Fri Jan 3 11:27:21 1997

From owner-tc-list  Fri Jan  3 11:27:21 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA05820; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 11:26:18 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 10:23:57 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Byzantine editions (Was: Re: James)
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2721

On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, "Ronald L. Minton"  wrote:

>Dr. Waltz, very good summary, I also add my $0.02   :)

Just have to remind everyone that I am not a doctor, nor even a
seminarian. Just a person trained in Physics and Math and gifted (?)
with a bog mouth (or, in this case, keyboard).

>> TR = Textus Receptus. An edition substantially identical to that which
>> Erasmus published in the early sixteenth century. The most widely
>> mentioned TR editions are those of Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir, and the
>> Oxford edition of 1873.
>
>The Oxford 1825 was used by H&F, so has become a convenient TR used by many.

The Oxford editions are the basis for most recent collations. And
it's a good thing that H&F list their readings, because they aren't
easy to find any more!

>> >Majority Text
>> The text found in the majority of manuscripts. Usually the same as
>> the TR, but there are some thousands of differences. (E.g. the
>> Majority Text does not include the Three Heavenly Witnesses in 1 John 5.)
>
>c. 1850 differences.

That's the number of differences that Wallace finds between the TR and
H&F. But I would note that H&F is *not* the Majority Text; it's a
preliminary edition. It's based mostly on von Soden.

At this time, with so many manuscripts uncollated, we don't actually
*know* the reading of the Majority Text at some points. There are
probably a few places where H&F (or Robinson) print a reading which
is not a majority reading. I would guess there are fewer than a hundred
such, but there are undoubtedly some.

>> >Byzantine Text
>> 
>> This is more difficult. It could mean the Majority Text. It could mean
>> the text used in Byzantium. I personally tend to use it to refer to the
>> original form of the text which eventually evolved into the Majority
>> Text. This text probably, but by no means certainly, evolved in
>> Byzantium. (BTW -- I use the term "Byzantine Text" in this way not
>> because this is necessarily the best meaning, but because we need
>> *some* name for this text.)
>
>I think of the Byz text as a textual family or text type, ie the 
>hypothetical text behind the majority of manuscripts.

I agree.

>Other names that are sometimes used for the above are: Received Text, 
>Ecclesiastical Text, Syrian Text, "A" Text, Antiochan Text, Common Text, 
>Traditional Text

I hereby propose, though, that we stick with "Byzantine text." It's
one of the oldest names, and it's less confusing than, say, Hort's
"Syrian text."

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                  Robert B. Waltz
               waltzmn@skypoint.com

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn

Back