On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" <rminton@...
>Dr. Waltz, very good summary, I also add my $0.02 :)
Just have to remind everyone that I am not a doctor, nor even a
seminarian. Just a person trained in Physics and Math and gifted (?)
with a bog mouth (or, in this case, keyboard).
>> TR = Textus Receptus. An edition substantially identical to that which
>> Erasmus published in the early sixteenth century. The most widely
>> mentioned TR editions are those of Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir, and the
>> Oxford edition of 1873.
>The Oxford 1825 was used by H&F, so has become a convenient TR used by many.
The Oxford editions are the basis for most recent collations. And
it's a good thing that H&F list their readings, because they aren't
easy to find any more!
>> >Majority Text
>> The text found in the majority of manuscripts. Usually the same as
>> the TR, but there are some thousands of differences. (E.g. the
>> Majority Text does not include the Three Heavenly Witnesses in 1 John 5.)
>c. 1850 differences.
That's the number of differences that Wallace finds between the TR and
H&F. But I would note that H&F is *not* the Majority Text; it's a
preliminary edition. It's based mostly on von Soden.
At this time, with so many manuscripts uncollated, we don't actually
*know* the reading of the Majority Text at some points. There are
probably a few places where H&F (or Robinson) print a reading which
is not a majority reading. I would guess there are fewer than a hundred
such, but there are undoubtedly some.
>> >Byzantine Text
>> This is more difficult. It could mean the Majority Text. It could mean
>> the text used in Byzantium. I personally tend to use it to refer to the
>> original form of the text which eventually evolved into the Majority
>> Text. This text probably, but by no means certainly, evolved in
>> Byzantium. (BTW -- I use the term "Byzantine Text" in this way not
>> because this is necessarily the best meaning, but because we need
>> *some* name for this text.)
>I think of the Byz text as a textual family or text type, ie the
>hypothetical text behind the majority of manuscripts.
>Other names that are sometimes used for the above are: Received Text,
>Ecclesiastical Text, Syrian Text, "A" Text, Antiochan Text, Common Text,
I hereby propose, though, that we stick with "Byzantine text." It's
one of the oldest names, and it's less confusing than, say, Hort's
Robert B. Waltz
Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn