Download PDF | Harry A. Sturz - The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism-Thomas Nelson (1984).
322 Pages
Preface
Widely different views are currently held on the history and usefulness of the type of text represented by the mass of the later manuscripts of the New Testament. Because of this, settling the question of the Byzantine text-type is essential for any student of the New Testament who seeks a means of evaluating external evidence for readings. The crucial nature of the problem is clear from the fact that the “history of the New Testament text” held by the critic largely determines whether he will set aside the testimony of the mass of the mss or will take it into account in decision-making at places of variation. The “history of the text” he accepts and follows is unavoidably, even if unconsciously, an influential factor in his evaluation of evidence for readings.
His judgment regarding the value and usefulness of the Byzantine text may often make the difference in whether the textual student follows the reading printed in his edited Greek text or prefers a reading the editors have relegated to the critical apparatus. 1) If the critic holds that the Byzantine text represents a late, secondary and corrupt stage of the New Testament and that the Alexandrian text, e.g., best represents the original (Westcott and Hort et al), he quite naturally dismisses the Byzantine text from consideration and follows the reading(s) of the Alexandrian text. 2) However, if he holds that the Byzantine represents the “traditional” or original text most accurately, and that other texts are corruptions of it (Burgon et al), he naturally gives the Byzantine supreme authority and the readings of the differing texts are relegated to the apparatus. 3) If, on the other hand, he believes that the “history of the text” is largely untraceable and that none of the text-types or Mss are capable of supplying any real external weight of attestation (Kilpatrick et al), his decision-making will rely chiefly upon internal (transcriptional, intrinsic and stylistic) evidence of readings. 4) However, if he believes that each of the main text-types (including the Byzantine) are equally old and relatively independent from each other, he will include the Byzantine testimony along with the others in order to determine external weight and spread of testimony.
The investigation lying behind the original dissertation on which this book is based was to see if there were valid reasons for making use of the Byzantine text-type as an early and independent witness to the text of the New Testament. The investigation having been made and with the conviction that such reasons exist, this treatment seeks to present a case for including the Byzantine text-type in the weighing of external evidence for various readings to the Greek text of the New Textament.
Background
“Byzantine” refers to that type of text which characterizes the majority of the later Greek uncial, semi-uncial and minuscule manuscripts of the New Testament. It is also the type of text found in the Syriac Peshitta and Gothic versions and in the extant quotations of Church Fathers from Chrysostom on. This text derives its name from the provenance (origin) of most of its manuscripts: the Byzantine Empire. It has, in addition to “Byzantine,” been called: “Antiochian,” after the supposed place of its origin, and the “Lucian Recension,”’ after its supposed editor. It is Semler’s “Oriental,” Bengel’s “Asiatic,” Griesbach’s “Constantinopolitan,”’ Westcott and Hort’s “Syrian,” and Burgon’s “Traditional.” Other designations of the same text include: von Soden and Merk’s “K,” standing for “Koine” or “Common” text, Lagrange’s “A,”’ and Kenyon’s “Alpha.” It is largely the text which lies behind the 7extus Receptus and the King James Version. In this book the Byzantine text will be referred to more or less indiscriminately by the use of several of the above terms, especially those currently being used by writers in this area of study.!
1]t should be noted that the early and later stages of the Byzantine text are sometimes distinguished by various authors. Westcott and Hort used the term “Constantinopolitan” when they wished to indicate a later “Syrian” text reading where an earlier and later stage might be discerned in the attestation of a passage. In these instances “Syrian” was reserved for the earlier stage. (For an example see Hort’s “Notes on Select Readings,” The New Testament in the Original Greek.)
The Byzantine text has had its ups and downs. Especially is this true with regard to what is generally thought of as its chief representative: the Jextus Receptus (TR). Most textual students of the New Testament would agree that the TR was made from a few medieval Greek manuscripts, mostly Byzantine, of Von Soden’s Kx strand. They would further concur that the TR, though it brought the students and translators of the New Testament infinitely closer to the originals than the Latin Vulgate, was far from the pure text of the original autographs. Indeed, it was “the text received by all” and therefore the text used by all.* However, the principal reason for this was probably the fact that it was the only text available to all.
Though voices began to be raised for revision of the TR early in the eighteenth century, its sway was not broken until the nineteenth century. Beginning with Karl Lachmann’s bold exclusion of the late manuscripts in publishing his reconstruction of a fourth-century text, efforts continucd through the collating and editing labors of Constantine Tischendorf. The climax came with the use of the genealogical argument, which, as applied by Westcott and Hort (WH) gave the coup de grace to the Received Text.? The text of WH then replaced that of the TR, and the reign of the Byzantine text came to an end. From a position of exclusive use, it fell to a place of almost complete disuse. To this day, at least as far as the West is concerned, it has become the least-used text.*
Though the scholarly world for the most part accepted the overthrow of the TR and along with it the rejection of the Byzantine text-type, nevertheless the agreement was not unanimous. From the first there was a reaction on the part of some Biblical scholars led by John William Burgon, Dean of Chichester. He sought to refute the theory of WH and to support the text which lay behind the TR, which he called the “Traditional”’ text.
Two clear-cut attitudes toward the Byzantine text have persisted since the days of WH and Burgon and are still current today. There are those who follow the theory of WH, and there are some who adopt John Burgon’s defense of the Traditional text. These two theories espouse diametrically opposed methods when it comes to the use of the Byzantine text-type in the textual criticism of the New Testament. There seems to be no possibility of harmonizing or reconciling the two viewpoints. Not only are they mutually exclusive, but the adherents of each claim to base their theory on “the facts.” For example, Kirsopp Lake concludes his remarks on the theory of WH by saying:
The fact of the “Syrian” revision is merely the deduction which W.H. drew from the facts. If any one can draw any other deduction, well and good. But the facts will not be altered, and they prove that the later text is definitely an eclectic one, posterior in date, as shown by Patristic evidence, both to the Neutral and Western texts.°
If anyone thinks that the unyielding stand of Lake (lst edition, 1900, and the 6th edition, 1928) would have no adherents in more recent time, the following statement by Charles Stephens Conway Williams will indicate that the view is still strongly held: But whether we adopt the hypothesis of a definite revision or that of a gradual process of change in order to account for the existence of the a [i.e. alpha or Byzantine] text, the fact of the existence of such a text remains, and its character as a secondary text of relatively late origin must be taken to be one of the established results of criticism [italics by Williams].
In direct contrast, the attitude of a modern textual critic who follows in the line of Burgon may be seen in a statement by Edward Hills: . . . therefore the Byzantine text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts 1s that true text. To reject this view is to act unreasonably. It is to fly in the face of the facts.
Those, moreover, who reject this orthodox vicw of the New Testament text have rejected not merely the facts but also the promise of Christ always to preserve the true New Testament text and the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scripture implied in this promise.’
These two views are obviously irreconcilable, and it would be impossible for one working with the text to hold both at the same time. Both cannot be true; either one or the other may be correct, or they may both be in error. The writer feels that neither of these two groups is right in its theory of the Byzantine text. Furthermore, it is felt that each of them is over-confident in asserting that the theory he follows is based on established facts. This book seeks to show that the claims of both lack a solid foundation.
A third attitude toward the use of the Byzantine text involves what might be termed the eclectic approach. This is held by some, who, because of certain recent discoveries, feel that WH were too severe in their condemnation of the “Syrian” text. They are, therefore, willing to acknowledge that the Byzantine text has preserved early and in rare instances even original readings which somehow have not been retained in the other text-types or in the early uncials. Most of the critics in this category advocate an “eclectic” method of textual criticism. This method endeavors to have no favorite manuscript and no preferred type of text. Those using the method profess to be willing to consider various readings, from whatever source they may come. On the basis of internal criteria, judgment is made between the readings as to which is most likely the original. The eclectic approach, though quite objective in the sense of being will-ing to consider all readings, is admittedly very subjective in that much depends on the personal element in the evaluation of the evidence. A concise statement of the method, together with a comment on some of its weaknesses, may be found in Robert M. Grant’s A Aistornical Introduction to the New Testament:
E C. Grant has listed three basic principles of textual criticism
which deserve further analysis. They are these:
“1. No one type of text is infallible, or to be preferred by virtue of its generally superior authority.
2. Each reading must be examined on its merits, and preference must be given to those readings which are demonstrably in the style of the author under consideration.
3. Readings which explain other variants, but are not contrariwise to be explained by the others, merit our preference; but this is a very subtle process, involving intangible elements, and liable to subjective judgment on the part of the critic.”
Robert Grant evaluates these principles by pointing out that All three principles, indeed contain a large measure of subjectivity. The first is more valuable negatively than positively; it means basically that all manuscripts and all types of manuscripts may contain errors. The second point introduces literary criticism . . . into textual study, and makes us raise the question whether an author always writes in what we may call his style. If not, the principle is not altogether persuasive. The third brinys us in the direction of historical cricitism ... and since it is admittedly subjective we need say no more than that the meaning of “explain” is clearer than the means by which the principle is to be employed.®
One of the most thoroughgoing and consistent defenders of the eclectic method is George Dunbar Kilpatrick of Oxford, England, editor of the second edition of the British and Foreign Bible Society’s “Nestle Text.”? Kilpatrick seems to be determined to have no favorite text in his application of this method. His stance may be clearly seen in part of the concluding statement of his article: “An Eclectic Study of the Text of Acts.”
The readings which have been examined . . . seem to admit of certain conclusions. We have not sought to decide for one or another kind of text as a whole but have tried to consider each reading on its merits. Where readings remain unclassified we have found that no one text has a monopoly of error or of truth. The same is true for kinds of variation. . . . No manuscript or type of text is uniformly right or wrong.
This conclusion applies as much to the Byzantine text, represented by HLPS and many minuscules, as to the Western text and the Old Uncials. The outright condemnation of the Byzantine text by Westcott and Hort was one of the main errors in practice of their work.
Kilpatrick, however, proves to be rather unique in his consistent application of the principle of playing no favorites. He treats readings of the Byzantine text on a plane with those of the other texttypes. Other writers and textual scholars have given lip-service to a similar approach, but in practice they do not appear to carry out the theory or the method with consistency, especially with regard to the consideration of Byzantine readings.
Therefore, for all practical purposes, because of the low esteem in which the text is still held by most critics, a Byzantine reading does not generally receive much consideration even under the eclectic method unless 1t happens to be attested by an early papyrus or unless it offers the only really acceptable reading among the available variants.
That this is not an overstatement may be seen by an examination of the comments made by the authors of recent works on textual criticism as they discuss the application of method or the eclectic approach in examples of specific passages. The allusions which are made concerning the relative merit of types of texts, and of the Byzantine type in particular, reveal the low opinion in which it is still held by most New Testament scholars. Vincent Taylor, for example, simply ignores the Byzantine evidence in his “Notes on Select Readings.” !2 J. Harold Greenlee concedes the possibility that in some instances the true reading has been lost from the mss. of the other text-types and is preserved only in the Byzantine text. For this reason Byzantine readings must not automatically be rejected without examination.
But, lest anyone gather that he is giving full weight to the K text or its readings, he hastens to add:
At the same time, the general impression which is given by readings which are characteristically Byzantine is that they are inferior and not likely to be original. !3
Moreover, Greenlee gives no example of such a preserved Byzantine reading in his section on the “Solution of Some New Testament Variants.” !4 In fact, as the section is perused, one detects a rather deep-seated bias in favor of the Alexandrian text-type and against both the Byzantine and Western texts. Bruce Metzger, in his chapter on “The Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible,’ concludes in part:
The lesson to be drawn from such evidence, however, is that the general neglect of the Antiochian readings which has been so common among many textual critics is quite unjustified.!>
One might gather from the tone of this conclusion that a much more extensive use of the Byzantine text is advocated by him. In his work on the Text of the New Testament, which was published after the above article, he does cite a few examples where the Byzantines have preserved the correct reading in his estimation (one of them distinctive).!© But Metzger, while urging that Antiochian readings should not be neglected, apparently still considers the Byzantine text-type secondary and inferior. He says that “readings which are supported by only Koine or Byzantine witnesses (Hort’s Syrian group) may be set aside as almost certainly secondary. . .”!”
For an earlier description and recommendation of the eclectic method see the discussion by Leo Vaganay, who seeks to steer a middle course in the use of external as well as internal evidence. !8 Vaganay, however, also joins the prevailing attitude toward the TR saying: “today it seems this famous text is dead at last and, let us hope, forever” (p. 173).
The rise of the eclectic method with its increasing emphasis upon internal criteria coincided with and stemmed mainly from a disenchantment with certain major elements in the theory of WH.!? In particular, it is generally agreed that the “Neutral” text of WH is a “will-of-the-wisp” and that even Vaticanus (B), its leading Ms, is not “neutral” but shows definite signs of an edited text.2° In connection with this, the distinction which WH made between the text of & and B (i.e., their “Neutral” text) and what they termed their Alexandrian text is no longer felt to be tenable. Many textual critics add the further criticism that WH’s almost complete dismissal of the Western text is unjustified, some even holding that the Western is closer to the original than the Alexandrian. For statements on these changes in attitude toward the theory of WH, see such writers as Sir Frederick G. Kenyon,2! Vaganay,22 and E. C. Colwell.23 Colwell deals a devastating blow to the genealogical method as applied (or rather, as it was not applied) by WH. In his conclusion, he says in part: o patching will preserve the theory of Westcott and Hort. Kirsopp Lake called it “a failure, though a splendid one”’ as long ago as 1904; and Ernest von Dobschutz felt that its vogue was over when he published his introduction (1925). But the crowd has not yet followed these pioneers. . .2+
Werner Georg Kiimmel, in a section where he discusses the present state of New Testament textual criticism, has occasion to say:
Other parts of Westcott-Hort’s theory have proved a failure, above all (a) the exaggerated preference for B and the Neutral text, and (b) the general repudiation of the Western text.2°
A fourth theory of the use of the Byzantine text-type is the one set forth by Hermann Freiherr von Soden in his Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments.2° It allows a more or less equal status to the Byzantine text-type along with the Alexandrian and what he termed his Iota or “Jerusalem” type. Von Soden reasoned that the manuscripts which support these types of text are the remains of three recensions (edited revisions of the New Testament text) which were executed in different localities during the third and fourth centuries. The I or Iota group represents the recension of Eusebius and Pamphilus in Palestine, the H or Eta group represents the recension of Hesychius in Egypt, and the K or Kappa group represents the recension of Lucian in Antioch.
According to von Soden these three recensions go back to the lost archetype, the I-H-K text, used by Origen, but already corrupted in the second century by Marcion, in the case of the Pauline Epistles, and by Tatian, in the case of the Gospels and Acts. The discovery and elimination of these corruptions bring us to the original text.27
Von Soden’s theory has not had a general acceptance among English, German, or French critics, though some Spanish scholars seem to have found value in it.28
Later, Burnett Hillman Streeter was not persuaded by von Soden’s theory of a relatively independent recension of the K text. Streeter, in his work on the Gospels,2? made an advance on the theory of WH as he developed his own theory of “local texts.” As for the origin of the Byzantine text, he retained the WH theory that it derived from a recension made at Antioch and was dependent on the other text-types. However, Streeter broadened the theory in order to include Old Antiochian readings. This made a third source in addition to the Alexandrian (combining Hort’s Neutral and Alexandrian) and the Western text-types.
The editors at Antioch obtained these Old Antiochian readings, not so much from old Greek manuscripts preserved in and around Antioch, as from early translations which had been made into Syriac. Therefore, according to Streeter, the Old Antiochian readings, which contributed to Lucian’s revision, are found now in the Sinaitic and Curetonian Syriac.79 Though Streeter acknowledges that “it is probable that some of the readings of the Lucianic text which do not appear in the Syriac were derived from the old text of Antioch,”3! he does not place much weight on this, as is evident from his chart and his discussion. Streeter, along with the writers mentioned above, abandoned WH’s idea of a “Neutral”’ text.32 In addition, Streeter also questioned some of WH’s criteria for internal evidence of readings; he speaks, for example, of the “the fallacy of the shorter text.’’33
While WH’s theory of a ““Neutral”’ text and their attitude toward the Western text has been abandoned by many scholars, Hort’s theory of the “Syrian” text still dominates the field. Moreover, those scholars who follow the “eclectic” approach (1.e., of choosing readings on the basis of internal criteria) usually feel free to reject the points of WH’s theory that have been mentioned. At the same time, however, probably a majority of them continue to share WH’s view that the Byzantine text is secondary in nature and dependent upon the Alexandrian and Western texts.
While those who follow WH in this matter characterize the “Syrian’”’ as the worst and most useless text for help in recovering the original, the followers of Burgon, contrariwise, maintain that the Byzantine 1s the best text, the “traditional text,’’ and the text which most closely represents the original.
Because of this clear-cut antithesis, and the irreconcilable nature of these two viewpoints, together with the fact that the theory of WH in regard to the Byzantinc text sccms to hold the predominant position in the western world, the approach of the next chapter will be to outline the theory of WH with regard to the K text. Following this, in Chapter 3, the rebuttal to WH by Burgon and Hills is reviewed. Chapter 4 indicates reasons for turning away from the position of Burgon and Hills. In Part 2 reasons are presented for believing that the Byzantine text-type, though it may not necessarily be considered the “best” or the “standard” text as is contended by Burgon’s followers, nevertheless should not be set aside as insisted upon by the theory of WH. Part 2 seeks to show that the Byzantine text should be recognized as having an important and useful place in textual criticism because it is an independent witness to an early form of the New Testament text.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق