Talk:Byzantine text-type

[Untitled]

Examples are needed of textual variations between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text-types.

Couldn't someone add a picture?>Ψ

Textus Receptus

I have reverted an edit which added a value judgment as to the quality of the Textus Receptus. Two reasons for this; a. they do not conform to Wikipedia conventions on Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View; b. they are to do with the Textus Receptus, rather than with the Byzantine Text/Majority Text. 10:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• apologies - I should have noted the earlier POV edits, and have now removed them; as they reduced the article to gobbledigook, through eliminating entirely one side of the debate. TomHennell (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom, let us create professional article about the Byzantine text-type. We have a lot of work to do, but why not? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture from Codex Alexandrinus (folio 76r)

This beautiful picture presents the end of the Book of Acts and the beginning of Letter of James. These two books represents alexandrian text-type, but article treats about byzantine text-type, it means this picture is located in wrong place. It will better to move it to article Alexandrian text-type, where is his place. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical problems, first paragraph

The last sentence of the first paragraph, makes little sense and is not grammatical. I did not correct it because I, an outsider, have no idea what was intended. Stifynsemons (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Some corrections

"The Peshitta doesn't conform to the Greek Byzantine text or the Alexandrian Text. (It is written in the Aramaic language and comes directly from the apostles.)"

It is not true, especially "directly from the apostles". In External links Textus Receptus was ascribed as Majority text. Majority text it is Byzantine text, not Textus Receptus. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Conflations and Mark 6:33

The article now states that the Byzantine text in Mark 6:33 looks like a combination of the Alexandrian and Western texts. But this is not the case, you can't get to the Byzantine wording by combining that of the other two text-types. Moreover, the Byzantine text makes sense as it stands - whereas a true 'conflation' would always be expected to display characteristics of the same thing being said twice. I is much more likely, in my view, that the Byzantine wording is the archetype.

For Hort, the assertion that the Byzanatine text tended to conflate was a killer - since a conflation was neccessarily later than its component sources, and also indicated a time when reverence to the text was such that copyists were reluctant to admit the possibility of contradiction. Hence apparent contradictions are resolved by putting both versions in, and creating two events out of one. But that is not the case here. The Alexandrian text says "and they outstripped them", the Western has "and they came to them"; the Byzantine has "and they outripped them, and came together unto them". Hort saw an inconsistency, how can you be going away from someone and towards them at the same time? But Jesus is crossing a lake in a boat, the crowd is on the lake shore. If the crowd are to get meet Jesus at the point he is going to, they have to travel away from him first. Much more likely that the Alexxandrian tradition dropped a phrase due to the double "and". Assuming that the Byzantine text is later, then it very rarely conflates, but generally selects one or another text to follow. TomHennell (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom, I think Leszek was just providing the normative (albeit Alexandrian) view. I can see the prejudicial nature of the wording, though. It would be helpful to have more Byzantine priority resources. Most of what we have that's useful would agree with Metzger. Not sure the best solution here, but I'll think on it. Thanks for pointing out the problem! SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that this still is the normative view though. A hundred years of so ago, proponents of text criticism tended to characterise the Byzantine (or Syrian) text as tending to conflate; but I don't think that is any longer the consensus. But it still stands in many textbooks, who pick up on Hort's comments of the 1880s. I do not see that it has sufficient support to be noted in the article, but what do you think? TomHennell (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Aland describes conflation (not in those words) for the Byzantine on page 69 of his Text of the New Testament (point 7). Metzger gives more detail in his Text of the New Testament on pages 290ff. He mentions that some Byzantine proponents reject Hort's conflation view on page 290. And on page 292 he gets into Sturz's view that it's not entirely secondary. But Metzger doesn't present these as his own views. Of course, to a certain extent this becomes self serving since shorter readings are preferred in principle by both Aland and Metzger. This automatically views harmonious passages as harmonistic -- sometimes regardless of the text type. Although I can't put my own work into the article, I have to admit that the Byzantine readings were more harmonious than the UBS4 -- but that's a deliberately antiharmonious eclectic work, so it's to be expected regardless of the original transmission. How does that speak of the Alexandrian? Well, it also has fewer harmonious passages. Does that make the Byzantine automatically conflationary? No. Nothing is automatic. If it were, textual criticism would be a lot easier. I think we should cite those who believe it is conflationary and cite the exceptions. I think we also have to grant that most textual critics lean toward the Alexandrian. Not sure what else we can do, but I'm definitely open to ideas!SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What do Aland and Metger say in relation to Mark 6:33? Is the Byzantine reading here regarded as clearly conflationary, in the same way that Luke 25:53 is? In my view, the case for this particular reading is open, and personally I am more pursuaded by Sturz.

The more general question is whether a reading is to be rejected purely because it is charcteristically Byzantine rather than Alexandrian, and where the evidence otherwise does not clearly incline one way or another. Hort, I think, does this (mainly because he does not distinguish the Majority Text from the Textus Receptus); and Sturz points out a number of readings that Hort insisted could not be other than recensional and late, which have since turned up in early papyri. Metzger, I recall, says something to the effect that we should no longer be predisposed to dismiss Majority Text readings, but still seems to me to do so, whether consciously or not. The fact is, we don't have any ancient papyri from Byzantium, and we don't have any Byzantine fathers either, so we don't know what sources the creators of the Byzantine text were working from. Hort assumed that they had something like B and D, and combined them. But it is equally possible that they other traditions that have not survived. It may well be, indeed is more likely, that these older Byzantine traditions did not look consistently like the Majority Text that we know now, but I don't think we can assume they did not exist at all. TomHennell (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but Hort's point of vew is so important, that should be mentioned in the article. Hort gave 8 examples of conflaton. The other points of view also should be mentioned (e.g. Scrivener). German scholars do not take the Byzantine text in high esteem. Aland placed the Byzantine text into V category. In Germany is very difficult to find scholarch who will support the Byzantine text. In any case the article is not finished. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Metzger's commentary says "it is obvious that the Textus Receptus...is conflate".EGMichaels (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Section "Relationship to other text-types" should be reworked, we can not enumerate all textual variants - now we have list of textual variants - but I think we should keep examples of conflation and possible conflation. What do you think about it? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should reflect the range of published scholarship, not my (or your) personal judgements. Hence if Metzger believes Mark 6:33 is conflate, then this ought to be stated (even though I personally do not agree with him on that particular reading). In general, however, I think it is no longer a scholarly consensus that the Byzantine text tends towards conflation (as Hort maintained), rather that it tends towards smoother and harmonised readings. But I think it was Sturz who pointed out that there are plenty of non-harmonised and non-smooth readings in the Byzantine text (and even some where the Alexandrian witnesses are harmonised and the Byzantine are not). Personally, I think that both the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts arise from editorial selection; it is just that the Alexandrian editors tended to select "better" than did the Byzantine; at least by modern criticala standards. TomHennell (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's important to keep in mind that the observations are both descriptive and (unfortunately) reflexive. The tendency of Alexandrian leaning critical editions is to remove perceived conflations. Any textform will be comparatively bumped up in conflation relative to the anti-conflationary eclectic text. Granted, that's my own OR. In any case, I agree that we should say that Metzger believes that verse to be conflate in the Textus Receptus.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not supported of the Alexandrian text in 100%. I like also Caesarean text (f¹ and f¹³). In Byzantine only Family E and Family Π have some value for me, but not K^x or K^r (Russian Bible use this text and I know him since my childhood; it was the first text in my life - not Textus Receptus). I see a lot of work in this article, I hope you we help for me. It is important article about the text which played important role in the history. I want use "The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research" of Ehrman and Holmes and some other books and articles. By the way, "Textual variants" have more readers on pl-wiki. I do not know how to explain this phenomenon. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Encouragement

Thank you, all of you who contributed to this article! I'm only an armchair theologian, but I'm very grateful for the scholarship here that goes above and beyond the scope of your average Wikipedia article. Keep it up! 64.221.15.66 (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"Translatable"

I think we need a clarification of what "translatable" really means. Aldo L (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose to a certain extent it can depend on the language into which the text is translated - hence differences between definite and intefinite articles are translatable from Greek to English, but not from Greek to Latin. However, the general point I would have thought as being reasonably clear; if a variant is capable of being deonstrated through literal translation into a second language; then it is 'translatable'. If a variant can only e exist within a koine Greek text, then it is non-translatable. Of course, many translatable variants are trivial, or make no difference at all to the sense; but from a textual point of view, that it not relevant. TomHennell (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Recent Additions of Problematic Material

The recent additions of material favoring the Byzantine Text-Type to the lead suffers from a number of problems. It's not all sourced, the one source cited is a self-published internet source, it introduces material to the lead not found in the article itself, and it promotes a fringe point of view. On top of all that, there's the behavioral issue -- the anonymous IP-hopper is inserting the material repeatedly over the wishes of multiple editors. I've dropped an edit war warning on the user's talk page, so we'll see where things go from here. Alephb (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this Alephb; these edits are clearly Original Research; and as you say improper for the lede. I might also add that the claimed 'scientific analysis' findings establish nothing. The claim made is that for variants where Vaticanus and Sinaiticus differ, one or the other readings is found in the Majority text; and that this proves that the Majority text underlies both Alexandrian manuscripts. But the overwhelming majority of variants are binary(e.g. a word included or omitted). For such a variant, the Majority text will agree willy-nilly with one or another of the Alexandrian readings. TomHennell (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems the same user is still doing the exact same thing. I have this page on my watchlist so will always be removing the added material. Stephen Walch (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The same vandal is back again it seems. Stephen Walch (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I've had enough of this. I've requested the page to be protected. Stephen Walch (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Unsourced Material

User @user:Veverve has kindly, and rightly, removed quite a lot of unsourced material from this article. Not all of it was incorrect per se, just unsourced. I'll be attempting to retrieve some sources for the statements, but if anyone else who is watching this page has the sources to hand, the removed material can be restored once the sources are cited. Stephen Walch (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Have restored one of the removed sections, reworded and with references. Looking at some of the other removed sections, not quite sure if they're worth restoring, and don't seem to add much more to the article. Stephen Walch (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

first paragraph

In the first paragraph: "Whilst varying in around 1,800 places from printed editions of the Byzantine text-type, it also underlies the Textus Receptus…." As I read this sentence, the "it" would have to be the Peshitta, which ain't right. Does this mean that the TR varies "in around 1,800 places from printed editions of the Byzantine text-type" and that the Byz "underlies the Textus Receptus"? That would at least make historical sense. But I'm hesitant to reword the sentence because maybe it makes better sense in some form of Commonwealth English (heralded by the first word of the sentence), which sometimes baffles me. Help, anyone? Snigblitz (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Snigblitz: you are correct that it does read a bit clunky and the sentence could be misunderstood as just referring to the Peshitta. I've reworded it now so hopefully that makes better sense to yourself and others. Stephen Walch (talk) Stephen Walch (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks much, @Stephen Walch. Snigblitz (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)