byzantine reading. If the principle of=20
favoring the reading which best explains the rise of all the others has=20
any merit at all (which I think extremely likely), then there should be=20
no reason in the present case not to favor the Byzantine reading in this=20
passage.
> By the way, Bart, did I really say that the BT had "its roots in the=20
> fourth century"? If so I have to apologize. I meant "_before_ the fourth=
=20
> century".
I concur here also, but I'll wager I place its roots earlier than does=20
Klaus *:-)
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Back