Subject: Mark 1:41 addendum

From: "Vinton A. Dearing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 16:20:58 PST

Our librarians found our copy of the colorphoto reproduction of 03 
(Vaticanus). The lineation is question is
    KAQARISAIKAISPLAG
    CNISQEISEKTEINASTN(N)
In the original the IK in the first line is exactly over EK in the second,
setting a trap for the unwary copyist. It may then be that the 
participle was omitted by someone working with a ms like 03 whose
eye dropped down a line in the middle of the column. I think it more 
likely that the loss occurred when copying a ms like 01, where the 
participle occupies a whole line, but the argument that the loss was 
due to eyeskip is not affected. The lineation in 01 and 03, both 
fourth-century mss, suggests that the loss came early in the history 
of the text, even if it is found only in Latin mss. Note that this 
argument effects only the relation between SPLAGCNISQEIS and nothing 
at all. The argument against ORGISQEIS remains as before. I will 
venture that none of the mss with Mark 1:41 from before the tenth
century has such narrow columns that ORGISQEIS would fill a whole 
line (if I am wrong, please inform me). 
     Vinton A. Dearing.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 97 16:12:10 +0100

On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Vinton A. Dearing wrote (inter alia):

>of the text, even if it is found only in Latin mss.

Usually I appreciate arguments from the viewpoint of mechanical corruption, for, 
after all, this type of variant readings is most heavily attested in NT textual 
transmission.
However, refering to the lineation of 01 and 03 in this specific instance raises 
the following problem.
The lay-out of 4th century O1 is four columns per page and that of 03 is three 
colums per page. If the supposed eyeskip happened to take place "early in the 
history of the text", we would have to look for earlier examples of MS lay-out's 
displaying a line-length of around 16 letters. As far as I recall, off the top 
of my head, most early 2nd/3rd centuries' papyri don't fit these requirements. 
(I don't have the time to check it).

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 18:57:41 -0500 (EST)

On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

>It is the opinion of most scholars (Robinson is, of course,
>an exception) that the Byzantine text-type is secondary, derived
>from other text-types. If this is true, then *of course* the
>Byzantine text-type will receive less consideration.

>The question is, is this assumption true?

>Ultimately this is to ask two questions: The role of internal versus
>external evidence, and the history of the text. The latter is part of
>the "art" of textual criticism, and is subject to deep debate. There
>are those who favour the use primarily of internal evidence, those who
>favour external evidence (both Robinson and I fall into the latter
>camp, though in very different ways), and those who favour a mixed
approach.

Let me correct that last sentence: I have already mentioned that my
theory and method is close to that suggested by Burgon, and thus a
Byzantine-priority approach is itself in fact "mixed", using both
external and internal criteria in a number of different categories.

My own application of internal criteria does not differ significantly
from that of modern eclecticism, although I do reject internal canons
which presume a bias against the Byzantine Textform from the start. I
do apply a wide range of "standard" internal principles to variant
units with no initial bias against the Byzantine Textform or other
texttypes.

As for the external criteria, the weight given to such within my own
methodology is not much different than that placed upon external data
by the modern eclectic school, albeit in a different direction, and
with a carefully-constructed theory of transmission appended. It is
probably due to the constant caricature of the Byzantine-priority
position as "nose-counting" or solely based upon the number of MSS that
these other factors tend to get ignored in the discussion, when in fact
the matter of transmissional history as well as the application of
internal criteria to any unit of variation remain the most essential
elements of a pro-Byzantine theory and method. I presume that my
discussions of several variant units within this forum should have made
this aspect quite clear.

>The history of the text will determine the approach of those who use
>external evidence. Robinson, for instance, believes in the priority
>of the Byzantine text, and so produces a text which resembles it.

I don't particularly like the term "believe", since this makes it sound
like a mere faith-assumption, which it most decidedly is not.

Acceptance of a Byzantine-priority position is directly based upon a 
specific interpretation of the _evidence_ preserved to us among the 
various MSS, Fathers, and versions. That such an interpretation of the 
same data happens to differ from that of modern eclecticism is only 
logical within the scientific method, where various hypotheses are 
regularly constructed to explain certain phenomena.  Generally, the 
hypothesis which best accords with the extant data and which also has
the least number of problems or intermediate steps when contrasted with
other competing hypotheses is that which should be given the nod. I
simply maintain that the pro-Byzantine hypothesis can hold its own on
all of these counts. No mere "faith" assumption here....

>But let's examine the Byzantine text.

>Let's start by making one thing clear. The age of the Byzantine text
>is not (necessarily) the age of its readings. All scholars will agree
>that the Byzantine text contains many, many early readings. The
>question is, at what time did these readings come together to form
>a text-type?

The Byzantine-priority hypothesis of course maintains that such 
reflects the original Textform of the autograph, and thus that such 
readings which are contained therein did not "come together" at a 
subsequent era. The pro-Byzantine position also maintains that the 
other existing texttypes (Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean) can all be 
readily explained as _departures_ from the original Byzantine standard 
which occurred at times subsequent to the completion of the autograph
text of any given NT book.

The "coming together" hypothesis of modern eclecticism regarding the
formation of the Byzantine Textform is fraught with difficulty. The
prevailing model for such "coming together" is the "process" view,
which comes under the criticism best expressed by Zane Hodges, which I
have quoted previously and which was cited in the Introduction to my
own Greek NT, p.xxxv:

   No one has yet explained how a long, slow process spread out over
   many centuries as well as over a wide geographical area, and
   involving a multitude of copyists, who often knew nothing of the
   state of the text outside of their own monasteries or scriptoria,
   could achieve this widespread uniformity out of the diversity
   presented by the [supposedly] earlier [Western and Alexandrian]
   forms of text....An unguided process achieving relative stability
   and uniformity in the diversified textual, historical, and cultural
   circumstances in which the New Testament was copied, imposes
   impossible strains on our imagination.

Westcott and Hort recognized the inherent difficulties in trying to
explain the Byzantine text by any such approach, and they therefore
developed their theory regarding a hypothetical formal and official
"Syrian [= Byzantine] recension in order to eliminate the Byzantine
Textform from further consideration. This they knew they had to do,
since even Hort admitted ("Introduction", Vol.2, p.45) that

   A theoretical presumption indeed remains that a majority of
   extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of
   ancestral documents _at each stage of transmission_ than
   vice versa. [Emphasis added]

There really is no better statement regarding a "majority text" or 
Byzantine-priority position in regard to external evidence and 
transmissional considerations than what Hort penned in that 1882 
Introduction.  True, the remainder of that introduction was designed to 
overturn that presumption, but it nevertheless remains a valid 
hypothesis, especially since virtually all claims made by Hort so as to 
overturn that initial presumption have been subsequently abandoned by 
subsequent eclectic critics. The paradox is that modern eclectics 
basically retain an Alexandrian type of Hortian text but without Hort's
supporting pillars.

>With that in mind, let's look at the earliest Byzantine witnesses.
>Not all these witnesses are purely Byzantine (in fact, one -- the
>Harklean Syriac -- belongs to a separate text-type). But all are
>at least 80% of the way to what came to be "the Byzantine text,"
>and so can be considered evidence that the type was in existence
>at that time.

As stated before, these should be granted by all, whether one chooses
to term their text "Byzantine" or "proto-Byzantine, or whatever (I have
my own views and terms for them, but these are not pertinent to the
discussion).

>Section by section, we find the following as the
>earliest witnesses:

>Gospels: A; also parts of W (both V)
>Acts: Harklean Syriac (early VII, though perhaps incorporating
>      older materials). In Greek, parts of E (VII)
>Paul: Harklean Syriac (VII). In Greek, Psi (VIII/IX)
>Catholics: K L 049 (IX)
>Apocalypse: P 046 etc. (IX)

Do not forget the church fathers from at least the 4th-century era of 
Chrysostom, followed in the next century by Gregory the Great, Gregory 
Nazianzus, and others following.  The matter of the Peshitto Syriac 
still remains unresolved, depending on who advocates what, but that 
version should also be considered as at least a 4th-century early
Byzantine witness (and it certainly is earlier than the Harklean).

>Turning to citations, it is now held that the earliest true witness
>to the Byzantine text is Asterius the Sophist (IV, as I recall).

Fee originally proposed this, but I understand the claim now is not so 
strong and has been revoked, since it was based on only nine extant 
citations. Chrysostom (d.407) would be a stronger choice for a clearly
Byzantine type of text in an early father, a text which would have been
flourishing in (at least) Constantinople by ca.AD 380 or thereabouts.

>So it would seem that the Byzantine text, at least in the gospels,
>is no later than the fourth century. But is it possible that it
>is earlier?

>Hort said no, basing his argument in large measure on conflations.
>This is weak; conflations are rare. But it is true that the readings
>of the Byzantine text are almost always found in one of the other
>text-types . . . . What is more, the Byzantine text, more often than
>not, incorporates the easiest of these readings.

Conflations aside, the fact that the readings of the Byzantine Textform
also appear in either the Alexandrian or Western texttypes is no
problem from within a Byzantine-priority perspective: if the Byzantine
Textform were indeed original, then both of the two major remaining
texttypes _should_ be expected to have been derived from that Textform,
and thus they each would retain a significant portion of text which had
previously existed in that Textform, even though each "later" texttype
would independently deviate from that common Textform in its own
particular way.

Thus, what appears from the modern eclectic viewpoint to be a _very_ 
peculiar "fluctuation" within the Byzantine Textform -- picking and 
choosing readings now from the Alexandrian, now from the Western 
texttype -- the opposing Byzantine-priority theory provides a much
simpler model. Rather than presuming the complex hypothesis regarding
the creation of the Byzantine Textform as a deliberate editorial
process of selection from two greatly disparate and conflicting
texttypes, those two texttypes can each be easily explained as
independent deviations _directly_ from the overarching Byzantine
Textform. Once again, the question of simpler versus more complex
hypotheses comes into play, and the Byzantine-priority hypothesis has
the least complicated explanation of the relevant data in this case.

As for the supposed "easiest" readings in the Byzantine Textform, I
would challenge this statement, since it can readily be demonstrated
that the eclectically-favored Alexandrian texttype as well as the
Western texttype actually preserve far more readings which might be
considered "easier" than what is preserved in the Byzantine Textform
(the omission of "deuteroprwtw" in Lk. 6:1 is a case in point, and
in my opinion indicates clear recensional activity among the
Alexandrian and other MSS which make such an omission).

>These two reasons are, I think, why most scholars continue to think
>the Byzantine text secondary. I know *I* consider it so.

I also happen to think that a century of anti-Byzantine bias may have 
played a large part in perpetuating the modern eclectic consensus. Few 
if any eclectic critics -- as I admit formerly to have been; I am a 
reformed eclectic :-) -- are willing to ask _all_ the pertinent 
questions and to go back to a theoretical square one and evaluate 
_every step_ in the process without an initial prejudice regarding a 
given portion of the data. I suspect the same bias will affect even the 
consideration of my presentation as made in this posting, and thus the 
_serious_ consideration of the items cited above by me will probably
not occur.

>Also, if the
>Byzantine text were original, why was it not more widespread in early
>times? It eventually came to be dominant -- but only after Egypt
>and the west were cut off from Greek christianity.

The contention of the Byzantine-priority hypothesis is precisely that 
the Byzantine Textform _was_ wide-spread and dominant during the early 
centuries within the Greek-speaking portion of the Empire, particularly 
in the regions where Greek was _not_ a second language (i.e., from 
Southern Italy through Greece and through what is today modern Turkey).  

Where Greek was a second language, I suspect that more of a "local 
text" situation prevailed. The problem is that our earliest MSS (the 
papyri) all stem (due to climactic considerations) from a single 
localized region, and are not necessarily representative of the state 
of the text throughout the Empire during the first three centuries. The 
regions where Greek was a primary language have left us no MSS and 
insufficient data from that early period from which one could 
accurately judge the state of the text over the entire early Empire.

Certainly there is a clear later Byzantine dominance in that same 
primary Greek-speaking portion of the Empire ranging from Italy through 
Turkey, but, pray tell, _why_ should the Byzantine text have become 
dominant in such a region if the Alexandrian texttype were indeed 
original?  Again it places "impossible strains on our imagination" 
(Hodges' comment) to suppose that merely by an unguided process that 
virtually _all_ MSS of the Byzantine Textform as found in that 
wide-ranging area just "grew like Topsy" from an Alexandrian original 
into the near-total uniformity of text found in the MSS preserved in 
that region without formal collusion and recension, authorized and 
imposed by the dominant Orthodox church of that era.

The question remains: _what_ was the dominant texttype which would have
been found in the primary Greek-speaking region of the Empire during
the first three centuries?  And if it were not the Byzantine Textform,
how does one logically and successfully explain the rise and dominance
of that Textform?  

Hort could not explain the situation without appealing to a formal 
Byzantine revision process, authorized and then later promulgated by 
the dominant Orthodox church (without which it would not win any 
acceptance against the staunch conservatism which people maintain in 
regard to religious texts with which they have become familiar). Since 
no such formal revision process has left a trace in history, Hort's 
view has been subsequently abandoned by most modern eclectic critics, 
as mentioned. What remains in such a case is Hort's "theoretical 
presumption", and that presumption points _directly_ to the likelihood 
of Byzantine dominance in _every_ era, beginning from the earliest 
stages within the primary Greek-speaking regions of the Empire and 
continuing into the age of the minuscules which today are the primary 
extant representatives in lineal descent from that original Textform.

>*Of course* most
>medieval manuscripts show the Byzantine type!

Only to be expected, if they were simply preserving the various (and 
mostly independent) lines of transmission which we find reflected in 
the minuscule MSS of the 9th and 10th centuries, which early minuscule 
MSS themselves were more likely to have been copied from early uncials
than anything else.

>I would observe that none of this *proves* that the Byzantine text
>is late. But, in the absence of evidence that it is early, I consider
>this the easiest explanation.

Since Westcott and Hort it has always been "easy" to dismiss the
Byzantine Textform. I suggest that a solid grappling with the evidence
and consideration of transmissional historical principles will make the
task of Byzantine rejection somewhat more difficult; also that the
considerations herein presented will suggest that the easier
explanation is in fact a Byzantine-priority hypothesis.

>And I'm sure you're sorry I said anything, so I will stop there. :-)

And many many people are probably sorry I have a week off for Spring
Break so I can participate more fully on this listserver. :-)

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