Wed Apr 24 10:46:20 1996
From majordom Wed Apr 24 10:46:20 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA17872; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 10:46:20 +0500
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 09:43 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: Byzantine text
Content-Length: 12071
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Sorry if this comes through twice -- I got a message saying it
didn't go through....
On Wed, 24 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:
>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.
Let's put it this way: Among manuscripts which display a significant
number of non-Byzantine readings, only B, Aleph, and D seem to be
PURE representatives of their recensional types. All the others have
experienced mixture of one sort or another. This, of course, disregards
the the portion of the text -- over 90% -- where all text-types agree.
>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.
Interesting. I hadn't realized that. (I've been working mostly from
the writings of Hodges & Farstad and Pickering.) My apologies.
>> 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).
You'll note that I drew a distinction between the Pickering/Hills group
(whose conclusions I consider ridiculous) and the views of Majority text
defenders. While I do not *agree with* the latter group, I think they
at least have logical arguments -- and deserve to be heard.
>> 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.
This statement I WILL NOT concede. I know it's been repeated time and
again -- but repetition is not the same as truth. The vulgate gospels
have a mixed text, with both Alexandrian and "Western" elements, but
the Byzantine element is very strong. I do not say that they ARE
Byzantine -- but to call them Alexandrian is absurd.
I will present statistics if needed.
>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.
Conceded. This argument is directed solely against those who make
theological arguments -- which Robinson does not.
>> 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.
Agreed; however, there WERE two disruptions: One was the Latinization
of the west, and the other -- far more significant -- is the Islamic
conquest of Asia, Palestine, and North Africa. This meant that only
one major region of the church -- the Byzantine -- remained Greek-speaking
and Christian after the seventh century.
>> 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.
I would submit that p66 is also Alexandrian -- although from an
Alexandrian subgroup distinctly different from p75/B. p45, admittedly,
is not -- but two facts about it can be brought forward. First,
Colwell thought it was edited, and second -- at least in my test
passages -- it is closer to B than it is to any other manuscript.
>> 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.
I would call both A and W "proto-Byzantine," but I essentially agree.
>> 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 *;-)
Actually, if we remember our original argument (and, believe it or not,
I was trying to present BOTH sides fairly), the question is whether the
King James Version is valid -- and we both say it is not, though I
consider it far more corrupt than you do.
And in fact it could be argued that I am _not_ an eclectic in the
gospels; my text THERE is almost purely Alexandrian. I agree with
Maurice that there are only two clear text-types in the gospels, and
ONE of them has to be right. We just choose different ones.
But for that reason I don't spend much time on the gospels; there isn't
much to be accomplished there until some *significant* new evidence
shows up.
The place that's most worthy of effort is the Epistles. And there, too,
I would almost be willing to adopt a single text. But -- and here's
where I'll get hooted out of court -- that single text is not the
Byzantine, nor the Alexandrian, nor p46-B, nor the "Western" text,
but in fact the text of Family 1739, represented in Paul by
1739-0243-0121a-1881-424c-6, plus 1908 in Romans, 630 in
Romans-Galatians, and probably some others that I just don't have
the information to identify (1891? 323? 945?).
Go ahead, everybody, crucify me.
Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Back