Subject: Re: Rev 12:18

From: "Perry L. Stepp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 20:06:37 -0600

In response to Carlton Winbery, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> > The addition of the nu is something that happens frequently in
minuscule Mss.
> 
> Assuming you are speaking of movable nu, which does not change the
meaning
> of a word, this of course is correct to a certain degree; however, the
> final -n in "estaqhn" is _not_ a movable nu, but an alteration which
> changes the person of the verb, and the "frequent" practice of the
> minuscule scribes thus does _not_ apply in this case, since it cannot be
> demonstrated that they ever "frequently" changed tenses in a wholesale
> manner by altering from 3rd to 1st person (or vice versa) in a narrative
> situation.

Change in meaning or not, it seems transcriptionally probable that a "nu"
would creep into the midst of ESTAQHEPI, and transcriptionally improbable
that a "nu" would accidentally drop out from between a terminal and an
initial vowel.  

Perry L. Stepp

************************************************************
Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX
Ph.D. candidate in New Testament, Baylor University

"A system of morality which is based on relative 
emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar
conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing
true."
                    Phaedo 69b
************************************************************

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 13:26:22 -0500 (EST)

> that a "nu" would accidentally drop out from between a terminal and an

In the case of a movable nu this would not be questioned. When the net
effect of adding or omitting a nu is to alter the sense of a verb,
however, the likelihood of such a nu merely "creeping in", whether
accidentally or intentionally is significantly reduced. 

Further, transcriptional probability simply does _not_ favor the
accidental inclusion of a nu or any other letter or letters for no good
reason, let alone merely to place a consonant between two vowels for
euphony or whatever. 

On the other hand, transcriptional probability _will_ frequently apply to
the accidental omission of a single letter, especially nu, movable or not,
since it is often represented by a suspension bar at the end of lines. The
hypothesis of accidental omission reflected in a small number of MSS is
far more likely than the suggestion of accidental or deliberate addition
of a verb-altering nu occurring in the 90% mass of all MSS. Omission of nu
or other single letters _does_ occur frequently in individual MSS (though
_without_ the massive perpetuation of such variants). 

As an aside, I continue to remain amazed at how vocal and vociferous is
the opposition to any external, transcriptional, or internal evidence
suggestions which happen to defend a Byzantine reading. Had my _same_ case
been made for the dropping of an final nu by the Byzantine MSS which nu
was present in the early uncials, I suspect there would likely have not
been one adverse comment. The course of the present discussion amply
illustrates my point about the blinders and inherent bias which
characterizes so much of modern eclecticism. 

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

---

From: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 11:17:02 -0800 (PST)

I'm an interested amateur only and have no academic background in textual
criticism (except for my own reading, of course), so I've generally been
quiet on this list. Generally, I find these discussions about the
Byzantine text type quite interesting, and I have to agree with Prof.
Robinson tht there does sometimes seem to be something of a double
standard when it comes to evaluating Alexandrian vs. Byzantine witnesses.
Even so, I tend to find Metzger's arguments ("The Text of the New
Testament") plausible, and I've seen very little in terms of arguments for
Byzantine priority. Perhaps the most interesting thing I've seen is
Vincent Broman's paper (available on his web site) "The support of
internal text critical evidence for Alexandrian and Byzantine text types
in Luke" which seems to indicate that omitting the canon of criticism that
the shorter reading is generally to be preferred shifts the weight of
internal evidence considerably with regard to Byzantine vs. Alexandrian
readings. (It kind of make you wonder how the Western text type would fare
under a similar analysis, doesn't it?) While this particular canon does
make sense in most cases, I don't find it unreasonable to suggest it is
sometimes given undue weight.

Anyway, I wonder if anyone has ever proposed a scenario which would
explain the Byzantine text type as an independent tradition. What kind of
evidence supports this claim? Any external evidence? 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. 

---
[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: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 14:57:37 -0700

>standard when it comes to evaluating Alexandrian vs. Byzantine witnesses.

This depends on what you mean by "double standard." It is true that the
reading of the Byzantine text does not receive the respect that the
readings of other text-types do. But one should keep the reason in
mind: 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? You've alluded to that
below, so I'll give my answer below.

>sometimes given undue weight.

The rule "Prefer the shorter reading" is now in very bad shape. It should
never be applied in isolation. NEVER! Consideration must be given to why
the variant might have arisen, and also to the nature of the witnesses.

For a summary of opinions on this particular topic (mostly mine, of
course, but I try to be balanced), see the article on "Canons of
Criticism" at the web site listed below.

>there still must be solid reasons to prefer a younger manuscript. 

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 th latter camp,
though in very different ways), and those who favour a mixed approach.

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
believe it to be secondary, and so construct a text which based primarily
on other text-types. (There's a big article on text-types, as well, at
the web site. That explains my personal views much more fully than I
can do on the spur of the moment.)

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?

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. 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)

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

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 (Alexandrian; "Western"; in Paul, also p46/B and family 1739;
in the Catholics, also families 1739 and 2138). What is more, the
Byzantine text, more often than not, incorporates the easiest of
these readings.

These two reasons are, I think, why most scholars continue to think
the Byzantine text secondary. I know *I* consider it so. 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. *Of course* most
medieval manuscripts show the Byzantine type!

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.

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

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

                            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)

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 22:30:16 -0800

> characterizes so much of modern eclecticism.

If there ever was a _true_ statement regarding modern eclecticism, this is it!!

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 21:44:48 -0600 (CST)

On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>... With that in mind, let's look at the earliest Byzantine witnesses.

Robert, thanks for this post.  I always enjoy them.  Since you listed 
early Byz mss, should you not have included uncials Q (5th), and 
6th cent D2, E2, N, O, P, R, sigma, and 064?

--
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 08:19:47 -0700

>6th cent D2, E2, N, O, P, R, sigma, and 064?

I wasn't listing early Byzantine manuscripts; I was listing *the
earliest* manuscript of the type.

I concede that N, O, P, and Sigma (also Phi) are early and Byzantine.
I *don't* agree in the case of Q or R. Both have suffered Byzantine
influence, but my check showed that R is about a third Alexandrian,
and Q is about a quarter so.

064 I haven't checked.

As for E2, I mentioned that under Acts. Though we might note that it
has many, many non-Byzantine readings.

I'm not sure what you mean by D2. Is that the corrector of Bezae, or
are you referring to Claromontanus? If it refers to Bezae, I concede
that the corrector used a Byzantine text, but it seems to me that it
was later than the sixth century. As for Claromontanus, it is "Western,"
and although it received Byzantine corrections, they were from the
ninth century.

It should be noted that the Byzantine text is surely older than its
oldest witnesses. The big question is, of course, *how much* older....

No doubt Maurice Robinson will have something to say about that (I hope he
doesn't get carpal tunnel syndrome...). :-)

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 10:42:06 -0500 (EST)

> and Q is about a quarter so.

I suspect Prof. Minton and I might differ regarding this assessment;
myself because of the loaded words "Byzantine influence" which I would
reverse and suggest a primarily Byzantine MS has suffered "Alexandrian
influence".

> has many, many non-Byzantine readings.

But it is still considered, even by Metzger, as primarily a Byzantine MS.

> doesn't get carpal tunnel syndrome...). :-)

Thankfully, I have addressed most of these questions in my previous posts
so my hands are relaxing now.  (BTW, one of the _best_ ways to avoid
carpal tunnel syndrome is _not_ to sit in the standard typing position,
but to lean back in your chair, put your feet up on the computer desk, and
rest the keyboard on your lap -- trust me, it works :-)

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 11:57:45 -0700

>reverse and suggest a primarily Byzantine MS has suffered "Alexandrian

Perhaps I consider "influence" a more neutral word that Robinson et
al. I would say that Q and R have experienced *both* Alexandrian
and Byzantine influences. And since they are early, I am not even
sure which "direction" the influence pointed. They may have been
Byzantine-corrected-toward-Alexandrian or Alexandrian-corrected-toward-
Byzantine.

The net result, however, is mixed, not Byzantine (though the Byzantine
is the strongest element).

Of course, this means that the Byzantine text must have existed,
before their date. That proves its existence in Egypt by the sixth
century.

>But it is still considered, even by Metzger, as primarily a Byzantine MS.

So? Metzger considers B Alexandrian in Paul. He calls 1739 "Caesarean."
Doesn't mean it's true. :-)

But I'll repeat: I listed E as the earliest Greek Byzantine witness in
Acts. I simply wanted to point out that, while there are places where
it is purely Byzantine, there are also places where it has a mixed text.
It appears to me to be block mixed. Though I have not investigated
the matter in enough depth to be sure. (I freely concede that almost
all my work has been devoted to Paul, the Catholics, and the Gospels,
in that order. I'm very weak in Acts and the Apocalypse.)

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]