Sat Apr 27 14:45:02 1996
From majordom Sat Apr 27 14:45:02 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA01014; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 14:45:02 +0500
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 14:42:02 -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: 8211
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
On Fri, 26 Apr 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
> 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).
Neither can I as regards the latter statement, more so since I do not
even use the KJV, nor ever have as a primary English version.
> 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.
Hodges and Farstad are attempting a translation based on their text, but
from the samples offered so far it seems very spotty in quality. Part of
the problem is in farming out the work to be done by others. I am
currently working on a rendition of Mark from my own text, but it will be
done in a quite different manner, since I am beginning from the ASV 1901,
modernizing the text and smoothing the syntax, and only in the
next-to-final stage will be adapting it to my Byzantine/Majority Textform
edition (that translation, once accomplished, will be released as public
domain material and will be freely posted on various internet sites).
> For whatever it may be worth, let me present my results.
[statistics omitted, but definitely appreciated; contrast with my own
data is welcome]
> 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).
I would not concur on this point. As long as a sufficient standard
deviation were calculated, there would be no need to have 1000 gospel
readings. The standard deviation would give a reasonably accurate
prediction of degrees of error in lower tabulations, and this was the
method I myself used, and which I suspect is used in the Text und
Textwert calculations.
Increasing the number of variant units might give a lesser deviation, but
the danger in so doing is that too many readings may be included which
have a large mass of witnesses from multiple traditions all on one side,
with relatively insignificant minority readings on the other side, and
this will distort the actual amount of agreement in the statistical data.
Hammond's "Atlas of Textual Criticism" model, though flawed, nevertheless
gave the best overview of why and how variant units should be limited to a
smaller number, but with wider differences of reading within those units
selected. I suspect the Muenster scholars will concur that something
similar underlay their own selection of variant units.
> Of these 990 readings, I was able to determine a "vulgate" reading
> in 870 (using Wordsworth-White as my basis).
This I presume is for all four gospels combined? If so, I perhaps would
suggest another flaw in the method, since the data would have to be
tabulated on a book by book basis as a minimum, without attempting to
combine the results. Since each book (even as used by Jerome exclusively)
would still have its own transmissional history and underlying textual
affiliation, the combining of such data will not reflect a true picture.
I would also agree with Thomas Geer that even within a single gospel,
various segments need to be analyzed individually in order to make certain
that the texttype alignments do not change within different portions of
the same book (note that I did not do that even in my own research, but
restricted the effort to a book-by-book basis).
> 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."
These data obviously differ from my own as presented in a previous post,
and it would be interesting to pursue the reason for the differences.
> I'm not saying it is a PURE Byzantine text. It is heavily mixed.
> But the largest element is Byzantine.
But not, of course, from my own data, where Vg is more Alexandrian in
Acts and more Western and Caesarean in Matthew (Luke and John yet to be
re-tabulated).
> 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.
I do not doubt that the wide circulation of the Byztxt existed in
Jerome's day, nor that Byz readings appear in the Vg, though as my data
note, we are talking of ca.40% Byz readings, many of which are shared by
MSS of differing texttype. As noted, I would be quite pleased if the
data could show the Byz truly to be the largest element in the Vg
tradition, but my own data simply do not support such a position.
> 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.
That is a fair representation of our respective views.
> 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 would not so boldly characterize the modern eclectic position. My
interpretation (eclectics feel free to correct me) is that there is a
definite presupposition in favor of the MSS and versions which are
considered "best" (for whatever reasons -- Colwell claimed it merely
reflects Hort's legacy), and this coupled with a fairly rigorous
application of certain internal principles (e.g. the "shorter reading")
has a tendency to promulgate what it basically an Alexandrian text as
closest to the originals. I do not think they have "NO theory of the
text," but I do think that the theory of the text which they do have is
transmissionally vague and therefore flawed. The end result, however,
remains a text which never saw the light of day in any MS whatever, let
alone the autograph (I follow Colwell and Clark in this assessment).
> 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.
Not necessarily claiming "superiority" (I would prefer "more plausible"),
I would agree that the best alternative theory to my own is indeed that
of Westcott and Hort, which however is seriously flawed, and the flaws
recognized by all modern eclectics. Should the modern scholars rework
Westcott and Hort into a more plausible transmissional history which
could account for all the known data, including the papyri (which alone
seriously compromised the entire W-H theory) and the rise and dominance
of the Byzantine Textform, then there will be a more clearly-delineated
theory to discuss on both sides. As it currently stands, everything
continually has to devolve into discussion of individual variant
readings, since that is where modern eclecticism is centered. But
the defense of individual readings cannot a theory or conclusion make,
and that has been one of my main points throughout these discussions.
> And since, chances are, nobody else cares, there I will let the
> matter rest. I hope I can now offer Robinson the last word.
Oh, I suspect probably almost everyone on this list "cares". They just
happen to have their minds made up for the most part. *;-)
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back