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

Late Byz variants in James

Expand Messages
  • David Palmer
    I finished my analysis of the Byzantine variants in the Epistle of James.  In James there are thirty-nine (39) Byzantine variants that first appear in a Greek
    Message 1 of 11 , Jul 14, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      I finished my analysis of the Byzantine variants in the Epistle of James.  In James there are thirty-nine (39) Byzantine variants that first appear in a Greek manuscript only in the 9th century or later. The number of those that have no witness of any kind prior to the 9th century is sixteen (16).  I think either of these qualifies as MANY, especially because the situation is much the same with other New Testament books.

      You can download a detailed PDF of those James variants.  In case you are wondering, I did not cite Coptic manuscripts, because as far as I can tell, the main Coptic manuscripts for James are dated X-XII century.  If somebody reads this who is a Coptic specialist, I would love to be more certainly informed.  The different variants are found in different Coptic fragments, and I don't know the dates of most of the 1 or 2-page fragmentary ones.

      http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/ByzVarJames.pdf

      If you want to read my pdf of the whole Epistle of James with variant footnotes, that is http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/jameswgrk.pdf
       
      David Robert Palmer
      http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/
    • Peter Streitenberger
      One could get through your list from the beginning. Just to mention your first example: The first Byz reading OUK in James 1,5 is attested in Greek much
      Message 2 of 11 , Jul 15, 2014
      • 0 Attachment

        One could get through your list from the beginning. Just to mention your first example:

        The first Byz reading OUK in James 1,5 is attested in Greek much earlier (5th century), e.g. in the Cantenae (see: A. Cramer, Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum, vol. 8. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1840 (repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1967): 1-40.).

        In the first period of transmission there are not much MSS for either textform (in case you can call the critical text a textform at all, as their MS are not representing a distinguished text, but are highly disparate), that’s why patristic writings play a bigger role. So your list could be revised in that matter, otherwise you’d leave out the early data attested by early writings and miss the real date of a reading.

        Then the date of MS is not the essential point, as this is the age of the text itself. The MS can be old but very poor (P66). As the Autographs remained in the place of the addressees (Tertullian, Chronicon Paschale), even later copies could be better than earlier (it couldn’t be worse than the early P66 and colleagues). I can’t fancy your argument, that early church writers should be left out due to the reasons you gave. One gets the impression that the bulk of Greek MSS came into being out of nothing without earlier ancestors. And what about the countless scribal errors in the Alex. MSS? So is old necessarily good quality?

        Yours
        Peter

        Von: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com]
        Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. Juli 2014 04:56
        An: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Betreff: [textualcriticism] Late Byz variants in James

         

         

        I finished my analysis of the Byzantine variants in the Epistle of James.  In James there are thirty-nine (39) Byzantine variants that first appear in a Greek manuscript only in the 9th century or later. The number of those that have no witness of any kind prior to the 9th century is sixteen (16).  I think either of these qualifies as MANY, especially because the situation is much the same with other New Testament books.

        You can download a detailed PDF of those James variants.  In case you are wondering, I did not cite Coptic manuscripts, because as far as I can tell, the main Coptic manuscripts for James are dated X-XII century.  If somebody reads this who is a Coptic specialist, I would love to be more certainly informed.  The different variants are found in different Coptic fragments, and I don't know the dates of most of the 1 or 2-page fragmentary ones.

        http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/ByzVarJames.pdf

        If you want to read my pdf of the whole Epistle of James with variant footnotes, that is http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/jameswgrk.pdf

         

        David Robert Palmer
        http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/

      • Mr. Buck
        David, First of all let me say that I appreciate the work you are doing. When your text of 1 John came out I studied it diligently and your collation of the
        Message 3 of 11 , Jul 15, 2014
        • 0 Attachment
          David,

          First of all let me say that I appreciate the work you are doing. When your text of 1 John came out I studied it diligently and your collation of the Johannine Comma was very helpful. Keep up the good work!

          Now in regards to the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, yes--it is clear that the Masoretic Text (all 5000 extant manuscripts of which date to the 9th century or later) is a recension. But the 1000 or so mss that have been dug up from the Judean Desert show that in a dozen different ways, manuscripts of the first and second century BCE already bore characteristics that showed up a millennium or two later in the manuscripts of the Masoretic text (which continues to be copied to the same exacting standards of a millennium ago). So by the same token, readings which are found across the board beginning in the 9th century and increasing into the following centuries in the Byzantine manuscript could reasonably have existed in manuscripts of the first and second centuries CE.

          Analogous to the early church writers, take the Germanic language family, which had its own runic alphabet called Futhorc. Until recent decades this language was unattested in any manuscripts or inscriptions prior to the 3rd or 4th century. Yet we had the witness of (granted, medieval manuscripts of) Julius Caesar testifying to the existence of the Germanic peoples and their language in the 1st century BCE. It would have been utterly foolish to refuse to admit to the existence of Germans literate in their own language any earlier than the 4th century, just because that's the earliest dated examples we happened to have on hand--as if the German runic alphabet just sprung into existence from nothing at that date.

          Foolish indeed, because in recent decades, runic inscriptions have been found which have pushed that date one, then two, now even three centuries closer to the evidence passed down by Julius Caesar. 

          This is exactly what has happened to the phrase EPI THN GHN from Luke 44. Up until the mid-19th century, it was considered a Western/Byzantine reading attested in Codex Bezae but missing from every other early manuscript. Then--surprise! It was found in the original hand of that bastion of neutrality, Codex  Sinaiticus. Then along came a few more testaments to its omission, like p69 and W, to ensure that its presence in Aleph was just a fluke. But what about the patristic evidence? Justin, Irenaeus, and Tatian all testified to its presence in the 2nd century, and there was a lot of early back-and-forth about how it was missing in Egyptian copies but otherwise well known, even to a 4th-century Roman emperor. It would have been really stupid to claim, on the basis of a shared omission in a majority of Alexandrian mss, that EPI THN GHN couldn't have been in the earliest manuscripts.

          Now, we have 0171, arguably the earliest extant manuscript of Luke 22, and there it is in plain view--EPI THN GHN.

          Now, Luke is much better attested in the early manuscripts than is James--which is why the Claremont Profile Method is based on three chapters of Luke rather than three chapters of James. It is therefore very unreasonable to pick James as an example of a book which is riddled with Byzantine readings which sprang into existence in the medieval period, when we have the testimony of early writers that they in fact existed many centuries earlier.  Transfer that claim to Luke, and you would find your argument evaporating in the face of contrary evidence.

           
          Daniel Buck

          Von: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. Juli 2014 04:56
          Betreff: [textualcriticism] Late Byz variants in James
           
          I finished my analysis of the Byzantine variants in the Epistle of James.  In James there are thirty-nine (39) Byzantine variants that first appear in a Greek manuscript only in the 9th century or later. The number of those that have no witness of any kind prior to the 9th century is sixteen (16).  I think either of these qualifies as MANY, especially because the situation is much the same with other New Testament books.

          You can download a detailed PDF of those James variants.  In case you are wondering, I did not cite Coptic manuscripts, because as far as I can tell, the main Coptic manuscripts for James are dated X-XII century.  If somebody reads this who is a Coptic specialist, I would love to be more certainly informed.  The different variants are found in different Coptic fragments, and I don't know the dates of most of the 1 or 2-page fragmentary ones.

          http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/ByzVarJames.pdf

          If you want to read my pdf of the whole Epistle of James with variant footnotes, that is http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/jameswgrk.pdf
           
          David Robert Palmer
          http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/


        • Atef Wagih
          Hi All, Can you please help me with the apparatus of 1 Corinthians 7:12? I am interested to see if there are manuscripts  that omit the phrase  (I, not the
          Message 4 of 11 , Jul 25, 2014
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi All,

            Can you please help me with the apparatus of 1 Corinthians 7:12?

            I am interested to see if there are manuscripts  that omit the phrase " (I, not the Lord)"

            Also, if there are any studies about this pharse, can you please direct me to them?

            Thank you very much.

            In Christ,
            Atef Raouf
          • kanakawatut
            Peter wrote: Yes, you only mentioned my first example. But that
            Message 5 of 11 , Sep 9, 2014
            • 0 Attachment
              Peter wrote:

              << One could get through your list from the beginning. Just to mention your first example: >>

              Yes, you only mentioned my first example.  But that is a very valuable resource you referred me to; thank-you very much Peter.  I will investigate all these readings there.

              << In the first period of transmission there are not much MSS for either textform (in case you can call the critical text a textform at all, as their MS are not representing a distinguished text, but are highly disparate), that’s why patristic writings play a bigger role. So your list could be revised in that matter, otherwise you’d leave out the early data attested by early writings and miss the real date of a reading. >>

              I will most certainly revise my list if I come across evidence of a patristic attestation I'm not currently aware of.

              << Then the date of MS is not the essential point, as this is the age of the text itself. The MS can be old but very poor (P66). As the Autographs remained in the place of the addressees (Tertullian, Chronicon Paschale), even later copies could be better than earlier (it couldn’t be worse than the early P66 and colleagues). I can’t fancy your argument, that early church writers should be left out due to the reasons you gave. One gets the impression that the bulk of Greek MSS came into being out of nothing without earlier ancestors. And what about the countless scribal errors in the Alex. MSS? So is old necessarily good quality? >>

              Agreed, Peter, that age does not mean quality.  Yes, P66 and Sinaiticus are poor scribage, and P66 is wild.  But age is still important, surely. The closer it was to the time of the original writing, the less time and opportunity for corruption.

              I think I gave you the wrong impression about the patristic writings.  I mainly mean to say that they are not as important as actual Greek New Testament manuscripts, and on that I thought all text critics agree.

              David Robert Palmer
              http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/
            • kanakawatut
              Peter, I download Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum Volume 8, which contains James and 1 Peter. I went to James 1:5, and it looks to me like a
              Message 6 of 11 , Sep 9, 2014
              • 0 Attachment
                Peter, I download Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum Volume 8, which contains James and 1 Peter.  I went to James 1:5, and it looks to me like a modern Byzantine edition of the New Testament text, followed by commentary. 

                I admit lack of knowledge about this work, and I ask you and every other reader, what is the evidence that this GNT text in Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum is "5th century" as you claim, Peter?  I don't see it.

                And if there is 5th century patristic evidence for OUK in James 1:5, then why is it not listed in the Editio Critica Maior, which I possess and used as the basis for my list?

                Thanks.

                David Robert Palmer
              • kanakawatut
                Daniel, thank-you for your kind words. I am not an Alexandrian-onlyist by any means. Anyone who has downloaded and read my documents has seen that I adopt
                Message 7 of 11 , Sep 9, 2014
                • 0 Attachment
                  Daniel, thank-you for your kind words.

                  I am not an Alexandrian-onlyist by any means.  Anyone who has downloaded and read my documents has seen that I adopt many Byzantine readings in my translations contrary to the NA27.  I also accept the 2 or 3 instances in the NA28 where those editors went with a Byzantine reading not attested before the 9th century.

                  I just finished doing the same analysis on 1 Peter that I had done on James.

                  OK, there are 39 Byzantine variants in the First Epistle of Peter that do not show up in a Greek manuscript until the 9th century.  Of those, 18 have no pre-9th century support of any kind.

                  In the James list, I added early Latin support to one of them, which I had not seen because of how the ECM apparatus works.  So now there are 39 Byzantine variants in the Epistle of James that do not show up in a Greek manuscript until the 9th century.  Of those, 15 have no pre-9th century support of any kind.

                  I noticed that in another forum someone accused me of cherry-picking the book of James, because that of all books would be my strongest case for my point. Not so.  Now we see 1 Peter is stronger for my point.

                  The reason I am doing this analysis on James and 1 Peter is because I can; that is, I have access to an apparatus that shows all the witnesses prior to the 9th century.  I have no such resource for Romans, for example.  Now, Revelation I can do, and that will be even less pre-9th century support for Byzantine readings than these Catholic epistles.

                  The reason I list variants that do have pre-9th century versional or ECW support but no Greek mss support, is because I am interested in what happened to the transmission process of the Byzantine text type, in Greek manuscripts.  All of a sudden hundreds of readings show up in the 9th century that are not in earlier manuscripts, and I want to know what happened to the exemplars for the uncials K, L, P, 049, 0142 etc.

                  Here is an updated PDF showing both James and 1 Peter

                  I have completed my full 1 Peter with Greek document, and it has a critical apparatus on most all the important variants, and in it I also cite the reading of the newly released Byzantine Greek New Testament, which is the Family 35 edition basically.  In addition to TR, Tregelles, W&H, Von Soden, Antoniades, SBL, Robinson-Pierpont, NA28.  So nine GNT editions.

                  I have also updated my Greek manuscripts page, so that now even an old Latin manuscript no longer says something like "gospels" and now spells out which chapters and verses are included.

                  David Robert Palmer
                • kanakawatut
                  Oops. I see the link I posted for the James and 1 Peter variants http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/ByzVar9thCent.pdf list does not work. Here it is:
                  Message 8 of 11 , Sep 9, 2014
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Oops.  I see the link I posted for the James and 1 Peter variants list does not work.

                    Here it is: http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/ByzVar9thCent.pdf

                    David Robert Palmer
                  • kanakawatut
                    Hello Atef, I looked up that passage in Swanson and the NA28, and not a single manuscript omits that phrase. The only variation among the manuscripts is the
                    Message 9 of 11 , Sep 9, 2014
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hello Atef,
                      I looked up that passage in Swanson and the NA28, and not a single manuscript omits that phrase.  The only variation among the manuscripts is the sequence of the words, with no resultant difference in meaning.

                      The phrase is very straight-forward in meaning.

                      David Robert Palmer
                    • bucksburg
                      Thank you for your work, David. I don t know quite what to make of it, as a lot of it seems to be an argument from silence--but you have provided some very
                      Message 10 of 11 , Sep 9, 2014
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thank you for your work, David. I don't know quite what to make of it, as a lot of it seems to be an argument from silence--but you have provided some very useful data for someone to work with.

                        Is there any way you can demonstrate how some of these unknown-before-9th-century readings came into existence?  What would really be helpful would be a scenario in which transcribing from uncial to miniscule could account for a new reading in the Greek; for example, perhaps in a numeral. Would

                        In a similar way, it's possible to show (e.g. in 1Sam 1:24) that the shift between some sort of scriptura continua and the Assyrian script (which shift predates any OT mss older than the 9th century) led to a new reading in the Hebrew.

                        I specialize in OTTC so I'm used to looking at a text that isn't extant before the 9th century and visualizing how it would have read in the archetype. At some point I'd like to expand that process to the NT, or at least encourage others to do so.

                        Daniel Buck 
                      • David Palmer
                        I m beginning to think that the Byzantine text stream shows characteristics of an eclectic edition, drawing from the Greek manuscripts, church fathers, and the
                        Message 11 of 11 , Sep 27, 2014
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I'm beginning to think that the Byzantine text stream shows characteristics of an eclectic edition, drawing from the Greek manuscripts, church fathers, and the Versions: Latin and Syriac.  On top of that, harmonizations, and liturgical additions.  In fact, the Byzantine text stream seems to me a giant attempt at general harmonization.  That said, the other streams have many errors, and the Byzantine is a way to help correct those errors.  Unfortunately, the Latin and Syriac translations often contained poor and incorrect renderings, so incorporating their readings often leads to an erroneous reading in the Byzantine Greek text.

                          I am going to start listing readings in the Byzantine that I consider to be corruptions from trying to integrate the old Versions into the eclectic edition.  First example: 1 Peter 4:3a, where the Byzantine adds the words TOU BIOU, which are not found in any witness of any kind prior to the 9th century.  I think the phrase τοῦ βίου arose from a misunderstanding or a mis-translation of the phrases in the Latin manuscripts that were in turn translations of the Greek word πεπορευμένους, “go on in,” which immediately follows the text here; i.e., the Latin versions rendered πεπορευμένους as ambulantes or ambulaverunt and these were in turn at some point understood as “walking/living in” those things or a “way of life”, and some time subsequently, the Byzantine text acquired and accreted the phrase τοῦ βίου therefrom as an attempt to cover all bases and harmonize everything, a misguided attempt.
                           
                          David Robert Palmer
                          http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/


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