Fri Apr 26 15:13:00 1996
From majordom Fri Apr 26 15:13:00 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA27490; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 15:13:00 +0500
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 96 14:09 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: 7535
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
On Fri, 26 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:
>[Addressing only some points of difference from Waltz' original post:]
I too will leave most of the cited material aside; obviously we do not
agree, but I can respect Robinson's viewpoint (I cannot respect a "KJV
is best" viewpoint).
By the way -- has anyone ever attempted an English translation based
on a purely Byzantine text (Robinson's or Hodges and Farstad's)? The
New King James version is based on the TR.
[...]
>
>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.
For whatever it may be worth, let me present my results. This is
based on 990 readings, including those in GNT3 but also some 300
additional readings selected by a random process (I just read through
so many verses and took the FIRST reading that I had sufficient
data to evaluate the manuscripts involved. Not a perfect method,
since I didn't have sources for everything, but the best that
I could find. My goal was to come up with a thousand readings in
the gospels; any smaller sample, such as that used by the Alands,
is TOO SMALL to be statistically significant. Apart from the fact
that their sample passages were not chosen very approriately).
Of these 990 readings, I was able to determine a "vulgate" reading
in 870 (using Wordsworth-White as my basis).
In overall agreements, I found the following
Manuscript # of agreements out of # possible percent
p75 146 282 44.7
Aleph 397 869 45.7
A 424 646 65.6
B 372 869 42.8
C 294 547 53.7
D 392 815 48.1
E 552 860 64.2
K 556 868 64.1
L 436 854 51.1
M* 550 870 63.2
Theta 507 860 59.0
Old Latin: a 496 819 60.6
Old Latin: b 491 801 61.3
Old Latin: e 315 574 54.9
Old Latin: k 102 204 50.0
* My collation for M is rather bad; this figure could be off
by a few percent.
Note: The "out of # possible" category tells how many passages
both manuscripts existed for.
Notice that the Vulgate agrees with A, E, K, and M 60-65% of the
time, and with p75, B, and Aleph only about 45% of the time.
(For reference, B and D agree in the sample 29.7% of the time.)
To me, it is clear that the Vulgate is more Byzantine than
Alexandrian, and probably more Byzantine than "Western."
I'm not saying it is a PURE Byzantine text. It is heavily mixed.
But the largest element is Byzantine. Note that this is an argument
in FAVOUR of the Byzantine text. The presence of so many Byzantine
readings in the Vulgate, most of which do NOT derive from the
Old Latin, argues that the Byzantine text was in existence, and
very widely used, by Jerome's time.
An additional note on the Alexandrian/"Western" nature of the
non-Byzantine elements in the Vulgate:
I also measure non-Byzantine readings (to the best of my ability;
once again, the lack of a good critical edition of the Byzantine
text hurts -- at the time I assembled these statistics all I had
was the TR and the frequency evaluations in NA26). The Vulgate
had 335 non-Byzantine readings (38.5% of its total). It shared
160 of these with B, 160 with Aleph, and 143 with D (recall that
D is somewhat defective. On the basis of text preserves, this
is a dead heat). Its closest relative in this category is the
Old Latin c, which has 202 agreements.
[...]
>
>>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....
I assumed we were discussing the TR in specific, since this started
with a pastor who defended the Byzantine text. In practice, that
means the TR. Of course, the TR is MOSTLY Byzantine, but we both
agree that it is not a perfect representative of that text-type.
Of course, Robinson thinks it a poor representative of the RIGHT
kind of text, and I think it a poor representative of the WRONG
kind of text. Ultimately that is a greater issue.
>>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?
I disagree with them in BOTH directions. That is, sometimes I think that
they adopted Byzantine readings they ought not. I also, quite frequently,
think they adopted NON-Byzantine readings where the Byzantine reading is
obviously correct.
The way I would put it is, They had NO theory of the text (except a
subjective feeling, which they do not admit, that the Alexandrian
text is best"), and no clear critical method, and wound up with a
text that is neither fish nor foul.
I often agree with their text. I almost never agree with their
reasons. From an intellectual standpoint, Robinson's viewpoint is
superior. So is Westcott and Hort's. Both have theories of the
text. I disagree with both theories, but an edition not founded
on a theory of the text is NEVER reliable.
And since, chances are, nobody else cares, there I will let the
matter rest. I hope I can now offer Robinson the last word.
Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Back