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

Comparing Byz and TR in the Gospels

Expand Messages
  • james_snapp_jr
    The Textus Receptus was the collation-base for many collations. The exact identity of which TR (Stephanus or Elzevir), and of which edition, may vary among
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 4, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      The Textus Receptus was the collation-base for many collations. The exact identity of which TR (Stephanus or Elzevir), and of which edition, may vary among collators; nevertheless, it's still the TR. And those collations are still useful. The idea has probably occurred to a lot of textual critics, though, that it would be better to compare the text of a specific MS to the Byzantine Text itself, instead of to the TR, so that one can immediately see how Byzantine or non-Byzantine a MS' text is, instead of seeing how similar it is to the TR.

      But are the differences between the TR and the Byzantine Text really so great that remarkably different results will be obtained if one uses Byz, instead of the TR, or the TR instead of Byz, as a gauge of a MS' text's normality? One might think so when considering, for instance, Daniel Wallace's statement that there are 1,838 differences between the TR and the Majority Text. But in the Gospels, if we trust data prepared by Jussi Ala-Konni in Finland in 2006, the TR looks pretty strongly Byzantine. Jussi Ala-Konni submitted a comparison between Scrivener's 1881 (1884?) edition of the TR and the 2005 edition of the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Text. I did not check this data. Jussi Ala-Konni stated that movable nu and sigma are not included in the list.

      Here is a summary of the comparison for the Gospels:

      In Matthew, there are 159 differences between RP2005 and Scriv1881. But 109 of those differences are either the kind of mistakes that two copyists could make copying from the same exemplar (involving itacism, orthography, word-division, and parableptic error), or, in four cases, occur where Byz is divided. 46 are distinctive disagreements.

      In Mark, there are 142 differences between RP2005 and Scriv1881. But 69 are either the kind of mistakes that two copyists could make copying from the same exemplar (involving itacism, orthography, word-division, and parableptic error), or, in 11 cases, occur where Byz is divided. 73 are distinctive disagreements.

      In Luke, there are 221 differences between RP2005 and Scriv1881. But 67 are either the kind of mistakes that two copyists could make copying from the same exemplar (involving itacism, orthography, word-division, and parableptic error), or, in 15 cases, occur where Byz is divided. 140 are distinctive disagreements.

      In John, there are 158 differences between RP2005 and Scriv1881. But 51 are either the kind of mistakes that two copyists could make copying from the same exemplar (involving itacisms, orthography, word-division, and parableptic error), or occur where Byz is divided. 107 are distinctive disagreements.

      So in the Gospels as a whole, Scrivener's TR varies from R-P's Byz 680 times, and in 366 of these cases, the TR contains a distinctly non-Byzantine reading (i.e., a reading that implies non-Byzantine ancestry).

      How big a difference is that? Well, between NA25 and NA27, there are 115 differences in Mt., 82 differences in Mk., 97 differences in Luke, and 114 differences in Jn. -- 408 in all. But I'm pretty sure that the textual character of any MS could be identified confidently whether it was collated against NA25 or against NA27. So the 680 differences (or, the 366 distinct differences) between Scrivener's TR and R-P's Byz in the Gospels probably are not big enough, collectively, to obscure the textual character of complete Gospels-MSS collated against the TR.

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
    • Bob Relyea
      ... These are actually pretty good numbers, and I think it makes the case *FOR* using a Byzantine lie RP2005 ... So when you collate, you are looking at only
      Message 2 of 2 , Feb 6, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        On 02/04/2011 07:20 PM, james_snapp_jr wrote:
        > The Textus Receptus was the collation-base for many collations. The exact identity of which TR (Stephanus or Elzevir), and of which edition, may vary among collators; nevertheless, it's still the TR. And those collations are still useful. The idea has probably occurred to a lot of textual critics, though, that it would be better to compare the text of a specific MS to the Byzantine Text itself, instead of to the TR, so that one can immediately see how Byzantine or non-Byzantine a MS' text is, instead of seeing how similar it is to the TR.
        >
        > But are the differences between the TR and the Byzantine Text really so great that remarkably different results will be obtained if one uses Byz, instead of the TR, or the TR instead of Byz, as a gauge of a MS' text's normality?
        >

        These are actually pretty good numbers, and I think it makes the case
        *FOR* using a Byzantine lie RP2005
        > Here is a summary of the comparison for the Gospels:
        >
        > In Matthew, there are 159 differences between RP2005 and Scriv1881. But 109 of those differences are either the kind of mistakes that two copyists could make copying from the same exemplar (involving itacism, orthography, word-division, and parableptic error), or, in four cases, occur where Byz is divided. 46 are distinctive disagreements.
        >
        > In Mark, there are 142 differences between RP2005 and Scriv1881. But 69 are either the kind of mistakes that two copyists could make copying from the same exemplar (involving itacism, orthography, word-division, and parableptic error), or, in 11 cases, occur where Byz is divided. 73 are distinctive disagreements.
        >
        > In Luke, there are 221 differences between RP2005 and Scriv1881. But 67 are either the kind of mistakes that two copyists could make copying from the same exemplar (involving itacism, orthography, word-division, and parableptic error), or, in 15 cases, occur where Byz is divided. 140 are distinctive disagreements.
        >
        > In John, there are 158 differences between RP2005 and Scriv1881. But 51 are either the kind of mistakes that two copyists could make copying from the same exemplar (involving itacisms, orthography, word-division, and parableptic error), or occur where Byz is divided. 107 are distinctive disagreements.
        >
        > So in the Gospels as a whole, Scrivener's TR varies from R-P's Byz 680 times, and in 366 of these cases, the TR contains a distinctly non-Byzantine reading (i.e., a reading that implies non-Byzantine ancestry).
        So when you collate, you are looking at only the differences. If R-P is
        a good representation of they typical Byzantine tradition, then your
        analysis says that the typical Byzantine manuscript will likely have
        about 700 differences between it and the TR, of which roughly 1/2 will
        be TR specific.
        >
        >
        > How big a difference is that? Well, between NA25 and NA27, there are 115 differences in Mt., 82 differences in Mk., 97 differences in Luke, and 114 differences in Jn. -- 408 in all. But I'm pretty sure that the textual character of any MS could be identified confidently whether it was collated against NA25 or against NA27. So the 680 differences (or, the 366 distinct differences) between Scrivener's TR and R-P's Byz in the Gospels probably are not big enough, collectively, to obscure the textual character of complete Gospels-MSS collated against the TR.
        >

        There's no question that the TR is in the Byzantine family, and
        certainly a TR collation will determine if a given manuscript is
        Byzantine or not, but that is not always the question we want to answer.
        For non-Byzantine manuscripts the 360 odd TR specific differences are
        not likely to be significant (compared to heir differences to the
        Byzantine base text), but for Byzantine manuscripts, they introduce
        unnecessary noise into trying to classify manuscripts in their subfamilies.

        bob
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.