Subject: Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier

From: [email-masked] (U. Schmid)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 22:24:27 +0100

On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Michael Olszta wrote in part:

>Hello,
>
>I was wondering if anything like Herman Hoskier's work on the book of
>Revelation has been done.  Hoskier collated every known Greek manuscript
>of the Apocalypse up to 1918? (I think that's about right).  This to me
>seems the correct approach to textual criticism, i.e., the collation of
>all extant documents including manuscripts, versions, patristic
>quotations, and lectionaries.  Why someone as intelligent as Kurt Aland
>would simply discard thousands of manuscripts because they originate
>later than 900A.D. seems absolutely ludicrous.  To simply throw out
>9/10ths of the evidence as being worthless because it doesn't fit in
>with what John William Burgon calls "the dream" of Westcott and Hort is
>absurd.
[snip]

To me it is really hilarious to charge Kurt Aland of discarding "thousands
of manuscripts". He is in fact the only scholar of the second half of the
20th century (do not forget von Soden for the beginning of the century) to
*collect* (microfilms of) thousands of manuscripts. At the Muenster
Institute there is practically 95% of the known Greek manuscript evidence
available. Again, more than 90% of it originated later than 900 AD. Why for
heaven's sake can someone even think Aland would simply discard them? Why
should he have made all the efforts to collect them?

Ulrich Schmid

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 13:45:13 -7000

> should he have made all the efforts to collect them?

While I also disagree with Mr. Olszta's evaluation of what is going 
on (especially the Westcott-Hort part), I don't think that by 
"discard" he meant to suggest that Aland was literally throwing them 
in the trash.  I am virtually certain that he meant Aland simply 
ignored these mss. for purposes of TC.  Aland's work of collecting 
them for the Institut actually had little or nothing to do with 
efforts to reconstruct the earliest form of the NT text, as he 
dismissed the Byzantines as insignificant for the task.  I don't 
doubt that this is what Mr. O meant by "discard."
Dave Washburn
[email-masked]
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/
If you don't know where you're going, don't lead.

---

From: "Michael S. Olszta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:02:27 -0500

> doubt that this is what Mr. O meant by "discard."

Hello again,

Thank you David for clarifying my ambiguity.  Aland writes regarding the
miniscules exhibiting a purely or predominantly Byzantine text:

"They are irrelevant for textual criticicism, at least for establishing the
original form of the text and its development in the early centuries.  Admittedly
no adequate history has yet been written of the Byzantine text - a text which is
in no sense a monolithic mass because its manuscripts share the same range of
variation characteristic of all Greek New Testament manuscripts.  But this is a
task we may well leave to a future generation ... and consider our own generation
fortunate if we can succeed in tracing the history of manuscripts with
non-Byzantine texts ... Once this has been done the way will be clear for a
better appreciation of the Byzantine text, for from the fourth century it began
to exercise its influence on the other text types.  In fact, the "Majority text"
... may yet prove to hold a multiple significance for the history of the text."
The Text of the New Testament, Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, Page 155.

Aland says:

"They are irrelevant for textual criticism..."

 Then he says:

"Admittedly no adequate history has yet been written of the Byzantine text ..."

He then goes on to say:

"from the fourth century it began to exercise its influence on the other text
types."

Hmm.  They're irrelevent, but we don't know their history .  But we do know that
their influence on the other text types from the 4th century downward is quite
dominating.  Just based on these statements, I would think that such a text form
would gain the confidence of those studying the subject.  In fact, readings from
the so called "Byzantine" text type find themselves in documents (manuscripts,
patristic citations, versions) of the 4th, 3rd, and 2nd centuries, do they not?
If that's the case, is it not possible that complete "Byzantine" manuscripts were
being used during those centuries but, because of persecution and/or the scribe
destroying the manuscript he was copying from, we have no complete
representations of this text extant from that time?

Michael Olszta

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:08:36 -0600

At this point, I think it fair to ask Dr./Mr. Olszta to clarify
his position. Is he a supporter of the Byzantine/Majority text?
Or an enquirer? It makes a difference in how we answer.

But let's continue with the response.

On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, "Michael S. Olszta" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Aland says:
>
>"They [the Byzantine minuscules] are irrelevant for textual criticism..."
>
> Then he says:
>

Let me state firmly that I believe in the importance of the Byzantine text.
It is my opinion that the greatest single need of current NT criticism is
a good critical edition of the Byzantine text. This would go far toward
writing the history of the text as well.

But even so, I agree (by and large) with Aland. The late Byzantine minuscules,
as opposed to the Byzantine text, have *no importance.* There are, I believe,
in excess of 2,000 Byzantine minuscules of the Gospels. We don't need that
many. A representative set will suffice. Trying to slog through all that
data, with all the trivial variations it contains, can have only one effect:
To prevent us from engaging in real work.

A good critical edition will include a large number of Byzantine manuscripts
(more, e.g., than are found in the NA or UBS editions). But to include them
in proportion to their numbers is silly.

>dominating.

This is true enough, but I don't see that it's relevant. If they have no influence
prior to that time, they *are* irrelevant prior to that time.

>Just based on these statements, I would think that such a text form
>would gain the confidence of those studying the subject.

This is false logic. Consider a historical analogy: In the twentieth century,
the Democratic party has generally been the majority party in America. Does
this mean that it has always been the majority party, or was the original
party in America? Hardly! The Democratic party was not even founded until
the time of Andrew Jackson, more than fifty years after the American War of
Independence.

Or consider that, in 1600, the vast majority of the world's population regarded
the sun as going around the earth. Does that mean they were right?

The fact that the Majority Text is the majority says nothing about its originality.
It may be original; it may not. But the mere fact that it is the majority text-type
is completely irrelevant.

>In fact, readings from

Of course it is possible. So what?

The arguments you are using have been used before (particularly by Sturz).
But the existence of Byzantine readings is not evidence. In more instances
than not, if you count all variants in the NT tradition, the Byzantine
reading is original. We should expect it to be found in other types.

Thus to claim that the Byzantine text is older than its earliest commonly
accepted witnesses, you must find a text which consistently displays the
readings of the type. So far, none have been presented which predate the
fourth century.

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

                        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: "Mark O'Brien" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 09:39:08 -0800

> Or an enquirer? It makes a difference in how we answer.

Why does this make a difference?  Surely there is a good reply to his
question (or a bad one, I guess!), irrespective of Mr. Olszta's
position?  I think he raises some good questions regarding the Alands'
treatment of the Byzantine tradition, regardless of whatever position
you take at all.

Regards,

M.
-- 
Rev. Mark B. O'Brien
Subiaco Church of Christ, 260 Bagot Rd, Subiaco, WA 6008, Australia

(Hm) 08-9344-3327     (Fx)  08-9388-1042
(Wk) 08-9388-1030     Email:  [email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 19:45:27 -0600

>treatment of the Byzantine tradition, regardless of whatever position

It makes an answer in the sense that it decides whether there is any
point in arguing. :-) If this is a faith issue, or raised just to trouble
the list (which is possible), then I don't want to fan the flames.

The answer to the question, of course, has already been given: No
matter what one's opinion of the Byzantine tradition (and many are
possible), the bulk of the Byzantine manuscripts is too large for
anyone to deal with in its entirety. We have to deal with samples.

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

---

From: "Mark O'Brien" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 10:13:02

>anyone to deal with in its entirety. We have to deal with samples.

Agreed.  And, of course, the Byzantine tradition is basically irrelevant,
so waste your time, eh?  <G>

M.

-----
"When we consider a book, we mustn't ask ourselves what it says but what it
means."
                -- Brother William of Baskerville
                        (Umberto Eco, "The Name of the Rose")
-----
Rev. Mark B. O'Brien
Assoc. Pastor, Subiaco Church of Christ, Western Australia
Lecturer, South Perth Christian College, Western Australia

[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 21:06:39 -0600

>so waste your time, eh?  <G>

Actually, I *don't* agree with that. While I agree, tentatively, with
Hort's conclusion that the Byzantine text is late, I think it urgently
important that we study it, simply because the type has influenced so
many mixed manuscripts.

And, for that matter, we have to revisit Hort once in a while, to see
if his results still hold in the light of modern evidence. So far, I
think they do. But who knows what the next papyrus will bring? :-)

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]