7825RE: [textualcriticism] Frequency of variants for different NT books
- May 6, 2013
Steven, thanks for the reply. At the moment I AM interested in all mss, whether papyrus, uncials, etc., in all languages. This is because I’m interested (among other things) in how particular variants may have spread geography. I really want to actually ignore whether a variant is classified as Western, Alexandrian, etc., and what Westcott, Hort, or anyone else may have thought, until AFTER I’ve grouped the variants according to the criteria I’m testing out. Only after that do I want to start thinking about whether Bezae (or any other ms) is particularly significant, what other people thought, etc. to see whether there are any correlations or not.
David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Steven Avery
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 8:17 AM
Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Frequency of variants for different NT books
David, we basically largely the same points in two overlapping posts. Note the seven problems in the previous post in trying to pin down the general question of variant statistics. I left those on the bottom of this post.
(If anybody wants to improve those categories, please do so, I think that question has been under-whelmingly studied in the past.)
Steven, thanks for the reply, but I don’t think the links are going to be much help with what I’m trying to do. In particular, any site that is not looking at mss, but instead at what people have selected as ‘their’ preferred variants (which is what the CT/MT/RT do) is going to miss a lot of detail.
This is definitely the case, but that still remains a good starting point. And should give representative proportions, book-by-book, which was a major part of your original request. Remember, you were surprised the abundance of Matthew on one Wiki site, but that looks like simply the aberration of working with a partial study.
Also, unless the site gives me details at the ms level, instead of editions, then it’s not going to help. For example, Gary’s site (and other similar ones) don’t mention Lk 22:17-20,
Luke 22:17-20 (AV)
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
The Western non-interpolations, from Bezae and Latin western evidences, will always be a bit of a fly in the ointment (as will Bezae in Acts as I mentioned). Note though, that a Critical Text comparison that uses Westcott-Hort might not miss this one, depending on how they interpret the W-H double brackets. And if the comparison works with earlier CT editions before NA-26 then they will be covered well.
Note also, though that three are a total of less than 10 of these western omissions that were seriously considered even by Hort.
because the MT variant is used in almost all Greek editions, and I really need to take all the versions into account as well, so I need to look at mss.
And I think what you are really saying is you want to look at Codex Bezae as == in significance to Vaticanus and Bezae. Historically afaik that has three aspects.
1) Hortian fascination with western non-interpolations
2) Western text aficionados like Francis Crawford Burkitt & William Lawrence Petersen
3) Ehrmanesque (along with Daniel Wallace) continued Bezae fascination -- manifested on selected variants like Mark 1:41
When you ask about going to the ms level you surely are not asking to look at all cursives, and probably not even all uncials? You simply are following the modern lead of considering Bezae differences as especially significant.
We should remember that three manuscripts Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Bezae, are of special significance in the theories of modern textual criticism. The question of whether you want your study to follow that lead should not be ignored, since it has a lot to do with any purported objectivity in approach. (You could expand the three to the "five great uncials" or "five old uncials" (Burgon) and include Alexandrinus and Ephraemi, the basic question would remain.)
I think my ideal would be all non-accidental translatable variants in all mss,
Again, I doubt that you really mean "all mss", not when the apparatus does its best to ignore variants that are principally in the Byzantine tradition yet are not present significantly in the Alexandrian tradition.
but I suspect I’ll have to create such a list myself. I’ll probably start with Wieland Willker, as I always find him very useful
And I am curious what you plan to add to the existing lists other than :
a) lesser variants that are visible on LaParola or another apparatus, especially if there are multiple variants in a verse
b) Codex Bezae "Western" specialties
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>