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

Re: [textualcriticism] Comparing Byz and TR in the Gospels

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.