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

Re: Byzantine Text -- uses in textual criticism

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Buck
    ... which, if any of the above are correct? Each view appears to have some element of speculation..perhaps there is no way to avoid that?
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 9, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      "kmchess97" Ken wrote:

      > Is there any concrete factual data that can help me determine
      which,
      if any of the above are correct? Each view appears to have some
      element of speculation..perhaps there is no way to avoid that? <

      Speculation is an unavoidable by-product of partial study. The fact
      is, after centuries of textual criticism and thousands of catalogued
      manuscripts, we are still very ignorant as to the exact makeup of
      the text of the autographs. Since this is an unacceptable situation
      to most textual critics, their efforts are expended in getting as
      close to the archetype as possible, with speculation filling in the
      gaps between the facts.

      Hort was the first to successfully push the idea that the Byzantine
      readings were all the result of textual conflation and pious
      editing, and therefore of no use critically. Proto-Byzantine
      readings in the earliest papyri have since laid to rest the first
      part of his assertion, as Sturtz has shown. Further ms discoveries
      (such as, for example, an early papyrus of the Pericope Adultera)
      could serve to further undermine confidence in Hort's theories.

      On the other hand, a discovery like 2427, should doubts as to its
      authenticity be resolved in its favor, might serve to undermine the
      Byzantine Priority position. Byzantine advocates, however, would
      point out that the apparent 1000-year gap between 2427 and its
      nearest possible exemplar only strengthens their contention that mss
      of the early 2nd millennium represent immediate archetypes even
      older than those of the Alexandrian codices.

      The important thing to remember is that 99.9% of all manuscripts
      have been lost, and to precisely divide the fraction that remains
      into more-authentic and less-authentic copies of the originals is
      going to be fraught with speculation, no matter who does the
      dividing. And (with the exception of John 7:53-8:12 and the
      Apocalypse in Greek), only a fraction (currently approaching ½) of
      the remaining .01% of Greek mss, and a much smaller fraction of the
      thousands of mss in the other ancient languages, has ever been fully
      collated for any particular passage of the Scriptures. As more
      information comes in, the elevated role of speculation in textual
      criticism must give way either to documentation, or to dogma.

      Daniel Buck
    • Viktor Golinets
      Dear Daniel, you have written The important thing to remember is that 99.9% of all manuscripts have been lost, and to precisely divide the fraction that
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 10, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Daniel,
         
        you have written
         
        "The important thing to remember is that 99.9% of all manuscripts have been lost, and to precisely divide the fraction that remains into more-authentic and less-authentic copies of the originals is going to be fraught with speculation, no matter who does the dividing."
         
        Could you explain how was established the percentage (99.9%) of the lost manuscripts or the sum of all manuscripts? Do you know who has done this?
         
        Sincerely
        Viktor Golinets


        Viktor Golinets, M.A.
        Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München
        Institut für Semitistik


        Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB kostenlosem Speicher
      • Tony Zbaraschuk
        ... I think he s using a figure of speech here -- 99.9% means the vast majority. One possible benchmark is Eusebius comment that Constantinte wanted 300
        Message 3 of 5 , Sep 12, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 10:38:48PM +0200, Viktor Golinets wrote:
          > Dear Daniel,
          >
          > you have written
          >
          > "The important thing to remember is that 99.9% of all manuscripts have been lost, and to precisely divide the fraction that remains into more-authentic and less-authentic copies of the originals is going to be fraught with speculation, no matter who does the dividing."
          >
          > Could you explain how was established the percentage (99.9%) of the lost manuscripts or the sum of all manuscripts? Do you know who has done this?

          I think he's using a figure of speech here -- "99.9%" means "the vast
          majority."

          One possible benchmark is Eusebius' comment that Constantinte wanted
          300 copies of the Scriptures made for the churches in Constantinople.
          We have two that _might_ be survivors of this batch (Vaticanus and
          Sinaiticus, with more doubt in the latter case). 2/300 is perhaps
          closer to 99.67% than 99.9%, but the relative merit of the statement
          remains unaffected.


          Tony Zbaraschuk

          --
          "History will be kind to me. I intend to write it."
          --Sir Winston Churchill
        • voxverax
          Tony Zbaraschuk: Not to quibble, but Eusebius was instructed to produce 50, not 300, codices for Constantine. Unless Eusebius hired scribes from different
          Message 4 of 5 , Sep 15, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Tony Zbaraschuk:

            Not to quibble, but Eusebius was instructed to produce 50, not 300,
            codices for Constantine.

            Unless Eusebius hired scribes from different locales to make some of
            the codices, it seems unlikely to me, despite the stuff Skeat pointed
            out in his 1999 essay on the subject, that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
            were both produced under Eusebius' supervision; their scribes have
            different approaches to nomina sacra in the NT. If one or the other
            /is/ one of Eusebius' production-pieces, then we're looking at a 1-in-
            50 (2%) survival-rate of a 50-piece set of deluxe parchment codices
            sent (or originally intended to be sent) to Constantinople in the
            fourth century. Not that this really says anything about the likely
            survival-rate of papyrus copies made in Asia Minor in the second
            century.

            I think the important thing to remember, when one is gauging the
            value of the Byzantine/Majority Text, is that the transmission-stream
            was not uniform, and that several special factors -- material,
            location/climate, disposition of scribes, relic-stature of a MS (such
            as Codex Vercellensis), ability of MS-owners to read Greek, degree of
            Roman persecution in a particular area, and so forth -- must be taken
            into consideration. When they are taken into consideration, the
            transmission-stream may be effectively considered chaotic -- not
            altogether chaotic, and not at all times, but chaotic enough, often
            enough, early enough, to render a simple consideration of the number
            of MSS of a particular text-type meaningless as a gauge of the
            originality of that text-type.

            Yours in Christ,

            James E. Snapp, Jr.
            Curtisville Christian Church
            Indiana (USA)
            www.curtisvillechristian.org
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.