Church sign #2

I have the King James, New King James, NIV, NASB. I use them all, but prefer NJK and NASB. Who's to say which is right. It's a matter of preference.

There is a lot of controversy on commentaries, personally I use them because I'm not very Bible literate.

 

This is a great quote! The older MSS were compared to newer MSS and once all the differences were found, rules seem to have been made based on the differences to disqualify all MSS that tend to exhibit these kinds of differences! The external power of a few old MSS combined with the supposed internal power of rules that are rigged in the older MSS' favor end up winning a good deal of the time. I have seen, however, that even by following these rigged rules, the Byzantine text can still be seen to be primary about half the time! Imagine if the rules were not rigged to dismiss the Byzantines from consideration before even starting (cf. Bernhard Weiss, who couldn't even bring himself to look at a minuscule in his "Textkritik der Evangelien", Series: Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur, Vol. 4.2, Leipzig, 1899; 246 pages), how much more would the Byzantines dominate and predominate both externally and internally!

Cheers, Bluefalcon

 

DocC: That's interesting. Neither of my UBS editions (2 and 4) list any variants for Matthew 10:8.

They don't, and that's why the UBS editions with their ca. 1450 variant reading units are generally worthless for exploring the real scope of textual variation.

At a minimum one should use the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, with its ca. 10,000 variant reading units (and there are other editions (such as SQE, ECM, Tischendorf, and von Soden) which provide even more information.

 

BF: Imagine if the rules were not rigged ...

All theories have their own methodologies, and therefore their own rules. Even if the modern critical texts bias their rules and methodology by systematically excluding the Byzantine text from consideration except when it agrees with their favored Alexandrian MSS, the question remains whether bias otherwise dominates the methodology.

Bart Ehrman's new revision of Metzger's Text of the NT discusses the pro-Byzantine or majority text position, and states that, in general, they follow basically the same rules that the pro-Alexandrian textual critics follow, except that they retain the Byzantine text within their radar due to their theological views and not as a matter of evaluating the evidence itself.

DocC: ... the more rigorous nature of the Byzantine-superiority rules ...

I still would like to know what is "more rigorous" within the Byzantine-superiority rules as opposed to what is "less rigorous" within the pro-Alexandrian position. It seems to me that both sides rigorously apply their own rules within their own systems, and both come to their own conclusions appropriate to each of their respective positions.

 

Breaking this into a single bite:

DocC: Fine, unless the older reading is Byzantine instead of Alexandrian, then it is to be ignored.

How can one demonstrate a Byzantine reading found only in later MSS to be "older" than the Alexandrian or Western, as found within the earlier MSS?

If a Byzantine reading has support from either Alexandrian or Western MSS, or even from some ancient versions or pre-4th century fathers, it certainly is "old" and may well be considered authentic even by the modern critical text advocates (who often do favor Byzantine readings when other early support is present).

However, this hardly establishes *all* Byzantine readings as "old", and certainly cannot in itself establish a presumption in that direction that would apply to those Byzantine readings which remain unattested in early witnesses -- and those unattested portions represent the bulk of the Byzantine readings!

So, in such cases, why are the modern critical editors *not* correct to ignore those readings which in and of themselves cannot be proven to be "older" than the Alexandrian and Western readings that are clearly attested in the "old" documents? This seems to be a legitimate question.

 

Another (different) bite:

DocC (quoting Hort): "A theoretical presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents at each stage of transmission than vice versa."

But Hort *immediately* followed that statement (Hort, Introduction, p. 45) with "But the presumption is too minute to weigh against the smallest tangible evidence of other kinds."

In light of this further qualification, Hort then could write (on the same page) the *non*-contradictory: "Every ground for expecting _a priori_ any sort of correspondence of numerical proportion between existing documents and their less numerous ancestors in any one age falls to the ground."

Thus, Hort is not inconsistent or contradictory when elsewhere he states what you also quoted (what page?): "No available presumptions whatever as to text can be obtained from number alone, that is, from number not as yet interpreted by descent."

So, then, if Hort is wrong in his general assessment (as you would claim), on what grounds can his presuppositional or methodological error be established, particularly since the logic of his connections here seems to be secure?

 

Another small bite:

DocC: Bengel ... even he started out with the presupposition "proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua" (before the easy reading, stands the difficult). I understand the philosophical foundation of that presupposition, but in studying the manuscripts themselves it seems not to have historical support. In fact, the opposite seems to be more prevelant in the textucopia.

Yet Robinson in his Case for Byzantine Priority, which you cited <http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html>, states as his internal principle #2, "The reading which would be more difficult as a scribal creation is to be preferred." So how is this different from the canon established by Bengel?

 

Ok, and thanks, Doc. I'm not convinced that you really answered my questions as opposed to putting some particular spin on them, but I'm at least getting some insight into your own views on the matter (which was all I was attempting).

 

If the following list represents the true characteristics of the primary Egyptian witnesses in opposition to the almost universally accepted Byzantine readings in each case, then if the Byzantines are primary here, it becomes morally certain that the text they contain are older than the Alexandrians here, and if they are older here, it is possible, though not yet demonstrated probable, that the Byzantines are older in many other places as well.

Mt 2:13 Addition of "eis thn cwran autwn" (B) due to assimilation to v. 12 as noted in Nestle-Aland 27th ed.
Mt 2:13 Alteration of "fainetai kat onar" to "kat onar efanh" (B) due to assimilation to 1:20 as noted in NA27.
Mt 8:9 Addition of "tassomenos" (Aleph B) due to harmonization as noted in NA27.
Mt 8:13 Addition of "kai upostreyas o ekatontarcos eis ton oikon autou en auth th wra euren ton paida ugiainonta" (Aleph*) due to harmonization as noted in NA27.
Mt 8:23 Omission of "to" (B) due to harmonization as noted in NA27.
Mt 8:29 Alteration of "pro kairou basanisai hmas" to "hmas apolesai pro kairou" (Aleph*) due to harmonization as noted in NA27.
Mt 9:6 Alteration of "egerqeis" to "egeire" (B) due to harmonization as noted in NA27.
Mt 9:17 Alteration of "alla ballousin oinon neon eis askous kainous" to "all oinon neon eis askous kainous blhteon" (Aleph) due to harmonization as noted in NA27.
Mt 14:22 Addition of "autou" (B) due to harmonization as noted in NA27.
Mt 15:27 Omission of "gar" (B) due to harmonization as noted in NA27.
Mt 15:38 Addition of "ws" (B) due to harmonization as noted in NA27.
Mt 16:5 Inversion of "artous labein" (B) due to harmonization as noted in NA27.
Mt 16:20 Alteration of "diesteilato" to "epetimhsen" (B*) due to harmonization as noted in NA27.
Mt 17:23 Alteration of "egerqhsetai" to "anasthsetai" (B) due to harmonization as noted in NA27.
Mt 19:9 Omission of "oti" (B) due to harmonization as noted in NA27.
Mt 19:9 Alteration of "mh epi porneia kai gamhsh allhn moicatai" to "parektos logou porneias poiei authn moiceuqhnai" (B) due to assimilation to 5:32 as noted in NA27.
Mt 19:16 Alteration of "poihsw ina scw zwhn aiwnion" to "poihsas zwhn aiwnion klhronomhsw" (Aleph) due to harmonization as noted in NA27.
Mt 20:23 Alteration of "kai" to "h" (B) due to harmonization as noted in NA27.
Mt 20:26 Alteration of "estai" to "estin" (B) due to harmonization as noted in NA27.
Mt 20:31 Alteration of "elehson hmas kurie" to "kurie elehson hmas" (Aleph B) due to assimilation to v. 30 as noted in NA27.
Mt 24:10 Alteration of "kai mishsousin allhlous" to "eis qliyin" (Aleph) due to assimilation to v. 9 as noted in NA27.
Mt 24:24 Omission of "megala" (Aleph) due to harmonization as noted in NA27.
Mt 24:29 Alteration of "apo" to "ek" (Aleph) due to harmonization as noted in NA27.
Mt 24:39 Omission of "kai" (B) due to assimilation to v. 37 as noted in NA27.
Mt 25:40 Omission of "twn adelfwn mou" (B*) due to assimilation to v. 45 as noted in NA27.
Mt 26:7 Alteration of "barutimou" to "polutimou" (Aleph) due to harmonization as noted in NA27.
Mt 27:5 Addition of "triakonta" (Aleph) due to assimilation to v. 3 as noted in NA27.
Mt 27:42 Alteration of "pisteusomen" to "pisteuswmen" (Aleph) due to harmonization as noted in NA27.
Mt 27:46 Alteration of "anebohsen" to "ebohsen" (B) due to harmonization as noted in NA27.
Mt 27:49 Addition of "allos de labwn logchn enuxen autou thn pleuran, kai exhlqen udwr kai aima" (Aleph B) due to assimilation to Jn 19:34 as noted in NA27.

It should be noted that the above is a very selective list. Actual collations of the Alexandrians against the Byzantines reveal many more aberrations than these.

I have no problem saying the Byzantine text emanated from a single MS. My problem is that Hort never proved that the text contained within the Byzantine MSS is secondary all or even most of the time. His actual number of examples "proving" the Byzantines' secondary nature was surprisingly few. One could just as easily collect just as many examples of the secondary nature of the Alexandrians, as I have briefly scoured the critical text of Matthew above, and also show that they are connected to a single ancient but nevertheless secondary archetype, and then say they should be dismissed outright before any conclusion on any given variation unit should be reached.

Cheers, Bluefalcon

 

Since what is more difficult to the eye of a scribe 1500 years ago is in the eye of the beholder and can be argued either way by any number of creative scholars, the difference is that Bengel would prefer a harder reading regardless of transmissional probabilities, e.g., even if a harder reading is isolated in Egypt with no other paternal or versional support, it may still be preferred. The external evidence, however, must first decide whether or not the internal criterion should even be appealed to in any situation. If a reading is isolated and thus obviously later than the more catholic and widespread reading, no matter how hard a reading is it is to be rejected, taking notice that the scribes in Egypt did not speak Greek and were thus more likely to make errors that would seem to be harder readings completely by nature.

Cheers, Bluefalcon

 

BF: If a reading is isolated and thus obviously later than the more catholic and widespread reading, no matter how hard a reading is it is to be rejected

Bentley long ago said "there is no manuscript stronger than common sense." I suspect you are correct on that score.

But what if a "more difficult" reading is *not* found in an isolated region or versional tradition, but is show to exist among, say, the Egyptian MSS, the Old Latin, the Syriac versions, and various early patristic witnesses -- and yet such a reading differs from the Byzantine tradition? On what legitimate grounds should one reject such a collection of widespread authorities which retain a scribally "more difficult" reading when the Byzantine tradition retains the scribally "easier" reading?

 

DocC (quoting Robinson): the essential archetype of the Byzantine Textform might not in fact be the autograph text itself rather than a later branch of the stemma.

If so, Doc, the Byzantine text would still derive from a single MS -- just that MS would be the autograph of a given NT book as opposed to some later MS. So BF should not be criticized on that point.