Subject: Byzantine text

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 13:47:33 -0400 (EDT)

[Correcting myself somewhat:]

On 24 Apr 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

>>> 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.

Waltz:

>>This statement I WILL NOT concede. ...  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 ... 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.

Since posting the above message, I have consulted my 20-year-old
statistical data regarding the "near-neighbor clusters" surrounding the
Vulgate in Matthew and Acts (Luke and John remain to be tabulated once
more), and the preliminary results are as follows:

In Acts:

The Vulgate's nearest neighbors in descending order of groups (breaks
indicated by | ) are the following:

ar | bo p45 | l 629 A 81 p74 geo | e Luc gig C Aleph sy-p r | sa | B
arm sy-h 33 eth 181 | 945 1739 E 104 630 436 Psi | 1505 88 Aleph-c Orig
451 1877 Byz ....

The high percentage of agreement is 81%, with most of the remaining 
members in the 50-60% range.  The Byzantine element is only 42% in
Acts.  In Acts the Alexandrian element is extremely strong (bo A 81 p74
C Aleph sa B 33) but the main secondary mixture appears to be with
Caesarean elements (p45 629 geo arm 945 1739 E 630 436).

In Matthew:

The Vulgate's nearest neighbors, following the same method of
presentation, are the following (ranging from 91% agreement to 60% in
this chart):

aur l | g1 | ff1 c f | Aug q K | ff2 b 565 | 1079 W Byz a | 1365 1071 X
Delta 1242 1646 2174 cop goth ....

Here in Matthew the Western element remains the strongest (aur l g1
ff1 c f Aug q ff2 b) but the next most significant group are the
Caesarean witnesses (565 1079 W) followed by the primary Byzantine
group (Byz).  So in Matthew, at least, the Byzantine element is
stronger than in Acts, but it still is not as strong or as dominant as
the Western or Caesarean elements (the position of K in this
arrangement requires further study, since it normally is Byzantine
but here seems to be more Western/Caesarean).

Please note that this is merely a bare presentation of the raw data; I
have a more sophisticated method for defining group boundaries and near
neighbor clusters than is indicated by arranging material in lines of
descending percentages.  However, the further application of my method
was only completed for my master's thesis in Acts, and the gospel data
remains basically incompletely evaluated, since only the raw percentage
data is at hand.

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

---

From: "Dale M. Wheeler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 12:49:52 -0700

>From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
>Date: Fri, 26 Apr 96 14:09 CDT
>Subject: Re: Byzantine Text
>
>>>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, I would have to say that you are wrong on this last point; there
are lots of folks who really do care, who have the same feelings about
the way critical texts are prepared, have the same frustrations about
the lack of serious discussion about the history of the text, etc. I
think, based on my talking to other Profs, that a large number of folks,
regardless of what ultimate view they hold, have a great deal of 
ambivalent feelings about the resultant critical texts and the methods
used to arrive at the readings, especially since such a text never 
existed anywhere else in the history of Christianity as far as we can
tell. I personally find the discussions you and Maurice are having to
be stimulating....

***********************************************************************
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: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 13:33:27 -0400 (EDT)

This post actually comes from Ulrich Schmid, who was unable to post it 
due to mail-daemon bouncing from the tc-list:

On Fri, 26 April 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

[quoting Robinson:]

>>Thus you would have some differences with UBS3-4/Nestle26-27 >>where they

>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.

> reasons. From an intellectual standpoint, Robinson's viewpoint 
>is superior. So is Westcott and Hort's. Both have theories of the

> matter rest.

Shure, someone else cares. But it is not easy to comment on statements like the 
above mentioned, where theories are so easily dismissed without submitting any 
alternative. 

I may refer to Robert Waltz's -to the best of my knowledge- initial post on the 
subject. On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, he wrote:

>So let's not simplify the case. I support your (i.e. Jim West's)
> argument that the Byzantine text is late, but we should no more
> develop a fetish for the Alexandrian text than the Byzantine. 
>We need a text based in HISTORY, not just theoretical text-types!

I very much agree with that. But, I simply wish to know Bob's _theory_ of "a 
text based in HISTORY".

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: "Dr. Lorin L. Cranford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 96 17:28:09

An attempt was made to send you an automated reply.
The reply could not be found.  Please notify the sender.

---

From: "Dr. Lorin L. Cranford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 96 17:28:52

---

From: "Dr. Lorin L. Cranford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 96 17:28:58

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 96 07:35 CDT

On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Apr 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>
>> I agree as to the bias of NA26; you would think they would at least
>> note the divergences from TR!
>
>Out of curiosity, I would ask "why"?  Not to include TR readings (which
>are mostly quite insignificant, since almost all true Byzantine readings
>are included in N27 under the "M" siglum) is but what should be normal
>practice in a critical edition.  The TR (any edition) is totally
>irrelevant to NT textual criticism, except as a collation base.

The advantage of citing the TR is that it would make reading collations
so much easier! I spend much of my time dealing with minuscule collations,
and they are all against the TR. I am combining these with information
about the old uncials. So, in order to do this, I have to haul out my
TR (which is otherwise useless to me) or photocopies of Tischendorf's
pocket edition (I don't know of a full Tischendorf in my area) and
collate that. It's just another book to deal with!

Besides, the NS26/27 text, although it now cites more manuscripts,
still uses the same list of variant READINGS as in NA25 and previous
editions; the only additions were a few readings from the papyri.
So very many Byzantine readings don't even make it into the apparatus.
Whatever one's opinion of the Byzantine text, it is certainly too
important to be ignored!

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]