Fri Apr 26 10:11:12 1996
From majordom Fri Apr 26 10:11:12 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA26285; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 10:11:12 +0500
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 10:08:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Byzantine text
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 10523
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
[Addressing only some points of difference from Waltz' original post:]
On 24 Apr 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>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.
Substitute "dominant" or "reasonable" for "pure", and I would have no
disagreement. Otherwise, I would suggest D and Aleph would not fit the
description, though B alone might (as Hort said) represent a "very pure
line of very ancient text".
Waltz:
>>> the Vulgate has a Byzantine element (a very strong one in the
>>> gospels, less so in the Epistles)
Robinson:
>>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.
I also have statistics based upon a complete comparative study of all
regularly cited MSS in the UBS2 edition (made over 20 years ago), and I
will be happy to summarize those results as well, which indicate (to
the best of my recollection without reviewing the data packed away in
various file folders) the Vulgate to be more Alexandrian than any
other, with the next most significant degree of mixture to be Western.
>From a pro-Byzantine position, of course, I would be particularly
pleased were you to establish a more dominant Byzantine character in
the Vulgate gospels. Nevertheless, my own theory proceeds without
that assumption and such is not necessary to the success of such a
theory. However, if you can statistically convince me of the
"Byzantine" character of the Vulgate in the gospels, I will be happy to
incorporate such data into my own historical reconstruction to
advantage.
>>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.
>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.
The latter of these objections I addressed some time ago in a previous
post. I there noted the obvious: had the Alexandrian text indeed been
the closest representative to the autograph, the Islamic conquest could
not have eliminated its continuing dominance throughout the remaining
Greek-speaking portion of the Empire. However, if the Alexandrian
texttype were merely a local text, it would not have been spreading
elsewhere in any great degree regardless of the status of Islam in the
7th century, and of course this is my own contention.
I also noted that even under the Islamic conquest, Christian churches
and continued evangelization of non-Muslims were still permitted, even
though conversion of Muslims was prohibited. The Coptic church in fact
attained its dominant position in Egypt as a direct result of the
Islamic conquest; this is a well-documented fact; also the Coptic
version (Sahidic or Bohairic) is clearly Alexandrian in character, and
continued in that form even following the Islamic conquest. The
localized Alexandrian text, however, simply did not permeate nor affect
the remaining majority of the Greek-speaking portion of the Empire (and
it had that opportunity for 500 years before the Islamic conquest and
did not succeed in that time period either).
Bottom line: the Islamic conquest did _not_ create any major disruption
in the transmission of the basic Greek text of the NT.
The second point mentioned is the "Latinization of the West" -- the
word used seems to imply that the West somehow was Greek-speaking and
slowly became Latinized. This simply is not the case. From the
beginning the West (including both Europe and Africa from Italy and
Carthage westward) was Latin-speaking rather than Greek-speaking. The
Greek influence existed from the southern tip of Italy through Greece,
Asia Minor, and Palestine into Egypt and Libya. Those demarcation
lines remained nearly absolute at all times.
MSS which were bilingual were likely copied in border areas between the
Latin and Greek speaking regions, and the Latin sometimes affected the
Greek and vice versa, but otherwise made little impact on the text
being transmitted in Greek as a whole. The greatest problem with the
Old Latin version is what Jerome complained about, namely the poor
quality of translation made by anyone who fancied himself competent in
both Latin and Greek.
The Western text as a whole (actually Western "readings" rather than a
full-blown text) certainly permeates the pre-Vulgate Latin MSS, as well
as to some degree the Vulgate itself, but the corrupting effect of such
Western readings upon Greek MSS is minimal, since only D (Bezae and
Claromontanus) F G and a few other uncials are "Western" in character,
and a good number of the papyri found in Egypt (a Latin/Greek border
region) show mixture with Western readings scattered among them. These
Latin-based corruptions simply do not exist in either the Alexandrian,
Byzantine, or Caesarean texts, and there is no significant effect upon
the transmission of the Greek text by Latin corruption, even though the
Latin tradition, due to its history as "translation" does differ
significantly from that which was preserved in the original languages
by the Greek-speaking portion of the Empire.
>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.
p66 is certainly heavily Alexandrian in character, but nowhere near
that of p75. The question whether this is a "subgroup" or, as I see
it, a "mixed" Alexandrian + Western MS (with some Byzantine readings
thrown in) is probably significant. I would see a subgroup remaining
within a very close relationship to the mother texttype (e.g. in the
Byzantines, the Kr or K1 subtypes). p66 on the other hand would not
qualify under that definition as a subtype.
p45 in character remains more "Caesarean" than anything else (which
would be an anachronism, even if the existence of a Caesarean texttype
is granted). But the reason for this is simply that the mixed-text
character of that MS went in a different direction from that found in
p66. The readings are still a combination of Alexandrian, Western, and
Byzantine readings; only the pattern differs, since mixture is not
predictable.
>>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.
We were discussing the validity of the KJV? Somewhere I missed that
issue in view of the text-critical issues (which are far more important
to me). Must have been something on the underlying Greek text of the
KJV....
>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.
Thus you would have some differences with UBS3-4/Nestle26-27 where they
adopted more Byzantine readings than did their predecessors?
>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.
Probably depends on one's perspective. I do not cherish great hopes
for major MS discoveries which will seriously alter the estimation of
the Greek text in any book of the NT within one's theoretical
perspective. However, I believe that the two greatest areas where
textual criticism needs to spend time are in the gospels and the
Revelation. The Acts would closely follow. The epistles appear to me
to present far fewer problems. But that of course is a personal
opinion.
>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?).
Were I not a pro-Byzantine partisan, I could well accept the argument
in favor of the originality family 1739, just as Lake suggested. It
certainly might have as much plausibility as a pro-Alexandrian
hypothesis for the _Vorlage_ of the Epistles, and certainly would
demonstrate a better case than any which might be made for the Western
text there. Of course, my primary objection would remain
transmissional, and a leading question would be what historically could
have transpired so as to virtually obliterate all traces of the
1739-type of text under any reasonably "normal" methods of
transmission.
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back