On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, "Amy Anderson" <ANDERASA@...
>In reference to the bit of discussion recently on the differences
>between TR and Majority text, etc., could someone provide a simple
>definition of the following terms which helps to keep them
>differentiated? I mean, really simple, like no more than 4 sentences
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 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.)
When the reference is to a particular *book*, it will usually be to the
edition by Hodges & Farstad.
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.)
The term should not be, but often is, equated with the TR.
Refers technically to Von Soden's K text, which is more or less the
Byzantine text. However, the term is often used loosely for any of
the above three texts.
>The next question would be if all/most text critics agree on these
I think I've covered that. Everyone agrees about "TR." Almost all
would agree about "Majority Text." The other two are fuzzier.
I hope this helps.
Robert B. Waltz
Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn