Subject: ms 2 and the TR

From: Timothy John Finney <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:34:11 +0800 (WST)

Thanks to Mike Arcieri for the concise information on Erasmus' use of mss.

In reply to Bob Waltz's questions:

(1) I don't know how many differences between the TR and ms 2 there are 
yet. I'm still trying to write that collation program! Hopefully I will 
be able to answer this question soon, for Hebrews at least.

(2) I use the electronic edition of the TR as an approximation of 
Erasmus' text. I don't have the actual text of any of his editions in 
electronic form.

By the way Bob, I finally got to the point where I could analyse your 61 
variant survey of Hebrews. The results were much the same as those 
obtained using the 44 units given in UBS4. They show that there are a few 
outliers such as P46, B, 1739, 1881, D (06), and Aleph, then a great 
cloud of witnesses that are all like each other.

I am very pressed for time at the moment so I can't do more than promise 
more information after I get back from a trip to England for a two 
week summer school, then to Brazil for two weeks to see my wife's family. 
Sorry!

Best regards,

Tim Finney

[email-masked]
Baptist Theological College
and Murdoch University
Perth, W. Australia

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 07:52:29 -0500 (CDT)

>be able to answer this question soon, for Hebrews at least.

This isn't really all that important (though it would be interesting).
I was just pointing out that, while Erasmus based his work mostly on
2, he *did* edit the result. So there would be a fair number of
readings where the TR does not agree with 2.

>Erasmus' text. I don't have the actual text of any of his editions in 

This, too, could affect things a bit. All editions of the TR are
*not* the same. They're close, but by no means identical. Based on
the information in Scrivener, it appears that random editions of the
Textus Receptus may disagree at up to 300 points. A few of these
differences are substantial (I can't cite instances off the top
of my head, but I remember somewhere a case of a whole clause
found in Elzevir and missing in Stephanus). A disproportionate
fraction of these divergences are in the Apocalypse -- but by
no means all of them!

>cloud of witnesses that are all like each other.

The above is hardly surprising (though 739 and 1881 should have stood
fairly close together). The problem, in my opinion, is not these good
high-class manuscripts such as p46, B, D, 1739, but the marginal ones --
the 330s and 1611s of the world. In a sample of 40-70 readings they
might separate from the Byzantine text in 10-15 places. But if they
agree with B seven times (say), and with Aleph in eight, and with
D in six, how are we to tell what influences (other than the
Byzantine) they have experienced?

This is why I maintain we need much larger samples than we use.
Which, BTW, is not a condemnation of Tim -- after all, he's using
data I sent him. :-) I'm just pointing out a methodological weakness.
The less pure the witness, the larger the sample we need to analyse
it. But there is a lot of interest in those impure samples, since 330
and 1611 and the like *may* belong to undiscovered text-types.

Pontification mode off. :-)

>week summer school, then to Brazil for two weeks to see my wife's family. 

Have a good trip, and don't worry about it. I was lecturing the list,
not Tim. :-)

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

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

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