Subject: Re: Why Byzantine? (Re: Rev 12:18)

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 15:09:48 -0500 (EST)

At 11:17 AM 3/29/97 -0800, you wrote:

>
>Anyway, I wonder if anyone has ever proposed a scenario which would
>explain the Byzantine text type as an independent tradition.

If it is independent, and its age can only be empirically established to the
8th century or so CE then it is even more unreliable than before.  An 8th
century manuscript can carry no weight unless it demonstrates affinites to
an earlier manuscript, irregardless of "text type".

Otherwise, what we have is simply the notion that "majority rules".  Count
up your manuscripts- because early doesn't count in this scenario.

> What kind of
>evidence supports this claim? Any external evidence?

None- thats the problem; and thats why Byzantine priority is held by so few.
If we took external evidence "only" into account, the Byzantine tradition
would naturally fall by the wayside.  But, as opposition to the consensus is
what sells books and offers tenure, then it must continue to live.

> I'll agree that we
>shouldn't give too much weight to the age of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, bu
>there still must be solid reasons to prefer a younger manuscript. 
>

What would you prefer to this criteria?  Which seems more reasonable to you-
that an 8th cenutry manuscript is closer to an original document or that a
4th century manuscript is?
If you found a copy of the Declaration of Independence written 20 years
after the original and a copy written 250 years after the original, which
would you consider closer to the original?

>---

Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology
[email-masked]

---

From: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 12:51:51 -0800 (PST)

On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Jim West wrote:

> that an 8th century manuscript is closer to an original document or that a

Of course, what I said was *too much* weight, not no weight. Of course I
give weight to the age of a manuscript. On the other hand, if it is true
that the basic traditions that underly the Gospels crystallized late in
the second century, I'm not sure the difference in age between a fourth
century and a fifth century manuscript is really of overriding importance. 
Now, fourth century versus eight or ninth century may be another story,
and it is my understanding that the witnesses we have of the Byzantine
text type typically date from this time period and later. Now, I'm not a
specialist, and my understanding here may be incorrect.

The point of my question was that i was curious about what kind of evidence
could be marshaled to support Byzantine priority. I am frankly skeptical,
but I do want to give it a fair hearing.

> Jim

---
[email-masked]    /    http://www.wnetc.com/home.html
If you're going to reinvent the wheel, at least try to come
up with a better one.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 22:01:03 -0500 (EST)

> >explain the Byzantine text type as an independent tradition.

I certainly have :-)  ...but that probably is beside the point.

> an earlier manuscript, irregardless of "text type".

The bias is already in full operation in such a statement....Of course the
simple question to ask is always "where did the text found in that 8th
century MS come from?"  I suggested earlier that the same question be
asked regarding the very large number of 9th and 10th century minuscule
MSS -- they are apparently unrelated in any close or remotely close
genealogical manner (so Lake, Blake, and New in _HTR_ 1928), thus their
relative independence should be assumed (and this is Lake's conclusion,
not merely my own). Yet each of those "independent" earliest minuscules
was copied from _some_ MS which predated them, and, since there are _no_
earlier minuscules than the 9th century, it is obvious that they were
copied from older _uncial_ MSS, some of which may have been 8th century,
but others equally may have been of the 6th, 5th, or even 4th centuries --
we basically have _no_ clue, and it is unreasonable to presume that the
date of the minuscule MS containing the text (especially if of the 9th and
10th century) somehow automatically relegates that text to _only_ the 9th
century and beyond. 

It seems peculiar that of a sudden (i.e. within the last 10 years) there
has been an eclectic abandonment of the view originally espoused by
Westcott-Hort (and previously maintained by all previous eclectics!) that
the Byzantine Textform _clearly_ existed by AD 350 and _was_ dominant from
at least the 5th century onward. Whether one chooses to call that early
Byzantine text "proto-Byzantine" or whatever, there should be absolutely
_no_ question that in general the text of A in the Gospels, certain parts
of W, and Chrysostom were "Byzantine" -- and by this I mean to the
exclusion of being either "Alexandrian" or "Western" in character.

It seems to me that the current eclectic view regarding the existence of
the Byzantine Textform has become just as biased in regard to the concept
of "counting noses" as the position they oppose. It is now claimed (e.g. 
Aland, Wallace) that the Byzantine Textform was never the majority until
after the 9th century when suddenly an empirical numeric majority exists.
 
Suffice it to say that such revisionist history runs counter to the
text-critical opinions of the past century, and can only be viewed as
another attempt to discredit any concept of Byzantine priority or value --
yet this time it is the _eclectics_ who use the criterion of "number" to
support the hypothesis regarding only a "late" 9th century Byzantine
dominance. One should not be able to have it both ways, and both to
criticize numeric dominance on the one hand and to appeal to such on the
other hand merely because it is convenient to do so in opposing the
Byzantine Textform is unwarranted.
 
> up your manuscripts- because early doesn't count in this scenario.

This of course is another caricature of the pro-Byzantine position. 
Numeric dominance -- especially when such reflects 90% of more of the
textual tradition -- does have some degree of weight; but even as Burgon
pointed out over a century ago, "number" is only _one_ of his _seven_
"notes of truth", and does _not_ carry as much weight when a majority of
the remaining six elements might contradict it (and I at this point also
rule out Fee's caricature of Burgon's position as "merely seven ways of
saying that the majority is always right"). 

"Early" most certainly _does_ count in any scenario; no one would argue
Byzantine priority unless they were convinced of the "early" nature of the
_text_ represented by the Byzantine Textform.  That such an "early" text
happens to be contained in not only the numeric majority of MSS but also
in virtually all of the most recently copied MSS does _not_ negate the
claim nor likelihood (on _non_ numeric grounds!) that such text may also
have the strongest case for authenticity, both in regard to a
transmissional historical approach and in regard to the application of
standard eclectic internal criteria themselves. 

> would naturally fall by the wayside.  

I would consider the MSS containing the Byzantine Textform to offer the
obvious external evidence -- it is not exactly like we are making up a
text wholesale and offering it to deceive the public in the absence of
data. I suspect the claim here goes back to the issue of "good" external
evidence which is judged merely by the age of MSS, which then
automatically becomes preferred to the age of the text which differing MSS
might contain (unless of course, those later MSS happen to contain a
non-Byzantine text, in which case they can be highly valued because their
text agrees with the earlier MSS -- this of course is circular, and
reflects a biased subjectivity, but I probably have made that abundantly
clear hitherto). 

> But, as opposition to the consensus is

Excuse me?  I would _love_ to sell books and get tenure by espousing my
totally unpopular non-consensus opinion.  Can you put me in touch with the
proper publisher and after that convince my seminary president to abandon
his eclectic text-critical position in favor of my pro-Byzantine stance in
order that tenure might be secured?  

I am not being too facetious on this point....although I may have had my
Byzantine Greek NT published, and my views summarized by a 60pp
introduction to that work, that edition was limited to only 1000 copies,
and is basically out of print at this point, with no immediate plans to
republish, and _no_ money was made for myself or the publisher beyond the
cost of publication by that work. All my other material in defense of the
Byzantine Textform has been presented as scholarly papers, generally
before the ETS and in one article in our seminary journal, and there is no
money there either. Trust me, it would be FAR easier and more profitable
merely to have gone with the flow and to have remained within the modern
eclectic camp and practice "safe" textual criticism....

>> I'll agree that we
>> shouldn't give too much weight to the age of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus,
>> but there still must be solid reasons to prefer a younger manuscript. 

> 4th century manuscript is?

Let me draw a parallel and ask this question: which seems more reasonable,
that a 2nd or 3rd century papyrus is closer to the original document or a
4th century MS?  

So now I present P45, P66, and P75, as well as a good number of others --
all predating the 4th century uncials on vellum.  So, which of these three
is closest to the original document?  Most eclectics will say P75.....why? 
Other papyri are almost equally early or even pre-date P75....But P75
agrees with B....but that is declaring an early document's text as "good" 
by appeal to the "good" text of a favored later document -- very similar
to what pro-Byzantine advocates claim in regard to the text preserved in
their favored "later" documents (and remember that until 1955, P75 was
unknown, and scholars of the pre-1955 period were thoroughly confused as
to the nature of the text at that point, due to the conflicting readings
of the 2nd and 3rd century papyri -- just read the literature from that
period; only with the discovery of P75 and finding it to agree with B did
everyone swiftly move back to the "B is best" hypothesis which stemmed
from Westcott and Hort).

Leave out any appeal to the fourth century documents, and the problem in
establishing the original text by examining the pre-4th century papyri and
assuming they all are automatically "closer" to the autograph becomes very
complex.  The fact is (as Colwell and Scrivener both long ago stated) that
there was probably _more_ corruption in the pre-4th century period, and
even in the pre-200 period than ever was the case after AD 350.  So there
is _no_ automatic presumption of "closeness" to the autograph text
inherent in MSS merely because of age; and this simply reflects the
principle already stated that the age of the MS does not necessarily say
anything about the age of the text contained within that MS. 

> would you consider closer to the original?

Not a good analogy. Assuming the modern copy when printed had been checked
against the original, and was electronically typeset and spell-checked --
definitely the more recent copy. :-)

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

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 23:45:22 -0800

> would you consider closer to the original?

The latest copy could very well be closest to the original. It depends on 
what circumstances and conditions the respective copies have been subject 
to. If the oldest copy has introduced a number of deviations from the 
original (which for some reason were never corrected by the original, 
which may have then been in existence and available for consultation) and 
the later copy has not, then the later copy is obviously both "better" 
and nearer to the text of the original document. This is only logical. 
For the later copy may represent the results of a faithful and accurate 
transmission, while the oldest copy may represent a sloppy or inaccurate 
copying. (If I´m not mistaken, textual critics have found many times that 
the "later" codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are "better" and represent 
_older_ readings than the much _earlier_ papyri!)

As to what is more _likely_ to be the case in such a situation, it is 
clear that this cannot be determined with any certainty. It is equal as 
clear, though, that if 10 more later copies were discovered which runs 
with the one later copy, which copies were written, let´s say, from year 
100 up to the year 250 after the writing of the original, one cannot 
conclude that the _one_ early copy _must_ be nearer to the original than 
the eleven later ones!

Even when the one late copy stood alone, it must have originated from 
_earlier_ copies. The conditions under which the copies have been 
transmitted is, I believe, more important than the age of a particular 
copy. A copy may be early, but it´s text is not necessary nearer to the 
original document´s text.

I thought this point had been demonstrated numerous times in textual 
research.

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 22:22:46 -0600 (CST)

On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Jim West wrote:
>... Otherwise, what we have is simply the notion that "majority rules".  
>Count up your manuscripts- because early doesn't count in this scenario.
 
The reason the Alex or "neutral" text is not a candidate for priority is 
IMHO that the few leading Greek mss. that do support it disagree so 
much.  Even in the UBS text, Aleph and B disagree more than they agree in 
Paul's epistles.  It is impossible for them to be as valuable as 
Tischendorf and Hort believed.  In the Gospels they disagree over 38 
times per chapter.  I know that they are early and very valuable 
witnesses, but witness character must come into play at least some.  Of 
course, the early papyri are even more divided.  Likewise the Byz text is 
divided on many occasions.  The H-F Maj. Txt. lists over 1,400 Mpt cases; 
in these, the Byz witness is substantially split.  Even with all the 
problems, I would still consider the Majority Text closer to the 
original, but the division is not as great as many think.  For example, 
Aleph agrees with the TR more than 25% of the time in text variants, and 
of course even more with the BYZ text itself.  The same is true of P66.
Also, it is interesting that in UBS4 most of their "A" catagories are 
also the BYZ reading.  

--
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: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 08:26:29 -0700

On Sun, 30 Mar 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]> wrote,
in part:

>Even in the UBS text, Aleph and B disagree more than they agree in 
>Paul's epistles.

I'm not sure I see what the UBS text has to do with this, but let's
leave that aside.

There's a good reason Aleph and B often disagree in Paul: They *don't
belong to the same text-type.* This was first pointed out by Zuntz,
and my researches clearly confirm it.

Aleph belongs to a text-type that also contains A, C, 33, and the
Bohairic Coptic, with 81, 1175, etc. as lesser witnesses.

B goes with p46 and the Sahidic in a separate text-type. (Note:
Zuntz also includes 1739 and the Bohairic here. I disagree. But
in general my results agree with his.)

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)