tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post1954731123702745258..comments2024-03-28T15:48:18.205+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: 135 Years Ago TodayP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-76482535447556311142016-05-16T20:09:54.389+01:002016-05-16T20:09:54.389+01:00Some clarifications are in order: the data I tabul...Some clarifications are in order: the data I tabulated includes <i>only</i> those variant units where the NA27 main text differs from the unified Byzantine (Gothic "M"). And yes, already included in those tabulations are those variant units where B is not extant but where NA27 does not follow Aleph. <br /><br />More importantly,there definitely are other variant unit locations where NA27 and Byz are in agreement, but where Aleph and B jointly differ from such -- these have <i>not</i> been tabulated as yet, but also likely represent a small number of variant units.<br /><br />Further, locations exist where the Byzantine text is divided (<i>"pm"</i> in the NA27 apparatus) in which Aleph and B might both depart from the NA27 main text -- once more, these have not yet been tabulated.<br /><br />As a result, I would expect there to be perhaps another hundred or so instances where NA27 does not follow Aleph or B. <br /><br />Eventually I will rosin up my bean-counter machine, and see what results; right now I can only surmise. Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-30819449450711778512016-05-14T13:55:37.505+01:002016-05-14T13:55:37.505+01:00To be more precise, Revelation was covered, so the...To be more precise, Revelation was covered, so the reduction would be the places in the latter third, approximately of Hebrews, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon where there is no Vaticanus reading. <br /><br />The most important number would be the total number of such places where Sinaiticus is not the NA27 reading, which would be a part of the 77. <br /><br />On a secondary basis it might be nice to examine the group for the nature of the divergence of Sinaiticus and NA27 in those spots, however simply seeing how many of the 77 are in that spot would be interesting. <br /><br />One other point would be interesting. In the remaining group (now we are getting to a small number) of true divergences of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus from NA27, how many of them represent spots where the NA27 text differs from the original Westcott-Hort recension text.<br /><br />Thanks for your research and numbers on this, especially to Professor Maurice Robinson, and also the astute comments of James E. Snapp, Jr. <br /><br />===<br /><br />Outside of all this, may I suggest we reconsider whether, in looking at the anniversary, there really is much "clarity and power of the argument in their introduction". Or in the logic of the presentation. Maybe some quotes with support would be helpful. Personally, I have missed this "clarity and power" but am open to having it attempted to be represented.<br /><br />Steven AverySteven Averyhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-11190321485568706932016-05-14T13:41:48.541+01:002016-05-14T13:41:48.541+01:00That 77 number, apparently does not include the re...That 77 number, apparently does not include the reduction for the places where Vaticanus is lacuna. <br /><br />And in many of those, Sinaiticus could be singular or so oddball that there really was no choice but to go to other manuscripts. So the 77 figure is going to be subject to significant reduction after what I would see as a proper adjustment for the places where there is no Vaticanus reading. <br /><br />Steven AverySteven Averyhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-49429917397302542512016-05-14T02:51:36.175+01:002016-05-14T02:51:36.175+01:00Maurice,
Do I understand correctly that, if your ...Maurice, <br />Do I understand correctly that, if your calculations are correct, the total number of readings in NA27's text that deviate from both B and Aleph in Matthew-Jude is 77? That seems impossible. <br /><br /><br />What an eclectic text! James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-30089836059599403272016-05-13T21:34:28.859+01:002016-05-13T21:34:28.859+01:00Addendum as a caveat: as I noted previously, those...Addendum as a caveat: as I noted previously, those data do <i>not</i> imply that all remaining readings supported by Aleph and/or B necessarily would represent the Alexandrian archetype, particularly in situations where the bulk of the remaining Alexandrian witnesses depart from Aleph and B. Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-57333155292518198102016-05-13T21:30:36.766+01:002016-05-13T21:30:36.766+01:00Ok, those data are easy enough for me to access, s...Ok, those data are easy enough for me to access, since I tabulated them long ago. The answer is that not much would be left (no surprise there, right?). <br /><br />My totals show that in the NA27 edition, the main text lacks precise support from either Aleph or B in 150 variant units (Byz being regarded as either the unified Gothic M or as "pm" divided among 2 or more readings; or in Revelation as divided between Ma and Mk).<br /><br />Not surprisingly, nearly half of these (73) reflect variant units in Revelation where Aleph does not support the NA27 main text (B in that book being totally absent). Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-2321141740306904792016-05-13T15:34:17.545+01:002016-05-13T15:34:17.545+01:00Maurice,
I rephrase: regarding Matthew-Jude: if...Maurice, <br />I rephrase: regarding Matthew-Jude: if one were to set aside all parts of NA27's text where it agrees with Byz, and then set aside all parts of NA27's text where its text is supported by B, or Aleph, or both, then, how much text would remain? (Perhaps some Logos-user has an easy way to find out.)James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-60023171821221099762016-05-12T20:36:41.517+01:002016-05-12T20:36:41.517+01:00May the 12th be with you....
P.Gurry: "In 19...May the 12th be with you....<br /><br />P.Gurry: "In 1904 the British and Foreign Bible Society would stop publishing the textus receptus"<br /><br />And yet the American Bible Society (at least) continued to promote and sell in their catalog at least one TR edition until the appearance of UBS1 in 1966 (I know, since I have a copy that I ordered from the ABS around 1965).<br /><br />Snapp: "If someone set out to create the archetype of the Alexandrian Text, how different would it be from the WH compilation?"<br /><br />I would suggest at those many places where Aleph or B or both depart from the bulk of the remaining Alexandrian witnesses that the latter in such cases would represent a more likely Alexandrian archetype. Thus there would be some significant differences from the WH text at those locations. Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-38444399757171113312016-05-12T17:27:03.163+01:002016-05-12T17:27:03.163+01:00PG: "Since then, most English translations o...PG: "Since then, most English translations of the New Testament have followed an eclectic Greek text."<br /><br />Has anyone made a statistical determination of how "eclectic" the WH compilation actually is, in terms of results? What percentage of its readings are not Alexandrian (or, in Hort's jargon, "Neutral")? More than 1%?<br /><br />Or to put the question another way: setting aside the matter of Western Non-Interpolations, if someone set out to create the archetype of the Alexandrian Text, how different would it be from the WH compilation? <br /><br /><br /><br />James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com