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

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 16:40:15 -0600 (CST)

On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
> >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...

I mentioned it because it is the most common Gk. NT used in the USA and 
influences more people than any other.  Also, their variants are supposed 
to be the significant ones for translators.  I am basically lazy and the 
variants are easy to count there  :)

> 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....

What text-type name do Aleph and B go with? 

--
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: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 17:22:05 -0700

>variants are easy to count there  :)

Actually, I would think there would be comparatively *more* disagreements
between B and Aleph in the UBS apparatus than in the ordinary run of
text. Yes, the UBS apparatus includes variants that are relevant for
translators -- but it also includes a lot of variants where the editors
are not sure of the original reading. Since the editors of UBS generally
worshipped the Alexandrian text, they would be much less sure of the
reading if B and Aleph disagreed. So more of these variants would appear
in the apparatus.

>What text-type name do Aleph and B go with? 

There is no clear answer to this, since so few people follow Zuntz.
Zuntz called the p46/B/1739/sa/bo group "Proto-Alexandrian," and
the Aleph/A/C/I/33 group Alexandrian.

I think this is bad terminology; the p46/B text may be older than
the Aleph/A/C/I/33 text, but it is not an ancestor. The two are
clearly independent. Also, as I mentioned, I do not think 1739 and
the Bohairic go with p46 and B.

I have sought in vain for a father whose text agrees with p46 and B.
So I cannot localize this text. So I just call this type "p46/B."
Similarly, I call the 1739 text "Family 1739."

This gives us the following text-types in Paul, with their primary
witnesses:
p46/B -- p46, B, sa; probably also p13
Alexandrian -- Aleph, A, C, I, 33, bo; mixed witnesses include 81,
   1175, family 2127, etc.
family 1739 -- 1739 0243; also 0121, 1881, 6, 424**, 630 (in part)
Western -- D F G Old Latin (629 in part)
Byzantine -- K L 049 056 0142 etc.

For more details of my opinions, see the relevant files at my
encyclopedia site. (Really, folks, if you want to know how I
feel, that's the place to go. I am generally much more coherent
there, where I took time to think about what I'm saying, than
here, where I generally don't. :-)

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

                            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)