Subject: Re: Byzantine text

From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 09:43 CDT

Sorry if this comes through twice -- I got a message saying it
didn't go through....

On Wed, 24 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>
>> The first is the supporters of the Byzantine text, either in the form
>> of the TR or (in my opinion much more reasonably) on the basis of the
>> Majority Text.
>
>I made a very clear distinction between the two in a much earlier post.
>Basically the TR defenders are really KJV-Only partisans in a different
>guise.  There is no real connection between the TR group and the
>"majority text" or my own "Byzantine-priority" position.
>
>> This group offers two main arguments: First, the majority text is the
>> STRONG majority -- at least 80% of manuscripts are PURELY Byzantine,
>> over 90% are PRIMARILY, and apparently less than one percent are
>> ENTIRELY or EFFECTIVELY free of Byzantine influence (for example, in
>> the Gospels, only B, Aleph, D, and the papyri are entirely free; in
>> Paul, only B, Aleph, D, F, G, 1739, and 33 outside of Romans).
>
>I doubt that I would even claim B Aleph, D, or the other MSS mentioned to
>be "free" of Byzantine influence, since I see them as far more
>"Byzantine" under my own theory and transmissional viewpoint: readings
>which Aleph or B or D share in common with the Byzantine Textform of
>necessity are considered within a Byzantine-priority hypothesis as merely
>autograph readings from which the Alexandrian or Western witnesses
>happened not to depart.

Let's put it this way: Among manuscripts which display a significant
number of non-Byzantine readings, only B, Aleph, and D seem to be
PURE representatives of their recensional types. All the others have
experienced mixture of one sort or another. This, of course, disregards
the the portion of the text -- over 90% -- where all text-types agree.

>The quantity of Byzantine MSS alone is not a determining factor when the
>theory is Byzantine-priority as opposed to mere "majority".  As
>previously mentioned, I have no compelling need to include all post-10th
>century MSS in reconstructing the Byzantine text, and thereby probably
>80% of the Byzantine witnesses are set aside from immediate consideration.

Interesting. I hadn't realized that. (I've been working mostly from
the writings of Hodges & Farstad and Pickering.) My apologies.

>> There is also the theological argument: Essentially, that God would
>> not allow the Christian tradition to become defiled. Since most Greek
>> manuscripts are Byzantine, God must have wanted it that way. Therefore,
>> the Byzantine text must be correct.
>
>Let me note as a Byzantine defender that the "theological argument" as
>stated should be no part of a Byzantine-priority position, and it
>certainly is not part of the case I present.  As I have noted elsewhere,
>if one wants to argue "providential preservation", then such would be
>demonstrated in the utter quantity of MSS, versions, and patristic
>quotations, _regardless_ of texttype.
>
>The TR/KJV-Only defenders of course continually invoke the theological
>argument, and so does Pickering within the "majority text" school, to the
>utter detriment of his theory, since everything for him is theologically
>based.  My last ETS regional paper critiqued his defense of a 5% minority
>reading in Acts 12.25, where Pickering declared that, due to his views of
>inerrancy and his own interpretation of the passage, the 52%
>Byzantine/Majority reading _had_ to be "in error, and therefore could not
>possibly be correct (the next largest support in terms of percentage dips
>to a mere 12%; Pickering goes lower than that to a 5% reading which is
>neither that of Hodges/Farstad or my own edition, and not that of UBS4/N27
>or even the TR -- Pickering is in his own text-critical world, forcibly
>created by his theological views. As I stated in my rebuttal of his claim,
>this most definitely is NOT the way to do textual criticism).

You'll note that I drew a distinction between the Pickering/Hills group
(whose conclusions I consider ridiculous) and the views of Majority text
defenders. While I do not *agree with* the latter group, I think they
at least have logical arguments -- and deserve to be heard.

>> The other two groups dispute both conclusions. For example, the
>> Byzantine text does not represent the majority of all BIBLE manuscripts,
>> only of GREEK Bible manuscripts. Latin Vulgate manuscripts outnumber
>> Greek mss, and while the Vulgate has a Byzantine element (a very strong
>> one in the gospels, less so in the Epistles), it is by no means purely
>> Byzantine.
>
>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.

>Also,
>the matter of quantity of versional MSS when the origin of the version is
>known is wholly irrelevant, since all can trace back to an archetype
>which is known to be far posterior to the autograph.  The
>Byzantine-priority position maintains a single texttype, and that the
>Byzantine, to be functionally equivalent to the autograph, and not to a
>later archetype.

Conceded. This argument is directed solely against those who make
theological arguments -- which Robinson does not.

>> The argument against the majority text is that it is NOT in the
>> majority in the early centuries.
>
>Do not forget Hort's "theoretical presumption", however, that, all things
>being equal, it is to be _expected_ that a majority of MSS at a later stage
>of transmission would most likely be representative of a majority of MSS at
>every earlier stage of transmission, barring a severe dislocation in the
>transmissional history.  The extant data from the early centuries is
>clearly incomplete, often localized to Egypt, and often highly
>fragmentary; to base a rejection of the Byzantine Textform upon such
>limited evidence neglects the consideration of a full conspectus of
>transmissional history in areas beyond and outside of those encompassed
>by the various early MSS preserved.

Agreed; however, there WERE two disruptions: One was the Latinization
of the west, and the other -- far more significant -- is the Islamic
conquest of Asia, Palestine, and North Africa. This meant that only
one major region of the church -- the Byzantine -- remained Greek-speaking
and Christian after the seventh century.

>> From the fourth century, for
>> instance, we have B, Aleph, and the papyri, none of them Byzantine.
>
>I would note that if the cutoff had been before the fourth century, we
>would have a mass of papyri, mostly fragmentary, all from Egypt (at least
>as their final resting place), and only _one_ out of a hundred (P75)
>clearly "Alexandrian" in character.  Add in the fourth century and the
>total number of Alexandrian MSS increases to three; but again the concept
>of a limited provenance still affects any view of transmissional history
>which would attempt to postulate Empire-wide theory on such a slim basis.

I would submit that p66 is also Alexandrian -- although from an
Alexandrian subgroup distinctly different from p75/B. p45, admittedly,
is not -- but two facts about it can be brought forward. First,
Colwell thought it was edited, and second -- at least in my test
passages -- it is closer to B than it is to any other manuscript.

>> In the fifth century, we have A, C, W, and assorted fragments, all
>> influenced by the Byzantine text but none of them purely Byzantine
>> (although A and parts of W come close in the Gospels).
>
>Codex W is in fact virtually pure as a "Byzantine" text in certain
>extended portions, just as it is virtually pure as "Alexandrian" or
>"Western" or even "Caesarean" in other portions.  W obviously was copied
>in parts from different MSS of different texttypes, and one of those MSS
>was a Byzantine MS which obviously predated the 5th century, which would
>make that particular part of the exemplars of W nearly co-equal with
>Aleph and B.  Of course Codex Alexandrinus in the gospels is also of
>Byzantine type, and itself would have to be copied from an archetype
>similarly co-equal or nearly so with Aleph and B.

I would call both A and W "proto-Byzantine," but I essentially agree.

>> Dean Burgon argued that the reason these non-Byzantine manuscripts
>> survived was that nobody used them. This is untrue; the vast number
>> of corrections in Aleph and Dpaul show that they were heavily used.
>
>Burgon was quite wrong in his presumption on this point, and Burgon knew
>better, since he had collated those MSS and knew of the numerous
>corrections which had been made by scribes who obviously had been using
>the MSS quite extensively.  Burgon simply did not have a good theory
>regarding MS transmission or survival, and (contrary to TR/KJV advocates)
>Burgon was definitely not infallible.
>
>> But let us assume that you are convinced that the Byzantine text is
>> not original (I conviction which I share). Does this mean that the
>> Alexandrian text IS original?
>>
>> Hardly. Westcott and Hort thought so, but their system was simply
>> inadequate.
>
>Agreed that their system and explanation was far too inadequate for what
>they were trying to prove.  However, I would myself maintain that, if the
>Byzantine Textform itself is not original, then the next best hope is the
>Alexandrian as an entity -- such would be far preferable to an eclectic
>text which never saw the light of day in any known MS, let alone the
>autograph.  It is self-delusion to think otherwise, since it becomes most
>extremely difficult to explain how, e.g., the N27 "original" text could
>ever under any plausible historical circumstances of transmission, hope
>to diversify itself into the patterns of readings which comprise the
>known texttype data of today.  If I were still an eclectic, I would give
>serious thought into determining how to improve upon Westcott and Hort to
>successfully explain an Alexandrian-type autograph, and that in its
>purest sense.  At least from that starting point a possible case can be
>made for the rise of the other texttypes (though in my opinion _not_ for
>the rise and dominance of the Byzantine Textform).
>
>Obviously I differ from Bob on this entire matter, but I do think that if
>we are serious about basing a theory on history and a history of
>transmission, that the situation when fairly observed will boil down to
>an either/or case in favor of the Byzantine or Alexandrian texttypes, and
>not in favor of a "mixed" eclectic product (my Kenneth Clark training is
>showing *;-)

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.

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.

But for that reason I don't spend much time on the gospels; there isn't
much to be accomplished there until some *significant* new evidence
shows up.

The place that's most worthy of effort is the Epistles. And there, too,
I would almost be willing to adopt a single text. But -- and here's
where I'll get hooted out of court -- that single text is not the
Byzantine, nor the Alexandrian, nor p46-B, nor the "Western" text,
but in fact the text of Family 1739, represented in Paul by
1739-0243-0121a-1881-424c-6, plus 1908 in Romans, 630 in
Romans-Galatians, and probably some others that I just don't have
the information to identify (1891? 323? 945?).

Go ahead, everybody, crucify me.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 10:08:10 -0400 (EDT)

[Addressing only some points of difference from Waltz' original post:]

>the the portion of the text -- over 90% -- where all text-types agree.

Substitute "dominant" or "reasonable" for "pure", and I would have no
disagreement.  Otherwise, I would suggest D and Aleph would not fit the
description, though B alone might (as Hort said) represent a "very pure
line of very ancient text".

Waltz:

>>> the Vulgate has a Byzantine element (a very strong one in the
>>> gospels, less so in the Epistles)

>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.

>>Do not forget Hort's "theoretical presumption", however, that, all
>>things being equal, it is to be _expected_ that a majority of MSS at a
>>later stage of transmission would most likely be representative of a
>>majority of MSS at every earlier stage of transmission, barring a
>>severe dislocation in the transmissional history.

>conquest of Asia, Palestine, and North Africa. This meant that only one
>major region of the church -- the Byzantine -- remained Greek-speaking

The latter of these objections I addressed some time ago in a previous
post.  I there noted the obvious: had the Alexandrian text indeed been
the closest representative to the autograph, the Islamic conquest could
not have eliminated its continuing dominance throughout the remaining
Greek-speaking portion of the Empire.  However, if the Alexandrian
texttype were merely a local text, it would not have been spreading
elsewhere in any great degree regardless of the status of Islam in the
7th century, and of course this is my own contention.

I also noted that even under the Islamic conquest, Christian churches
and continued evangelization of non-Muslims were still permitted, even
though conversion of Muslims was prohibited.  The Coptic church in fact
attained its dominant position in Egypt as a direct result of the
Islamic conquest; this is a well-documented fact; also the Coptic
version (Sahidic or Bohairic) is clearly Alexandrian in character, and
continued in that form even following the Islamic conquest.  The
localized Alexandrian text, however, simply did not permeate nor affect
the remaining majority of the Greek-speaking portion of the Empire (and
it had that opportunity for 500 years before the Islamic conquest and
did not succeed in that time period either).

Bottom line: the Islamic conquest did _not_ create any major disruption
in the transmission of the basic Greek text of the NT.

The second point mentioned is the "Latinization of the West" -- the
word used seems to imply that the West somehow was Greek-speaking and
slowly became Latinized.  This simply is not the case.  From the
beginning the West (including both Europe and Africa from Italy and
Carthage westward) was Latin-speaking rather than Greek-speaking.  The
Greek influence existed from the southern tip of Italy through Greece,
Asia Minor, and Palestine into Egypt and Libya.  Those demarcation
lines remained nearly absolute at all times.  

MSS which were bilingual were likely copied in border areas between the 
Latin and Greek speaking regions, and the Latin sometimes affected the 
Greek and vice versa, but otherwise made little impact on the text 
being transmitted in Greek as a whole.  The greatest problem with the
Old Latin version is what Jerome complained about, namely the poor
quality of translation made by anyone who fancied himself competent in
both Latin and Greek.

The Western text as a whole (actually Western "readings" rather than a
full-blown text) certainly permeates the pre-Vulgate Latin MSS, as well
as to some degree the Vulgate itself, but the corrupting effect of such
Western readings upon Greek MSS is minimal, since only D (Bezae and
Claromontanus) F G and a few other uncials are "Western" in character,
and a good number of the papyri found in Egypt (a Latin/Greek border
region) show mixture with Western readings scattered among them.  These
Latin-based corruptions simply do not exist in either the Alexandrian,
Byzantine, or Caesarean texts, and there is no significant effect upon
the transmission of the Greek text by Latin corruption, even though the
Latin tradition, due to its history as "translation" does differ
significantly from that which was preserved in the original languages
by the Greek-speaking portion of the Empire.

>is not -- but two facts about it can be brought forward. First, Colwell
>thought it was edited, and second -- at least in my test passages -- it
>is closer to B than it is to any other manuscript.

p66 is certainly heavily Alexandrian in character, but nowhere near 
that of p75.  The question whether this is a "subgroup" or, as I see 
it, a "mixed" Alexandrian + Western MS (with some Byzantine readings
thrown in) is probably significant.  I would see a subgroup remaining
within a very close relationship to the mother texttype (e.g. in the
Byzantines, the Kr or K1 subtypes).  p66 on the other hand would not
qualify under that definition as a subtype.

p45 in character remains more "Caesarean" than anything else (which
would be an anachronism, even if the existence of a Caesarean texttype
is granted).  But the reason for this is simply that the mixed-text
character of that MS went in a different direction from that found in
p66.  The readings are still a combination of Alexandrian, Western, and
Byzantine readings; only the pattern differs, since mixture is not
predictable.

>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....

>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?

>But for that reason I don't spend much time on the gospels; there
>isn't much to be accomplished there until some *significant* new
>evidence shows up.

Probably depends on one's perspective.  I do not cherish great hopes
for major MS discoveries which will seriously alter the estimation of
the Greek text in any book of the NT within one's theoretical
perspective.  However, I believe that the two greatest areas where
textual criticism needs to spend time are in the gospels and the
Revelation.  The Acts would closely follow.  The epistles appear to me
to present far fewer problems.  But that of course is a personal
opinion.

>here's where I'll get hooted out of court -- that single text is not
>the Byzantine, nor the Alexandrian, nor p46-B, nor the "Western" text,
>Romans-Galatians, and probably some others that I just don't have the
>information to identify (1891? 323? 945?).

Were I not a pro-Byzantine partisan, I could well accept the argument
in favor of the originality family 1739, just as Lake suggested.  It
certainly might have as much plausibility as a pro-Alexandrian
hypothesis for the _Vorlage_ of the Epistles, and certainly would
demonstrate a better case than any which might be made for the Western
text there.  Of course, my primary objection would remain
transmissional, and a leading question would be what historically could
have transpired so as to virtually obliterate all traces of the
1739-type of text under any reasonably "normal" methods of
transmission.

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~