Subject: Cesarean text - thank you

From: Jean VALENTIN <[email-masked]>
Date: Jeu, 28 Ao� 97 23:11:09 +0200

Just a few words to say thank you to those who answered to my question 
about the cesarean text, and especially to Dr Hurtado, whose remarks on 
method I keep preciously. Dr Hurtado, I noticed your book on the shelves 
of the Peeters Bookstore in Louvain: the next time I go there, I will 
surely buy it!

I understand the best way to present a text is to count agreements _and_ 
disagreements with several types of text. I don't know yet which ones are 
likely to be included in my analysis. Probably D, B, Theta and a 
Byzantine text are a must. As to Byz, what should I do? Take A and/or W, 
the Majority text, or the TR? And are there other texts that are 
important in such a work (of course, there will also be the vetus syra 
and the peshitto).

This raises even another question. In the past, many such works for the 
use of Greek NT scholars have been presented in the form of a collation 
against one form of the Greek text - sometimes with a few notes. Do you 
think such things can be usable, and which text should be used as a base 
for collation? NA, WH, TR?

What are the pros and cons of all these methods? Of both methods, whoch 
is the best suited, and what text(s) are the most required?

Thanks again for your help and greetings,

Jean V.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 17:56:44 -0400 (EDT)

On 28 xxx -1, Jean VALENTIN wrote:

> the Majority text, or the TR? 

> for collation? NA, WH, TR?

Although this was addressed to Hurtado, I would like to throw my two cents
in as regards the Byzantine Text portion of the inquiry.  If you are going
to use a "representative" Byzantine text based on MSS, something like the
union of S U V might do; otherwise a single MS such as Omega could be
used.  However, I would recommend a consensus Byzantine text such as
either my own and Pierpont's, or the Hodges/Farstad edition. 

I would warn, however, that neither H/F nor Robinson/Pierpont is
"Byzantine" in either the Pericope Adultera (where H/F basically follow
the Von Soden "mu-6" group, and R/P the "mu-5" group) nor in the
Apocalypse, where H/F follow a smaller, stemmatically-determined subgroup
which they claim to be original, and R/P follow an eclectically-determined
text derived from the M-a and M-k groups.  For the rest of the NT, there
is little difference between H/F and R/P, and that only in places where
the Byzantine Textform is itself divided significantly.

As for a collating base, I continue to recommend only the TR (Oxford
1873), since it has become the standard for the IGNTP, and also correlates
well with more published collations of the past.  Even though the
Byzantine Textform might have been a superior collating base had it
existed in the past century, it is now too late for that luxury, and the
amount of difference would be minimal in most cases.  

The benefit of collating against the TR or Byzantine Text rather than
against Westcott-Hort (e.g. Legg) or a modern critical text like
Nestle/UBS has been noted previously by other scholars: since the TR
basically reflects the "majority" reading in most cases, there will be
less material which has to be noted in the collation of most MSS. Only in
regard to the non-Byzantine MSS will there be more material in the
collation record than in the main text, and one still can then see at a
glance the significant differences of such MSS rather than merely the mass
of Byzantine differences which a collation against the critical text would
reveal. 

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

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 11:30:13 +000

> > for collation? NA, WH, TR?

As to a collation base, I support Maurice Robinson's support for the 
Internatl. GNT Project policy of using the TR, which is widely 
available and not going to change.  Thus, the collation once done 
accurately can be of continued usefulness.
As to what to do in selecting representative witnesses for the 
Byzantine text-type, when I did my PhD thesis, I tried to use a 
chronologically early ms (Codex A) and then also something 
representative broadly of the matured or later stage (I simply used 
the TR as a text representative of the late/matured stage).  Today, 
with the benefit of such things as Fred Wisse's study, _The Profile 
Method for Classifying and Evaluating Manuscript Evidence_ (SD 44; 
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), it is possible to choose a good bit 
more scientifically reps of various sub-groups of the Byzantine text.
 
L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 07:16:40 -0400 (EDT)

> accurately can be of continued usefulness.

There remains one problem in this scenario, and that is that the Oxford
1873 TR really is _not_ "widely available", and we would not want to send
collators to all the various TR editions presently out there (and
certainly not to the Trinitarian Bible Society TR, which was altered by
Scrivener to reflect the KJV's underlying text).  

Yet the only TR's currently in print are the Trinitarian, several from
Greece, and the nearly-Stephens 1550 TR printed in Berry's Interlinear. 
None of these are the Oxford 1873 TR, and, so far as I know, only
fascicles of such have been reprinted by the IGNTP for in-house use by
collators of the particular portions being examined.  

It seems it would behoove the Bible Societies or any private publisher to
reproduce "the" Oxford 1873 TR for such purposes.  Dallas Seminary used to
reprint its own TR for many years, but that was the Oxford 1825 version.
So, I hope some publishers might be listening; there is a need to have a
collation base text which truly is "widely available".