Re: ms 2 and the TR
- On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, Timothy John Finney <finney@...>
>Thanks to Mike Arcieri for the concise information on Erasmus' use of mss.This isn't really all that important (though it would be interesting).
>In reply to Bob Waltz's questions:
>(1) I don't know how many differences between the TR and ms 2 there are
>yet. I'm still trying to write that collation program! Hopefully I will
>be able to answer this question soon, for Hebrews at least.
I was just pointing out that, while Erasmus based his work mostly on
2, he *did* edit the result. So there would be a fair number of
readings where the TR does not agree with 2.
>(2) I use the electronic edition of the TR as an approximation ofThis, too, could affect things a bit. All editions of the TR are
>Erasmus' text. I don't have the actual text of any of his editions in
*not* the same. They're close, but by no means identical. Based on
the information in Scrivener, it appears that random editions of the
Textus Receptus may disagree at up to 300 points. A few of these
differences are substantial (I can't cite instances off the top
of my head, but I remember somewhere a case of a whole clause
found in Elzevir and missing in Stephanus). A disproportionate
fraction of these divergences are in the Apocalypse -- but by
no means all of them!
>By the way Bob, I finally got to the point where I could analyse your 61The above is hardly surprising (though 739 and 1881 should have stood
>variant survey of Hebrews. The results were much the same as those
>obtained using the 44 units given in UBS4. They show that there are a few
>outliers such as P46, B, 1739, 1881, D (06), and Aleph, then a great
>cloud of witnesses that are all like each other.
fairly close together). The problem, in my opinion, is not these good
high-class manuscripts such as p46, B, D, 1739, but the marginal ones --
the 330s and 1611s of the world. In a sample of 40-70 readings they
might separate from the Byzantine text in 10-15 places. But if they
agree with B seven times (say), and with Aleph in eight, and with
D in six, how are we to tell what influences (other than the
Byzantine) they have experienced?
This is why I maintain we need much larger samples than we use.
Which, BTW, is not a condemnation of Tim -- after all, he's using
data I sent him. :-) I'm just pointing out a methodological weakness.
The less pure the witness, the larger the sample we need to analyse
it. But there is a lot of interest in those impure samples, since 330
and 1611 and the like *may* belong to undiscovered text-types.
Pontification mode off. :-)
>I am very pressed for time at the moment so I can't do more than promiseHave a good trip, and don't worry about it. I was lecturing the list,
>more information after I get back from a trip to England for a two
>week summer school, then to Brazil for two weeks to see my wife's family.
not Tim. :-)
Robert B. Waltz
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)