Subject: Re: Codices for Teaching

From: [email-masked] (Dale M. Wheeler)
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 11:15:26 -0800

Bart D. Ehrman wrote:

>   Um, sorry, but I haven't been following all of these postings.  "Did" 
>*what*?

This is the statement from the Brown mss site about Lucian's work:

"It is called Byzantine because it was adopted in Constantinople and used as
the common text in the Byzantine world. It was produced in Antioch, Syria,
under the direction of Lucian near the beginning of the fourth century and
has been called the Syrian or Antiochene text."

***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Chair, Biblical Languages Dept                  Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street                               Portland, OR  97220
Voice: 503-251-6416    FAX:503-254-1268     E-Mail: [email-masked] 
***********************************************************************

---

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:42:05 -0500 (EST)

In response to D. Wheeler's query:

    Very few people who actually work in this material, of course, pin 
the Byzantine text on Lucian (though there are still a few "Hug-ians" 
among us...).  The most important recent treatment is K. Wachtel, _Der 
Byzantinische Text der Katholischen Briefe_ ANTF 24; Berlin: de Gruyter, 
1995.  Wachtel makes a strong case that the Byzantine text, while having 
its roots in the fourth century, was a slow train coming (I'm 
paraphrasing); the process continued up to the ninth century, when it was 
more or less brought to a conclusion with the introduction of the 
minuscule script.  The data he uses, of course, apply to the Catholic 
epistles; they are, in fact, the _Teststellen_ used by the Institut fuer 
neutestamentliche Textforschung (the Institute founded by Kurt Aland and 
now directed by Barbara Aland in Muenster).

     Now that I think of it, isn't Klaus on this list?  If so, I hope he 
can say a few things about it (like, whether I've got the basic thrust 
right on the basis of a quick perusal).

-- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

---

From: Klaus Wachtel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 09:48:30 +0000

In response to Bart Ehrman´s kind invitation to say something about the 
Byzantine text:

One thing I learned about the Byzantine text (BT) is that there is a 
difference between it and the Majority text (MT). The MT consists of all 
passages without any variation AND all those readings which are found in 
the majority of witnesses, no matter which and how many mss. differ from 
it in the same variation unit. As most of all deviations from the 
mainstream of the NT tradition are singular or subsingular readings, one 
cannot deny that the original text normally is preserved as MT  as e. 
g. swans normally are white. But there are numerous exceptions: swans 
with a black head and neck, or the Australian kind which is entirely 
black except for the wings, or, back to TC, majority readings which are 
not original according to the canons of textual criticism. Those 
readings I regard as Byzantine in the textcritical sense of the word, 
being the distinctive readings of the BT.

I think that two kinds of Byzantine readings should be distinguished: 
typical ones fitting Hort´s famous description ("smooth and attractive, 
but appreciably impoverished in sense and force" [Introduction, 135]), 
and untypical ones, harder majority readings which nevertheless can 
hardly be judged as original.

I would like to suggest one untypical Byzantine reading for discussion. 
In James 2,18 the majority of witnesses has EK instead of XWRIS. I think 
that
a) this reading can´t be original as it results in nonsense;
b) this reading is an error pointing to community of origin;
c) readings of this kind make it unlikely that the BT is the result of a 
recension aiming at lucidity and smoothness.

By the way, Bart, did I really say that the BT had "its roots in the 
fourth century"? If so I have to apologize. I meant "_before_ the fourth 
century".

Klaus Wachtel, INTF Muenster

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 18:37:44 -0500 (EST)

> being the distinctive readings of the BT.

I would agree with Klaus on this point, speaking from a Byzantine-priority
standpoint: mere numerical majority does not a "Byzantine"  reading make. 
However, in almost all cases where a 70%+ majority of pre-10th century 
MSS read a certain way, I think in those cases the Byzantine text is well 
determined and has a certain claim toward autograph originality.  The 
overwhelming majority of post-10th century minuscules are secondary in 
cases such as 1 Jn.2:23 and 1 Jn.3:1, since that mere numerical majority 
is not supported by the earlier testimony.  This is probably a reason why 
no "majority text" advocate I know actually holds to a strict numerical 
majority principle, but either applies a stemmatic approach (as 
Hodges/Farstad in Revelation or the Pericope Adultera) or favors a 
specific Byzantine group or sub-group (Pickering favors Kr; I tend to 
favor Kx).

> hardly be judged as original.

I would differ with Klaus here, since I tend to find upon closer 
examination the very Byzantine readings which are considered to fit 
Hort's description often turn out to be part of a far more complex 
textual situation which cannot be dismissed in a paragraph or two (as 
does Metzger in his Textual Commentary).

> a) this reading can't be original as it results in nonsense;

This is interesting indeed, coming from Klaus.  I think that his point 
(c) is quite significant, and I too have maintained such a point.  
However, at the variant unit in question, my own edition of the Greek 
text does read EK, following an unquestioned "K" designation from Von 
Soden, and also happening to be the majority or "M" reading as reported 
in N27 (but of course "M" does NOT always mean "Byzantine", as Klaus 
pointed out). 

I do not think that points (a) and (b) above will hold, though I would 
agree that the reading does imply a "community of origin", which I would 
localize in the autograph.  But whether the EK reading is in fact an 
"error" which "results in nonsense" is unclear.  

Had this been an error, producing a clearly "more difficult" reading, the 
question still remains as to why scribes would not act in accordance with 
their supposed tendencies and correct the reading to the "easier" and 
certainly clearer XWRIS.  I still maintain that difficulty of 
interpretation would be a primary cause for scribes to alter the text to 
an easier reading, and for them to leave in one so obviously difficult of 
interpretation as EK could only imply continuance of the autograph 
reading coupled with a general scribal faithfulness, even in the face of 
difficult hermeneutics.  

Certainly the final clause containing EK caused no difficulty (DEICW SOI 
EK TWN ERGWN MOU THN PISTIN MOU; Byztxt); why then should it be thought 
nonsense to preface that clause with DEICON MOI THN PISTIN SOU EK TWN 
ERGWN SOU (again, Byztxt).  I would read it thus, allowing for the 
interpretative difficulty, with emphasis indicated by _ _:

"Show me _your_ faith from _your_ works, and I will show you _my_ faith 
from _my_ works."

If read with this emphasis, I see no interpretative problem.  On the 
other hand, a scribe could easily fail to see the intended emphasis (as 
witnessed by various scribes omitting the first SOU, changing EK to 
XWRIS, reversing the word order to SOI DEICW, and omitting the final MOU, 
as reported in the N27 text), and thus change the text dramatically from 
what appeared above to the following (according to N27):

"Show me your faith _apart from_ works, and I will show _you_ the faith from 
my works."

There is no question that the alternative Byzantine and N27 texts provide 
a dramatically different interpretation of the passage.  However, I 
suggest that the Byzantine reading is not at all "nonsense," but quite 
sensible when read properly; also that the current critical text actually 
favors the "easier" reading, which could only have come about as a 
reaction to the "more difficult" Byzantine reading.  If the principle of 
favoring the reading which best explains the rise of all the others has 
any merit at all (which I think extremely likely), then there should be 
no reason in the present case not to favor the Byzantine reading in this 
passage.

> fourth century"? If so I have to apologize. I meant "_before_ the fourth 

I concur here also, but I'll wager I place its roots earlier than does 
Klaus *:-)

=========================================================================
                       Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
            Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
              Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
                      Wake Forest, North Carolina
                   <[email-masked]>
=========================================================================

---

From: Klaus Wachtel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 14:40:16 +0000

On Wednesday 13 Mar, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> The overwhelming majority of post-10th century minuscules are secondary in
> is not supported by the earlier testimony.

May I ask, then, on which earlier testimony the decision for the Byz. text EK 
instead of XWRIS is based in James 2,18 (except the doubtful evidence of P54)?

> certainly clearer XWRIS. 

This is a most interesting question, although I doubt that XWRIS is "easier"; 
I would say that it -in contrast with EK- fits the context. I think, there are 
three reasons, why EK was not replaced with XWRIS.
1) Medieval Byzantine scribes were copyists, not editors in the modern sense 
of the word. Normally they effectively controlled themselves and were 
controlled by others, as is shown most convincingly by Kr. Besides, how can we 
be sure that scribes were able to compare mss. which had XWRIS in 2,18?
2) EK was in the right manuscripts, namely in the exemplars of the Byz. text 
minuscules.
3) EK doesn't offend a reader who doesn't attend to the context beyond 2,18, 
-what of course might happen to a scribe as well.

> I still maintain that difficulty of interpretation would be a primary cause > for scribes to alter the text to an easier reading, ...

Mere difficulty of a reading, of course, doesn't suffice to prove its 
originality. For example, the reading of codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in 
Js 1,17 results in an extremely difficult text, as is frequently the case with 
errors.

> ERGWN SOU (again, Byztxt).  

I admit that "nonsense" is too harsh a word. More attentive readers may have 
understood 2,18a as a concession: "[I concede that] you have faith, [if you 
concede that] I have works [and now let's part as friends]". Under this 
condition 2,18b seems to make sense in spite of EK. But what about 2,19? V. 19 
is clearly directed against someone whose faith consists in nothing but an 
unclear notion of God. In my opinion it is very unlikely that the author could 
have urged the same person in 2,18b to show his faith by his works. V. 19 
requires an opponent who relies on nothing but his faith.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:36:54 -0500 (EST)

> instead of XWRIS is based in James 2,18 (except the doubtful evidence of P54)?

Since I am willing to include in my count minuscules of the 9th and 10th
centuries, they would be considered of weight in the 2:18 variant. The MSS
of the 11th and later centuries are not essential toward establishing the
Byzantine reading. 

According to Tischendorf's 8th edition, EK is supported by K and L among
the uncials as well as virtually all the minuscules.  Versional testimony
admittedly supports XWRIS, though I suspect this might be due to the
difficulty inherent in interpreting EK in context and opting for an
"easier" reading when the process of translation occurred.  Von Soden
offers a few more details, but I would not want to try to extract the
evidence therefrom with all his "gg" etc.  P54 may support the EK reading,
but I would not attempt to build a case from an uncertain papyrus reading. 

The "M" in N27 must be broken into its component parts by century to
determine which "M" minuscule MSS might be of the 9th and 10th century; 
there should be a sufficient quantity in any case.  If the Text und
Textwert series has this variant noted (I am not able to access library
material at present), the full conspectus of Greek manuscript evidence
would be observable. 

> I would say that it -in contrast with EK- fits the context. 

"Easier" of course is not in regard to our mindset, but to that of the
scribes.  A smooth and readily-understandable reading like XWRIS is
certainly far "easier" in the context than is EK, and "fitting the
context" is the precise definition of "easier" when related to a scribe's
mind. 

> I think, there are 

> controlled by others, as is shown most convincingly by Kr. Besides, how can 
> we be sure that scribes were able to compare mss. which had XWRIS in 2,18?

Agreed that most scribes were faithful copyists and not editors.  I suspect 
that "control" was evinced more by their faithfulness to duty and the 
accurate reproduction of their exemplars (e.g., the various imprecatory 
curses which might apply to those "falsifying" or "corrupting" the word of 
God) than from abbot-oriented or peer control, let alone from orthodoxy 
in general. 

In view of the scribes' normal faithfulness in copying, it becomes quite
peculiar then to assume that this mass of medieval scribes would by and
large all become "editorial" and make the text more difficult by changing
XWRIS to EK.  Even allowing that one or two scribes were "editorial" in
their technique, why would (or should) the mass of other scribes then
choose to accept and follow the editorial change emanating from a single
scriptorium which created a reading which was clearly _more_ difficult
than the simple XWRIS ? 

Scribes certainly would have been able to compare MSS and to insert
corrections when necessary.  Merely because none of the XWRIS manuscripts
cited in N27 have a correction noted does not establish the non-existence
of cross-comparison and correction in any given variant unit.  From the
extant evidence of MSS and comments by various Fathers, the normal
practice was always to compare at least against the exemplar and
preferably to have a diorthotes proof and correct the copy against a
different exemplar. 

Tischendorf's 8th edition shows his MS 78 was corrected to XWRIS from an
original EK (I can't convert to Gregory-Aland numbers right now), which
demonstrates at least one scribe altering the text in the "easier"
direction, as I would claim. 

> 2) EK was in the right manuscripts, namely in the exemplars of the Byz. text 

Agreed that EK was in the "right" manuscripts -- but I define that as the
line stemming from the autograph.  Since you would claim otherwise, you
need to provide an explanation as to _which_ MS or MSS were the archetypes
of the supposedly "later" Byzantine texttype, and also explain how
supposedly "erroneous" and "difficult" readings in such MSS were allowed
to remain, when such goes against the claimed nature of scribes to smooth
out such difficulties, either by glosses in the margin or by altering the
text itself.  

Basically I am asking for a demonstration of how the easier XWRIS reading
could have given rise to a more difficult EK.  EK does occur in the next
clause; however, attraction cannot be assumed when such is supposed to
produce an erroneous reading which appears in the vast mass of MSS. 

Attraction or assimilation will always be limited to a small handful of
unrelated MSS or those of a sub-type or family. Further, XWRIS itself
appears in the next verse, and offered scribes a simple escape from what
might have appeared to have been an interpretative difficulty; that a
minority of scribes might choose that option fits the pattern of
assimilation quite well. 

> -what of course might happen to a scribe as well.

Some scribes copied letter by letter; others syllable by syllable or word
by word.  Certainly in such situations scribal errors could occur. 
However, when the scribe himself/herself completed the copying of a book
or chapter and re-read that portion against the original exemplar, context
then would be of primary importance, and simple errors such as EK for
XWRIS or vice versa would readily be caught.  

Also, if the error were made apart from the exemplar, then correction
would be made.  Still further, if the proofreading diorthotes were
comparing the finished product against a different exemplar, there would
be even less reason to suppose an erroneous reading would have much chance
to be perpetuated. 

Only MSS and versions from a local-text and minority texttype situation
would be expected to perpetuate such an error beyond more than one or two
copying generations.  The chances of an erroneous EK permeating the entire
mass of Greek minuscules merely because P54, K and L may have read thus
seems impossible if the sensible XWRIS as found in the earlier minority
MSS and versions were the original reading.  There still needs to be a
_good_ transmissional history which can account for the dominance of the
Byzantine reading here as well as for the entire Byzantine Textform. 

> > I still maintain that difficulty of interpretation would be a primary cause 
> > for scribes to alter the text to an easier reading, ...
> 
> Js 1,17 results in an extremely difficult text, as is frequently the case 
> with errors.

I would suggest that the explanation in 1:17 is simply error in Aleph* B. 
Similar error also occurs in the other minority groups cited there in N27
(614, 1505 pc;  1832, 2138 pc; p23, etc.).  The error is brought about
because the Byzantine reading itself there (favored by N27) remains
difficult of interpretation, as even the proffered conjectures
demonstrate.  Difficult readings which arise from a difficult reading
hardly parallel the case of a difficult reading supposedly arising from an
easier reading as is the case with James 2:18. 

> have understood 2,18a as a concession: "[I concede that] you have faith, 
> [if you concede that] I have works [and now let's part as friends]". 
> Under this condition 2,18b seems to make sense in spite of EK. But what 
> about 2,19? V. 19 is clearly directed against someone whose faith 
> consists in nothing but an unclear notion of God. 

There is actually a difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of 
2:19, which may affect how one then reads 2:18.  Has the comment of the 
objector ceased at the end of the first clause of 2:18?  Does the 
objector continue through all of 2:18? Or does the objector continue to 
speak even in 2:19?  If so, the complaint might be directed against 
James himself, e.g.,

[James speaking:] "Someone might say: 

[objector:] "You have faith and I have works. Show me _your_ faith out of 
            _your_ works, and I will show you _my_ faith out of _my_ works.
            You believe that God is one; you do well.  (But) even the 
            demons `believe' -- and they tremble."

[James resumes:] But do you want to know, O empty man, that faith 
apart from (XWRIS) works is _dead_?......

This interpretation is just as valid as any other, and can make sense 
with the Byzantine reading in place, without producing nonsense.  There 
are also other places where the objector's statement can begin and end 
which does not make the Byzantine reading invalid.

> In my opinion it is 
> very unlikely that the author could have urged the same person in 2,18b 
> to show his faith by his works. V. 19 requires an opponent who relies 
> on nothing but his faith. 

Exegetically noteworthy in v.19 is that the faith spoken of is only in 
God, and not related to Christ.  Hence we may have a hyperbole in 
bringing in the demons, merely as an extreme example.

Either way, if there is even a remote possibility of interpretative 
difficulties in v.19 (where the textual variation is not serious), the 
likelihood of v.18 having an alteration to help alleviate such 
difficulties becomes more probable.

---

From: Klaus Wachtel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 17:52:44 +0000

On Mon, 18 Mar, Maurice Robinson wrote:
> the uncials as well as virtually all the minuscules. 

This is true for the Byzantine omissions in 1Jn 2,23 and 3,1 as well. All three 
instances are included in "Text & Textwert", all three have a remarkably pure 
K-attestation, hardly lacking any Kr- or Kx-ms. 

K. Wachtel, INTF Muenster

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 21:13:35 -0500 (EST)

> K-attestation, hardly lacking any Kr- or Kx-ms. 

I see a major difference in cases where accidental omission due to 
homoioteleuton could be the cause of such variation, however.  Certainly 
it would be difficult to argue that the longer reading in 2:23 was added 
merely to give balance to the passage or to provide a contrast in 
"Johannine style" if such were not original.  The reading in 3:1, 
however, can and has been argued as non-original, since KAI ESMEN may 
have originated as a gloss.

With 2:18 however, the principle of the harder reading and that which 
would give rise to the other alternative(s) takes precedence, since 
accidental error (even by attraction to EK in the second clause) seems 
less likely than the deliberate attempt to obviate a difficulty.  

Note that I am not holding to a double standard: the issue in 1Jn 2:23 and
3:1 is predicated upon the principle of continuity of attestation in the
pre-10th century period, followed by a surprising lack of same after the
10th century.  The case of James 2:18 reflects continued perpetuation of a
non-accidental variant by the minuscules of what I would argue had been in
the majority of (now) non-extant uncials which were discarded or destroyed
once the minuscule copying revolution had occurred.  (Of course, like the
homoioteleuton argument, one could also argue that EK in the primary
minuscule exemplar was also an error which became the mother of all
subsequent copies; I will not deny that this line of argument is possible,
but I think it less probable since accidental error is less likely to 
appear in cases of substitution as opposed to omission). 

Also, I probably should explain that my presumption of homoioteleuton and
the originality of the longer reading in 1 Jn.2:23 and 3:1 is NOT shared
by my co-editor, William Pierpont, who argues for the shorter reading in
each case, based upon the relative independence of the minuscule MSS.  My
mind is not fully made up on this point, and Pierpont may well be correct,
though I think that if so there is a problem with ignoring the continuity
of those longer readings from the second through the tenth century; 
further, on stylistic grounds, the longer reading appears to be the most
appropriate. 
  
Should I end up resolving the issue in a different direction from which I 
am currently inclined, I would still probably include those longer 
readings, albeit in brackets.