Wed Apr 24 00:05:29 1996

From majordom  Wed Apr 24 00:05:29 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA16212; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 00:05:29 +0500
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 00:02:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Byzantine text
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 8936
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu



On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> 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.

I made a very clear distinction between the two in a much earlier post. 
Basically the TR defenders are really KJV-Only partisans in a different 
guise.  There is no real connection between the TR group and the 
"majority text" or my own "Byzantine-priority" position.

> 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 apparently 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).

I doubt that I would even claim B Aleph, D, or the other MSS mentioned to
be "free" of Byzantine influence, since I see them as far more 
"Byzantine" under my own theory and transmissional viewpoint: readings 
which Aleph or B or D share in common with the Byzantine Textform of 
necessity are considered within a Byzantine-priority hypothesis as merely 
autograph readings from which the Alexandrian or Western witnesses 
happened not to depart.

The quantity of Byzantine MSS alone is not a determining factor when the 
theory is Byzantine-priority as opposed to mere "majority".  As 
previously mentioned, I have no compelling need to include all post-10th 
century MSS in reconstructing the Byzantine text, and thereby probably 
80% of the Byzantine witnesses are set aside from immediate consideration.

> 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.

Let me note as a Byzantine defender that the "theological argument" as 
stated should be no part of a Byzantine-priority position, and it 
certainly is not part of the case I present.  As I have noted elsewhere, 
if one wants to argue "providential preservation", then such would be 
demonstrated in the utter quantity of MSS, versions, and patristic 
quotations, _regardless_ of texttype.  

The TR/KJV-Only defenders of course continually invoke the theological
argument, and so does Pickering within the "majority text" school, to the
utter detriment of his theory, since everything for him is theologically
based.  My last ETS regional paper critiqued his defense of a 5% minority
reading in Acts 12.25, where Pickering declared that, due to his views of
inerrancy and his own interpretation of the passage, the 52%
Byzantine/Majority reading _had_ to be "in error, and therefore could not
possibly be correct (the next largest support in terms of percentage dips
to a mere 12%; Pickering goes lower than that to a 5% reading which is
neither that of Hodges/Farstad or my own edition, and not that of UBS4/N27
or even the TR -- Pickering is in his own text-critical world, forcibly
created by his theological views. As I stated in my rebuttal of his claim,
this most definitely is NOT the way to do textual criticism). 

> 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 Vulgate remains Alexandrian in character even in the gospels.  Also, 
the matter of quantity of versional MSS when the origin of the version is 
known is wholly irrelevant, since all can trace back to an archetype 
which is known to be far posterior to the autograph.  The 
Byzantine-priority position maintains a single texttype, and that the 
Byzantine, to be functionally equivalent to the autograph, and not to a 
later archetype.
 
> The argument against the majority text is that it is NOT in the
> majority in the early centuries. 

Do not forget Hort's "theoretical presumption", however, that, all things 
being equal, it is to be _expected_ that a majority of MSS at a later stage 
of transmission would most likely be representative of a majority of MSS at 
every earlier stage of transmission, barring a severe dislocation in the 
transmissional history.  The extant data from the early centuries is 
clearly incomplete, often localized to Egypt, and often highly 
fragmentary; to base a rejection of the Byzantine Textform upon such  
limited evidence neglects the consideration of a full conspectus of 
transmissional history in areas beyond and outside of those encompassed 
by the various early MSS preserved.

> From the fourth century, for
> instance, we have B, Aleph, and the papyri, none of them Byzantine.

I would note that if the cutoff had been before the fourth century, we 
would have a mass of papyri, mostly fragmentary, all from Egypt (at least 
as their final resting place), and only _one_ out of a hundred (P75) 
clearly "Alexandrian" in character.  Add in the fourth century and the 
total number of Alexandrian MSS increases to three; but again the concept 
of a limited provenance still affects any view of transmissional history 
which would attempt to postulate Empire-wide theory on such a slim basis.

> 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).

Codex W is in fact virtually pure as a "Byzantine" text in certain 
extended portions, just as it is virtually pure as "Alexandrian" or 
"Western" or even "Caesarean" in other portions.  W obviously was copied 
in parts from different MSS of different texttypes, and one of those MSS 
was a Byzantine MS which obviously predated the 5th century, which would 
make that particular part of the exemplars of W nearly co-equal with 
Aleph and B.  Of course Codex Alexandrinus in the gospels is also of 
Byzantine type, and itself would have to be copied from an archetype 
similarly co-equal or nearly so with Aleph and B.

> 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.

Burgon was quite wrong in his presumption on this point, and Burgon knew 
better, since he had collated those MSS and knew of the numerous 
corrections which had been made by scribes who obviously had been using 
the MSS quite extensively.  Burgon simply did not have a good theory 
regarding MS transmission or survival, and (contrary to TR/KJV advocates) 
Burgon was definitely not infallible. 

> 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. 

Agreed that their system and explanation was far too inadequate for what 
they were trying to prove.  However, I would myself maintain that, if the 
Byzantine Textform itself is not original, then the next best hope is the 
Alexandrian as an entity -- such would be far preferable to an eclectic 
text which never saw the light of day in any known MS, let alone the 
autograph.  It is self-delusion to think otherwise, since it becomes most 
extremely difficult to explain how, e.g., the N27 "original" text could 
ever under any plausible historical circumstances of transmission, hope 
to diversify itself into the patterns of readings which comprise the 
known texttype data of today.  If I were still an eclectic, I would give 
serious thought into determining how to improve upon Westcott and Hort to 
successfully explain an Alexandrian-type autograph, and that in its 
purest sense.  At least from that starting point a possible case can be 
made for the rise of the other texttypes (though in my opinion _not_ for 
the rise and dominance of the Byzantine Textform). 

Obviously I differ from Bob on this entire matter, but I do think that if 
we are serious about basing a theory on history and a history of 
transmission, that the situation when fairly observed will boil down to 
an either/or case in favor of the Byzantine or Alexandrian texttypes, and 
not in favor of a "mixed" eclectic product (my Kenneth Clark training is 
showing *;-)

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back