Byzantine Majority in CNTTS

[Outis]

Hello,

 

I was looking at the variant in 1 Cor. 13:3 (καυθησομαι vs. καυχήσωμαι ) and, while it listed the Byzantine family of texts in the NA27 apparatus, I couldn't find the same in the CNTTS.

 

Am I missing something?

 

Also, where might there be a guide on how to make better use of the CNTTS? I'm used to the layout of the NA27 apparatus. The CNTTS takes a little getting used to.

 

thanks,

[Timothy Jenney]

Hello,

 

I was looking at the variant in 1 Cor. 13:3 (καυθησομαι vs. καυχήσωμαι ) and, while it listed the Byzantine family of texts in the NA27 apparatus, I couldn't find the same in the CNTTS.

 

Am I missing something?

 

Also, where might there be a guide on how to make better use of the CNTTS? I'm used to the layout of the NA27 apparatus. The CNTTS takes a little getting used to.

 

thanks,

 

Hi, Outis!

 

I had to spend quite a bit of time with the CNTTS to get ready for the podcast. I found its own introduction the best source for information, but spent awhile going back and forth between NA27, CNTTS, and a few Gk MSS to get used to it. I found that, with practice, I very much preferred the CNTTS. I'll continue to use it, but use Comfort and Metzger's text commentaries to provide the bird's eye view.

 

I checked the specific passage you mentioned: 1 Cor. 13:3.

 

It's the 28th variant in CNTTS:

 

1 Cor. 13:3-28 S 0 καυχησωμαι P46 ℵ01 A02 B03 33 1739✱

R 2 καυθησωμαι Ψ044 69 76 131 209c 218 424 1244 1315 1573 1628 1720 1735 1739c 1768 1876 1881✱ 1962 TR

 

The NA27's M (hope that came out as a Gothic "M") is equivalent to CNTTS' "TR," which I've underlined and put in bold in the preceding line.

 

I'm no expert in text criticism, but I understand that "Byzantine textform" and "majority text" are not precisely equivalent terms. I did check Robinson & Pierpont's text though, the e-text does have this variant, but it is bracketed like so: ἵνα ˹ καυθήσωμαι, ˺ ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω. A quick check of the notes for it notes that the variant occurs within the byzantine family of manuscripts as well:

 

1Corinthians 13:3

N Καὶ ἐὰν ψωμίσω | Κἂν ψωμίσω

B καυθήσωμαι | καυθήσομαι

N καυθήσωμαι | καυχήσωμαι

 

I'd say you have your work cut out for you!

[Outis]

Hi, Outis!

 

I found its own introduction the best source for information,

 

 

I'm no expert in text criticism, but I understand that "Byzantine textform" and "majority text" are not precisely equivalent terms. I did check Robinson & Pierpont's text though, the e-text does have this variant, but it is bracketed like so: ἵνα ˹ καυθήσωμαι, ˺ ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω. A quick check of the notes for it notes that the variant occurs within the byzantine family of manuscripts as well:

 

 

Ok, to follow up, I have two questions/comments:

 

1) where can I find the introduction to the CNTTS?

 

2) As I 'mouse over' the "TR" in the CNTTS, I get what I might expect, i.e. in the instant details box it tells me that TR = Textus Receptus. (TR The Oxford 1873 Textus Receptus edition). However, as I mouse over the M (think big gothic M here) in the NA27 apparatus, I get this description:

 

"M, is particularly important): = Majority text, including the Byzantine Koine text) indicates readings supported by the majority of all manuscripts, i.e., always including manuscripts of the Koine type in the narrow sense. M therefore represents the witness of the Koine text type, together with the witness of all consistently cited manuscripts of the second order which agree with it in a given reading."

 

From everything I've read (and been taught), there is a big, big difference between the Byzantine Majority and the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus [ab Omnibus] is text which was the foundation for the King James bible. However, the Byzantine Majority is what the quote describes, a compilation of the majority of the greek texts in the Greek world.

 

So, I guess my second question is: are you sure that, as we compare the two, TR = Byz?

 

Thanks,

[D.S.Moses Nickerson]

 

From everything I've read (and been taught), there is a big, big difference between the Byzantine Majority and the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus [ab Omnibus] is text which was the foundation for the King James bible. However, the Byzantine Majority is what the quote describes, a compilation of the majority of the greek texts in the Greek world.

 

So, I guess my second question is: are you sure that, as we compare the two, TR = Byz?

 

Thanks,

 

 

They are not exactly the same. The majority text is a later statistical amalgamation of all extant Greek manuscripts; whatever reading has the most manuscripts wins. However, since the Greek speaking church preserved thousands more manuscripts in Greek (go figure) than the Western church, most view this compilation as being skewed toward the Byzantine text tradition. The Textus Receptus was one of the first compiled texts of the NT in Europe, done by Erasmus in the early 1500s. The texts that Erasmus compiled from were Byzantine in origin. Thus the TR represents one selection (done from a very small sample of available texts that Erasmus had) of the Byzantine tradition; the Majority Text bears many similarities to the TR due to the great statistical weight of the thousands of Medieval Greek manuscripts preserved by the Eastern Orhtodox church. Thus, they are similar, sharing a "family resemblance" if you will, but they are distinct.

[Timothy Jenney]

Ok, to follow up, I have two questions/comments:

 

1) where can I find the introduction to the CNTTS?

 

2) As I 'mouse over' the "TR" in the CNTTS, I get what I might expect, i.e. in the instant details box it tells me that TR = Textus Receptus. (TR The Oxford 1873 Textus Receptus edition). However, as I mouse over the M (think big gothic M here) in the NA27 apparatus, I get this description:

 

"M, is particularly important): = Majority text, including the Byzantine Koine text) indicates readings supported by the majority of all manuscripts, i.e., always including manuscripts of the Koine type in the narrow sense. M therefore represents the witness of the Koine text type, together with the witness of all consistently cited manuscripts of the second order which agree with it in a given reading."

 

From everything I've read (and been taught), there is a big, big difference between the Byzantine Majority and the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus [ab Omnibus] is text which was the foundation for the King James bible. However, the Byzantine Majority is what the quote describes, a compilation of the majority of the greek texts in the Greek world.

 

So, I guess my second question is: are you sure that, as we compare the two, TR = Byz?

 

Thanks,

 

Since Moses answered the first question, I'll handle the second.

 

Open CNTTS is its own tool window [by dbl-clicking it in the Library window]. Click the browser expansion triangle [upper left corner of the search entry window]. The browser will open. Just click on "CNTTS Textual Database Information." It's all you ever wanted to know

CNTTS.tiff

[Bill Warren]

Since Moses answered the first question, I'll handle the second.

 

Open CNTTS is its own tool window [by dbl-clicking it in the Library window]. Click the browser expansion triangle [upper left corner of the search entry window]. The browser will open. Just click on "CNTTS Textual Database Information." It's all you ever wanted to know—and more!

 

As additional info on this, we collated manuscripts individually, so the TR (1873 Oxford edition as noted already) was collated as a single manuscript even though it is actually a critical edition of the NT. That means that we have two critical edition in the module, the TR and UBS/NA (the base text). Based on its nature, the TR is not comparable to the Majority text symbol in NA-27 (or the Byz in UBS GNT either) since it sometimes differs with the Majority text readings, often due to the influence of the Latin Vulgate and at other times due the underlying manuscripts used for the TR not being the best representatives of the Byzantine text (Kx or Kr, depending on one's choice of the best Byzantine stream for representing the overall Byzantine text).

 

For some news on updates, we've almost finished adding all of the NT papyri for the Gospels as well as a major editing of much of the module. Some other manuscripts are also being added, with more in the works. Unfortunately, additional collations of manuscripts on Revelation will not be incorporated until 2011.

 

In Christ, Bill Warren

Director of the H. Milton Haggard Center for New Testament Textual Studies

[Outis]

As additional info on this, we collated manuscripts individually, so the TR (1873 Oxford edition as noted already) was collated as a single manuscript even though it is actually a critical edition of the NT. That means that we have two critical edition in the module, the TR and UBS/NA (the base text). Based on its nature, the TR is not comparable to the Majority text symbol in NA-27 (or the Byz in UBS GNT either) since it sometimes differs with the Majority text readings, often due to the influence of the Latin Vulgate and at other times due the underlying manuscripts used for the TR not being the best representatives of the Byzantine text (Kx or Kr, depending on one's choice of the best Byzantine stream for representing the overall Byzantine text).

 

Hello Bill,

 

Thanks for clarifying this point somewhat. So, the TR does not equal the Byz/Gothic-M. This then makes me ask the question: What does equal Byz/Gothic-M in the CNTTS? Is it that the various manuscripts that make up the Byzantine Majority are split up into a bunch of little parts. What do I do with the fact that the Byzantine Majority has καυθήσωμαι as the variant reading in the NA27 and the CNTTS has a bunch of other stuff, but doesn't have the Byzantine Majority listed? Where did it go?

 

I apologize if my questions may seem somewhat unclear. But, I'm trying to figure out why there seems to be a big difference in this area between the NA27 and CNTTS.

 

I would appreciate any insight or help you could offer in this area.

[Bill Warren]

Hello Bill,

 

Thanks for clarifying this point somewhat. So, the TR does not equal the Byz/Gothic-M. This then makes me ask the question: What does equal Byz/Gothic-M in the CNTTS? Is it that the various manuscripts that make up the Byzantine Majority are split up into a bunch of little parts. What do I do with the fact that the Byzantine Majority has καυθήσωμαι as the variant reading in the NA27 and the CNTTS has a bunch of other stuff, but doesn't have the Byzantine Majority listed? Where did it go?

 

I apologize if my questions may seem somewhat unclear. But, I'm trying to figure out why there seems to be a big difference in this area between the NA27 and CNTTS.

 

I would appreciate any insight or help you could offer in this area.

 

The Majority text symbols simply denote what a number of Byzantine manuscripts have, normally representing especially the Kappa x and/or Kappa r reading. The NA27 "regularizes" their apparatus so that much of the information that might be considered "non-essential" is never shown, such as orthographic differences, moveable Nu's, obvious scribal errors, nomina sacra, and a few other matters. We show all of those features. Also, some minor differences among the manuscripts on the details of a reading are sometimes "regularized", with those sometimes noted by the use of parentheses, but not always. We show all of those differences. What I do see as a result of your inquiry is that we should add the two major editions of the Majority text, the Farstad/Hodges edition and the Robinson/Pierpont. We'll work on this and seek to have them both in as soon as possible. Thanks for your inquiry that has highlighted the desire/need for these to be included.

 

In Christ, Bill Warren

[Outis]

What I do see as a result of your inquiry is that we should add the two major editions of the Majority text, the Farstad/Hodges edition and the Robinson/Pierpont. We'll work on this and seek to have them both in as soon as possible. Thanks for your inquiry that has highlighted the desire/need for these to be included.

 

Hi Bill,

 

Sorry for replying to this as late as I am. I had thought I had posted this earlier, but I guess I didn't.

 

Thanks for being willing to add the Byzantine stuff to the database. I do like the layout of the CNTTS module a little better than the NA apparatus. this will make it all that much more easy to move to your module permanently.

 

I do however have one last question though: If you're willing to include the BYZ 'family' in future releases, could you also include the byz lectionaries too?

 

Thanks again for your responses. And thanks for being so willing to add these types of variants in the future,

[Bill Warren]

Hi Bill,

 

Sorry for replying to this as late as I am. I had thought I had posted this earlier, but I guess I didn't.

 

Thanks for being willing to add the Byzantine stuff to the database. I do like the layout of the CNTTS module a little better than the NA apparatus. this will make it all that much more easy to move to your module permanently.

 

I do however have one last question though: If you're willing to include the BYZ 'family' in future releases, could you also include the byz lectionaries too?

 

Thanks again for your responses. And thanks for being so willing to add these types of variants in the future,

 

On adding a witness for the lectionaries, if you know of a critical text for the Byzantine lectionaries, let me know and we'll consider it. As far as I know, the problem is that there is not a good critical source for a "lectionary" or "Byzantine lectionary" text. As you likely know, most of the lectionaries (the vast majority actually) have not been studied. The Chicago Project did substantial work on them, and there is the publication from 1993 of a modern lectionary text that is not a critical text (Vaporis, Nomikos M., ed. Holy and Sacred Gospel: The Complete Text. Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox, 1993), but that would likely be the best option and is not that good of an option. We have collated a number of lectionaries, so maybe simply including some of those would be the best option, especially since most lectionaries "seem" to be more Byzantine in their textual characteristics ("seem" is used due to so many having not been studied). Don't hear me wrong, I think your suggestion is a good one, but I'm not sure how to get there if a "global" critical text is not available (other than simply adding a few lectionaries, which we most likely will do over time).

 

 

Bill

[Outis]

Wow. I didn't know it was as complicated as all that. In fact, it's so complicated, I don't think I can give you any suggestions or input at all on this one.

 

So, I'll just tell you what I tell my catechism class: do the best with what you have.

 

Thanks for your work.