Subject: Re: Byzantine Text

From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 96 14:09 CDT

On Fri, 26 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]> 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
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 14:42:02 -0400 (EDT)

> agree, but I can respect Robinson's viewpoint (I cannot respect a "KJV

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.
 
> 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

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. 

> 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). 

> 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. 
 
> 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

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
> kind of text. 

That is a fair representation of our respective views.

> 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).

> 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.
 
> 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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: [email-masked] (Vincent Broman)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 96 13:09:55 PDT

[email-masked] said about classifying the vulgate:
>                     ...let me present my results. This is
> additional readings selected by a random process...
> ...Notice that the Vulgate agrees with A, E, K, and M 60-65% of the

For any kind of evaluation involving Byzantine witnesses,
the selection of readings in UBS3 or even NA26 is highly unrepresentative,
and will make your counts of agreements nearly meaningless.
For instance, in this case lots of units of variation where Westerns
and Alexandrians agree against Byzantines will not be covered by
any entry in the apparatus, because the text is felt to be firm.
This is a standard pitfall in using a selective apparatus.
You need to work from the IGNTP volumes, Tischendorf, or Von Soden.

Vincent Broman             Email: [email-masked]                    =   o     
2224 33d St.               Phone: +1 619 284 3775                  =  _ /- _   
San Diego, CA  92104-5605  Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W     =  (_)> (_)  
___ PGP protected mail preferred.  For public key finger [email-masked] ___

---

From: [email-masked] (Vincent Broman)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 96 13:10:08 PDT

[email-masked] asked:
> ...has anyone ever attempted an English translation based

While the NKJV text is based on the TR, it supplies marginal renderings
for the H/F Majority text and for the UBS3, wherever the textual differences
are thought to be visible in an English translation.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 16:35:00 -0400 (EDT)

> You need to work from the IGNTP volumes, Tischendorf, or Von Soden.

I might interject that since both Waltz and I did work from the UBS 
apparatuses, that in my Th.M. thesis a strong justification was made for 
the legitimacy of using those variant units (at least for the Gospels and 
Acts) as sufficiently representative statistical samples, especially 
samples which would not be as likely to be skewed as those minority 
readings which dominate the N27 apparatus, where virtually everything 
else reads with a common text half the time.  

Metzger concurred with both my method and results in a private
communication made back in 1975, and concluded that the results were quite
in conformity to those which might have been obtained by a more precise
examination of two or three selected chapters via the Claremont Profile
Method or Colwell's Quantitative Analysis (followed by J.G.Griffith in 
his "Numerical Taxonomy" studies, e.g. JTS 1969). 

Thus, I do not think that either myself or Waltz' results will be 
significantly different, taken and understood as a representative sample, 
from those which would occur were a complete analysis performed using a 
full continuous text model as Broman urges.  There is a standard 
deviation, and a certain margin of error, but once this has been allowed, 
the results should be meaningful.