Subject: Re: James

From: "Amy Anderson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 12:47:16 GMT

In reference to the bit of discussion recently on the differences 
between TR and Majority text, etc., could someone provide a simple 
definition of the following terms which helps to keep them 
differentiated?  I mean, really simple, like no more than 4 sentences 
per term.

TR
Majority Text
Byzantine Text
Koine Text

The next question would be if all/most text critics agree on these 
definitions....

In any case, it would sure be a help to me.  Thanks!

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 09:52:52 -0700

>differentiated?  I mean, really simple, like no more than 4 sentences 

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.

>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.)

When the reference is to a particular *book*, it will usually be to the
edition by Hodges & Farstad.

>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.)

The term should not be, but often is, equated with the TR.

>Koine Text

Refers technically to Von Soden's K text, which is more or less the
Byzantine text. However, the term is often used loosely for any of
the above three texts.

>The next question would be if all/most text critics agree on these 

I think I've covered that. Everyone agrees about "TR." Almost all
would agree about "Majority Text." The other two are fuzzier.

I hope this helps.

Robert B. Waltz
[email-masked]

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

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 09:23:30 -0600 (CST)

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

> mentioned TR editions are those of Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir, and the

The Oxford 1825 was used by H&F, so has become a convenient TR used by many.

> Majority Text does not include the Three Heavenly Witnesses in 1 John 5.)

c. 1850 differences.
 
> *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.

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

--
Prof. Ron Minton: [email-masked]   W (417)268-6053  H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 10:23:57 -0700

>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).

>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 does not include the Three Heavenly Witnesses in 1 John 5.)

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.

>hypothetical text behind the majority of manuscripts.

I agree.

>Ecclesiastical Text, Syrian Text, "A" Text, Antiochan Text, Common 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
               [email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 22:18:31 -0500 (EST)

> it's a good thing that H&F list their readings, because they aren't

The problem is that for many years Dallas Seminary itself reprinted and
used the Oxford 1825 TR, and that is what H/F used.  Virtually no one else
(including myself) can find a copy of that specific edition anywhere,
since Dallas Seminary no longer prints it.  Note that the IGNTP uses its
own reprinted fascicles of the Oxford 1873 TR, which itself would be
difficult to locate apart from IGNTP making its own reprints for internal
use.  Probably the most common and continuing as available TR edition is
the Stephens 1550 text as found in the George Ricker Berry interlinear
Greek NT (originally published in 1897, but still in print from various
reprint houses). That is the specific Stephens 1550 TR edition utilized in
the Online Bible program, along with the artificial TR supposedly
underlying the KJV prepared by Scrivener in 1894.

> preliminary edition. It's based mostly on von Soden.

I would count the H/F text as a final edition, despite their suggestions
to the contrary.  The second edition of the text (1985) merely corrected
some typos and oversights, and there have been no changes whatsoever since
that time, nor have Hodges or Farstad made any suggestions that any such
changes might be forthcoming. 

The Robinson/Pierpont text has undergone a similar revision process since
its 1991 appearance, but the status of two or three otherwise divided
readings (nothing of major significance) has been changed after some
reflection. The current R/P text should be available from Vincent Broman's
site, and any differences found between the text on the Broman site and
the printed edition or that found in the Online Bible should be considered
to supersede previous versions. 

> such, but there are undoubtedly some.

This applies more to H/F than to R/P, but it should strictly be noted that
even H/F do not "count noses" and actually print the numerically superior
reading at all times.  Indeed, their non-majority readings (predominantly
in Revelation and the Pericope Adultera) remain one of the sole elements
of praise allotted by Wallace to the H/F text.  In the case of the R/P
text, "majority" is basically a non-issue, since the primary issue is and
always has been "Byzantine Textform"; the R/P text in a number of places
where the Byzantine MSS are divided in fact _does_ adopt minority
readings. 

>From my perspective the Byzantine is neither a "family" nor "text type",
but is instead the archetypical "textform" which thus underlies the text
found in the majority of MSS (which coincidentally happen to comprise the
"Byzantine MSS"  group) 

> Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn

Wow....I thought I was the only one offering such opinions. :-)

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:19:21 -0600 (CST)

My students have helped me make a table (one 500 page chart) of all the 
variants listed in HF1&2, UBS3&4, NA26&27.  I will let you know as soon 
as we have it transfered on to a spread sheet (Spring 1997 Semester).  
Right now the approximately 12,000 variants are not as valuable because 
we have to do manual calculations.  Still, we can get some data.  For 
instance the TR agrees with both Aleph and B some 300 times (3.1%) 
AGAINST the Majority Text.  Ours is a statistical table that has take 
nine years to complete (97% done).

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 13:08:45 -0700

>nine years to complete (97% done).

Have you considered transferring this to a data analysis program --
or, failing that, a programmable database? It means you would have
to do a bit of simple programming to do your data modelling -- but
you would also be able to create much more involved (and, IMHO,
useful) statistics.

I tried to set up a similar project in a spreadsheet about five
years ago. It just wasn't possible to produce the statistics I
wanted (e.g. for near-singular readings). The database gave much
more flexibility. It was also easier to read....

I would hope you would keep us posted on this project, though. It
sounds like a useful undertaking.

It shouldn't really come as a surprise to see the TR occasionally agreeing
with B and Aleph against the majority text. After all, in addition to its
Byzantine componets, the TR includes readings from 1 (with a large
non-Byzantine component in the gospels) and the vulgate (significantly
non-Byzantine throughout).

In any case, the real question is, "Where the TR disagrees with the
Majority Text, what does it *most often* agree with?" Also, "What
does the TR agree with most often?"

                  Robert B. Waltz
               [email-masked]

---

From: Julian Goldberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 17:56:46 -0500 (EST)

> does the TR agree with most often?"
When comparing the TR of Stephanus, Bezae and Elzevirs, it was found that the
Elzevirs TR was more similar in agreement to the Bezae TR than the Stephanus
TR most of the time with regards to variants.  Also, the Bezae TR seemed to
have been the closest in Greek to the English King James Version.  However,
one cannot be most sure about this because the Scrivener TR text of Bezae was
considered and the edition that was used did not mention and variants which
most likely is found in other Scrivener TR that are not based on the Bezae
TR but which were placed in the text to get as close as possible to the 
original King James Version underlying Greek.   An estimation is that the
TR in general may have 3/4 of it based on the majority text and about 1/4
of it based on many other different texts whether minority Greek and some
Latin translations.   The goal is to find out in any given TR since they
differ slightly what passages constitute this 1/4 and to make changes to it
to get it in line if possible as a majority reading of the text.  Even 
comparing the variations between the different TRs would be a start in 
finding what's what.

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 23:40:50 -0600 (CST)

....
> reprint houses).

Just for clarification, I thought Berry only did the dictionary in the 
back, and that Samuel Bagster did the actual interlinear.  If this is 
true, we should not call it the Berry interlinear.  Can someone verify this?

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 07:55:35 -0500 (EST)

On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Julian Goldberg wrote:

> original King James Version underlying Greek.   

In the original edition of the Scrivener TR, the differences from the
actual Beza 1598 edition and the Scrivener TR are listed in an appendix.
The Trinitarian Bible Society reprint edition does not have that appendix,
and might cause people to think that it actually is the Beza 1598 when in
fact it is not. Scrivener also has collations of the various TR editions
within his Plain Introduction, and so too Hoskier as an appendix to his
Collation of MS 704 [Greg.700] volume.  The readings placed in the
Scrivener TR which come closest to the KJV were those which had previously
been found in a printed Greek edition before 1604; this meant that
Scrivener at times had to use extreme creativity when trying to set a
Greek reading as "underlying" when items like the Latin Vulgate were
followed by the KJV translators, since Scrivener would _not_ play Erasmus
and retranslate the Latin back into Greek.

> An estimation is that the
> Latin translations.   

Set your percentages higher.  Probably 98% of the Scrivener or any other 
TR is in agreement with the Byzantine/majority text. If Wallace's count of
only 1850 differences is correct, the percentage might even be higher.
The TR is a _very_ Byzantine text, except in Revelation.

> The goal is to find out in any given TR since they

As mentioned, the establishment of most of the "M" text is easy enough to
do, using N27 and Von Soden for the basic data.  Comparison of differences
between various TR's would contribute nothing to this goal.  There might
be value in a separate study inquiring as to the sources of TR readings
which are not "majority"; but this exercise would be only of historical
and not of ultimate text-critical concern.

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

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 08:24:45 -0500 (EST)

> true, we should not call it the Berry interlinear.  Can someone verify this?

This is correct. The 1897 publication contained Berry's Lexicon and
Synonym studies, but the base text and apparatus of editor's preferences
was produced by Bagster publishers (which, as was their practice in the
19th century sweatshops, did _not_ give credit to the particular editor or
compiler of those data, so Bagster is certainly _not_ the "author", but
he or she is totally unknown; for all we know Berry might actually have
been the author).  In any case, all reprints currently made have the Berry
material, and for convenience' sake I and others tend to refer to it as
the Berry Interlinear, without implying authorship of that portion.

---

From: Julian Goldberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 10:30:32 -0500 (EST)

> the Berry Interlinear, without implying authorship of that portion.

It says that it was based on the earlier work of Newberry.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 13:28:30 -0500 (EST)

> It says that it was based on the earlier work of Newberry.

Neither my original 1897 Berry copy nor either of my two later reprints
say that. Where did you find that bit of information?

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 11:27:47 -0700

>true, we should not call it the Berry interlinear.  Can someone verify this?

The cover of my copy states that Berry did the dictionary. It does
not even credit the interlinear (as best I can tell).

I believe the collation of the various editions was done by Scrivener;
at least, I've seen that comparison, without the interlinear, published
under his name.

                  Robert B. Waltz
               [email-masked]

---

From: Julian Goldberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 14:31:11 -0500 (EST)

> say that. Where did you find that bit of information? 

The information is from the introduction of the Zondervan Publication house
reprinted Berry interlinear TR.

J.G.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 15:45:20 -0500 (EST)

> reprinted Berry interlinear TR.

Neither of my two Zondervan reprint editions of Berry mention that fact.
Is it somewhere in the introduction or on the dust jacket (mine have no
jacket).

---

From: Julian Goldberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 16:45:12 -0500 (EST)

> Is it somewhere in the introduction or on the dust jacket (mine have no
It's at the very beginning where a list of other books in the series of
scholarly books by Zondervan are listed.

J.G.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 16:54:20 -0500 (EST)

> scholarly books by Zondervan are listed.

Must have been added in reprints later than the 1970s....Hope Zondervan's
information is correct.  I only know of Newberry's study bible in English,
which is nothing like the material in the Berry interlinear.

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 17:47:02 -0600 (CST)

On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
> to do a bit of simple programming to do your data modeling -- but

We are doing that this Spring Semester, God willing.

---

From: Vincent Broman <[email-masked]>
Date: 6 Jan 1997 16:17:05 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[email-masked] wrote:
> variants listed in HF1&2, UBS3&4, NA26&27.

If this is now in some kind of machine-readable form, then I would
be willing to offer assistance in translating the material
into some other formats, and to make the data available for
internet access.  This sounds like great stuff.

I would also have some potential interest in checking the data against
the machine readable editions I have available, and possibly against
the printed texts, to some extent.

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: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 19:31:00 -0600 (CST)

> the printed texts, to some extent.

I will definitely post to this list when the project is finished.  I 
predict it will be ready in March, 1997.