Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: ms 2 and the TR

Expand Messages
  • Robert B. Waltz
    On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, Timothy John Finney ... This isn t really all that important (though it would be interesting). I was just
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 30, 1997
      On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, Timothy John Finney <finney@...>

      >Thanks to Mike Arcieri for the concise information on Erasmus' use of mss.
      >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.

      This isn't really all that important (though it would be interesting).
      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 of
      >Erasmus' text. I don't have the actual text of any of his editions in
      >electronic form.

      This, too, could affect things a bit. All editions of the TR are
      *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 61
      >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.

      The above is hardly surprising (though 739 and 1881 should have stood
      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 promise
      >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.

      Have a good trip, and don't worry about it. I was lecturing the list,
      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)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.