Tue Apr 23 18:05:07 1996
From majordom Tue Apr 23 18:05:07 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA15023; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 18:05:07 +0500
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 96 17:01 CDT
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz)
Subject: Re: TR
Content-Length: 5367
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote:
>Friends,
>
>I am attempting to carry on a discussion with an interested lay leader of the
>Church concerning the superiority of the Alexandrian tradition over that of
>the Byzantine (or majority) tradition. I support Alexandria- while he
>supports Byzantium.
>
>In an effort to be fair (I have already presented evidence to him for
>Alexandrian superiority) I would appreciate it if those of you who adhere to
>Byzantine superiority would offer (brief) reasons as to why you do so. In
>this way I can offer him both sides of the discussion. (After all, if
>theologians can't be counted on to be fair, who can??!!!!).
I think this is a very simplistic statement of the situation. I would
say that there are THREE basic groups in textual criticism, all with
many subspecies.
The first is the supporters of the Byzantine text, either in the form
of the TR or (in my opinion much more reasonably) on the basis of the
Majority Text.
This group offers two main arguments: First, the majority text is the
STRONG majority -- at least 80% of manuscripts are PURELY Byzantine,
over 90% are PRIMARILY, and apaprently less than one percent are
ENTIRELY or EFFECTIVELY free of Byzantine influence (for example, in
the Gospels, only B, Aleph, D, and the papyri are entirely free; in
Paul, only B, Aleph, D, F, G, 1739, and 33 outside of Romans).
There is also the theological argument: Essentially, that God would
not allow the Christian tradition to become defiled. Since most Greek
manuscripts are Byzantine, God must have wanted it that way. Therefore,
the Byzantine text must be correct.
The other two groups dispute both conclusions. For example, the
Byzantine text does not represent the majority of all BIBLE manuscripts,
only of GREEK Bible manuscripts. Latin Vulgate manuscripts outnumber
Greek mss, and while the Vulgate has a Byzantine element (a very strong
one in the gospels, less so in the Epistles), it is by no means purely
Byzantine.
The argument against the majority text is that it is NOT in the
majority in the early centuries. From the fourth century, for
instance, we have B, Aleph, and the papyri, none of them Byzantine.
In the fifth century, we have A, C, W, and assorted fragments, all
influenced by the Byzantine text but none of them purely Byzantine
(although A and parts of W come close in the Gospels).
Dean Burgon argued that the reason these non-Byzantine manuscripts
survived was that nobody used them. This is untrue; the vast number
of corrections in Aleph and Dpaul show that they were heavily used.
More cogent is the argument that all pre-fifth century texts are
either from Egypt or translations. Thus we have only a small fraction
of the evidence from this early period.
I will not go into the early arguments about which readings are
"better"; this question, once thought settled, is starting to re-open.
But let us assume that you are convinced that the Byzantine text is
not original (I conviction which I share). Does this mean that the
Alexandrian text IS original?
Hardly. Westcott and Hort thought so, but their system was simply
inadequate. They saw three text-types: The Byzantine (late), the
"Western" (corrupt), and the Neutral/Alexandrian. Since both the
"Western" and the Byzantine were out, that meant the Alexandrian was
in.
But this conclusion rests on a false assumption: That there are only
two non-Byzantine text-types. The situation is universally more complex.
In the Gospels, the existence of the Alexandrian text is undeniable
(though even it MAY have some sub-text-types: P75-B-T and Aleph-Z). The
"Western" is problematic; its only Greek witness is D, which is aedited
manuscript (observe that it substitutes Matthew's genealogy of Jesus for
Luke's!). There is also the Theta/f1/f13/700 text, the nature of which
is unsettled. Until we clearly analyse these texts, we cannot say that
the Alexandrian text is supreme.
The situation in Paul is even clearer. Zuntz identified THREE texts:
The Alexandrian text (found, e.g., in Aleph-A-C), the "Western" text
(D-F-G-OL), and a p46-B-1739 text. (Personally I think this should
be broken into FOUR text-types, p46-B, Alpeh-A-C, D-F-G, and
1739-0243-1881-6-424c, but that's not relevant to this argument).
In the Catholics, Duplacy and Richards have each identified THREE
non-Byzantine text-types. Richards calls them all Alexandrian, but
they aren't; they are Alexandrian (p72 B Aleph A 33 436, with the
latter three forming a distinct subfamily), family 2138 (2138
1611 1505 2495 and about thirty others), and family 1739 (C -- though
Richards calls C Alexandrian -- 1739 1241 1881 323).
The UBS text is strongly Alexandrian throughout. IMHO, it is FAR
TOO Alexandrian. In Paul, much more attention should be paid to
p46-B and 1739, as well as some lesser manuscript groups (not really
text-types) such as 330-451-2492 and 1611-1505-2495. In the Catholics,
both family 1739 and family 2138 need to play a role in our textual
decisions.
So let's not simplify the case. I support your argument that the
Byzantine text is late, but we should no more develop a fetish for
the Alexandrian text than the Byzantine. We need a text based in
HISTORY, not just theoretical text-types!
I hereby leave the soapbox to whatever other sort of textual
scholar wants to get involved.
Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Back