Subject: tc-list Majority text -question from a beginner

From: "Steve Carson-Rowland" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 19:27:25 +1000

In an essay entitled 'The Significance of the Papyri for determining the
nature of the NT text in the second century: A dynamic view of textual
transmission' by Eldon Jay Epp (In 'Gospel Traditions in the Second
Century', ed. William L. Peterson), the author writes:

<begin quote (p.92)>
The "A" text cluster, that is, the 'accepted' text of the Koine or later
Byzantine textual group, need not be further considered here, for the early
papyri are not involved (although a few papyri of the 6th and 7th centuries
do represent the "A" text). Furthermore, everyone recognises that this
textual group exists, though not until the 4th century- that is, after the
period of the earliest papyri. Moreover, everyone also acknowledges that
this can actually be called a "text-type". The recognised constituent
members can be found in standard handbooks.
<end quote>

Firstly I found the statement a little confusing. Why mention the papyri of
the 6th and 7th century if the textual group exists from the 4th century
onwards? Is there any significance in Epp's parenthetic comment?

Secondly, how clear is the evidence for the majority text not existing
before the 4th century? There would be about 45 papyri dated up to the end
of the 4th century, but many/most(?) of them with only a few verses - for
example I have p77 as only having 10 verses, p12 with 1 verse, etc.

Thanks,

Steve Carson-Rowland
Brisbane, Australia

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 08:49:57 -0500 (CDT)

On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, "Steve Carson-Rowland" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

[ ... ]

>onwards? Is there any significance in Epp's parenthetic comment?

Yes, but indirect. Our earliest evidence for the "A" (Byzantine) text
is from the fourth century. The early papyri, which might contain the
Byzantine text if it existed, do *not* do so. Thus they represent
evidence, although not strong evidence, that it did not exist before
that time.

>example I have p77 as only having 10 verses, p12 with 1 verse, etc.

I think we can give a slightly less grumpy response to this than
William L. Petersen did. :-)

You are right, of course, that most of the early papyri are fragmentary.
But none of these fragments contain clearly Byzantine texts. And some
early papyri are substantial -- p13, p45, p46, p47, p66, p72, p75.
And all of these are *clearly* non-Byzantine. The same is true of
the versions (Old Latin, Old Syriac, Coptic) known to have been made
before the fourth century.

Most books state that the earliest evidence for the Byzantine text
is Chrysostom (or the slightly earlier but much less important
Asterius the Sophist). Also usually dated to the fourth century
(although this is debated, and I've seen nothing conclusive on
the subject) is the Peshitta Syriac, which -- while not purely
Byzantine -- is Byzantine enough that it attests to the existence
of the type.

The above is true in the Gospels. In the other parts of the NT, the
earliest Byzantine witness is usually the Harklean Syriac, which
was compiled from multiple manuscripts, one of which seems in most
sections to have been Byzantine.

The earliest Greek witnesses for the Byzantine text are A of the
Gospels (fifth century), probably Psi (VIII/IX) for Acts and Paul,
K L 049 (IX) in the Catholics, and P 046 (IX) in the Apocalypse.

As Petersen stated, the evidence for the other types is usually
earlier. It is also stronger in the early centuries (for example,
we have four substantial witnesses -- p66 p75 Aleph B -- to
the Alexandrian text of the gospels from the fourth century and
earlier). Combine this with the fact that the Byzantine text is
usually held to be textually inferior, and it is no surprise that
it is held to be late.

None of this, be it noted, constitutes proof. But it is very strong
evidence....

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

                        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)

---

From: [email-masked] (James J. Cate)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 09:53:21 -0500

"Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]> writes:

>Asterius the Sophist).

Asterius the Sophist (d. post 341) would be earlier than Chrysostom (d.
ca. 407) and is often mentioned by Gordon Fee (*Studies in the Theory and
Method of NT TC*, SD 45, pp. 187, 205-6, 352, 358) as the earliest
witness to the Byzantine type of text. However, since Fee's articles were
first published, further study has shown that not all the works
attributed to Asterius the Sophist are in fact from him. In 1990, Wolfram
Kinzig analyzed Asterius' *Homilies on the Psalms* and discovered: (1)
the homilies were by one author; (2) the author's name was Asterius; (3)
the author was *not* Asterius the Sophist; (4) the author was not an
Arian, but a Nicean; (5) the writings originate from 385-410 in Palestine
or Western Syria; (6) the specific identity of Asterius the Homily-Writer
can not be identified.

Ergo, evidence for the Byzantine type of text cannot be pushed beyond the
last decades of the fourth century.

Jeff Cate, Ph.D.
Assoc. Prof. of Christian Studies
California Baptist College