Julian

I try not to rely on D when arguing weight, people tend to have quite a reaction, one way or another, to that particular manuscript.

It is rather interesting that D stands against a large number of latins (it^a it^aur it^b it^c it^e it^ff2 it^j it^r1 and, unsurprisingly, vg^cl). It is almost like a Western Non-interpolation, except this omission enjoys strong Greek support.

Julian

drewjmore

My gratitude!! The variety of ancient text-types was unknown to me before entering this discussion.

S.C.Carlson

Well, I give D weight if it agrees with Alexandrians (other than 01 in John and other than B in Paul).

Stephen

Julian

Well, the modern system, which isn't very good, only really deals with three text types, the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Byzantine. You will sometimes hear of the Majority text which very closely resembles the Byzantine family. You may also hear of the Caesarean which has been largely determined to not actually exist. Inside of these groups we place the thousands of manuscripts (ms means manuscript and mss means manuscripts, plural) although most manuscripts do not fall perfectly within one group or another but tend to have some mixture of several groups. By and large, though, most mss can be reasonably easily deposited within a type. Futher complications arise when a manuscript contains several New Testament books and some belong to one text type and others to another. How do you classify the manuscript?

As you can see, the system is quite bad and will need to be revised.

The manuscripts have identification codes and sometimes names. The manuscripts are grouped into several types (groan) based on their style. We have uncials (all uppercase letters with no spacing and rare punctuation), minuscules (lower-case cursive, some spacing and punctuation), papyrus (they are uncials but classified as papyrus because that means they are old and age is the most important attribute for manuscript weight determination), and lectionaries (books to read from in monasteries or churches).

The codes are weird mostly because of historical legacy reasons. Only one manuscript, א (aleph), uses a hebrew character. It has been numbered 01 and its name is Codex Sinaiticus and it is an uncial on parchment, alexandrian text family, early and in great condition. Notice that its number starts with a zero (0) which is true for all uncials. The next uncial is A, numbered 02 and is named Codex Alexandrinus, it is an early byzantine, uncial on parchment, the next is B, numbered 03 and named Codex Vaticanus, a magnificent alexandrian uncial on parchment. And so on and so forth. Once we run out of letters (A-Z) we then use the Greek letters and when they run out we just use the numbers, always starting with zero for the uncials.

Minuscules do not start with a zero, and they do not have any letters assigned to them. They carry less weight because the writing system is a later invention.

Lectionaries start with a funky looking cursive 'l'.

Papyri are named with a gothic 'p' and a number. They are the oldest and the fewest and the most valuable. They frequently have many names.

We also have other texts, like the patristics (church father writings, i.e. indirect witnesses to ancient texts), sa (short for Sahidic), bo (short for boharic), dia (short for diatessaron), it (for italia or, specifically, texts in latin mostly of the western family), slav, eth, arm, etc, etc, etc...

If someone should wish to pursue this topic, there is no better place to start than here: http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/

Julian

Ben C Smith

I myself give D weight if it agrees with my point of view.

Ben.

Julian

But that's just the thing, isn't it? Everybody likes D when it agrees with them. When it agrees with the alexandrian/my opinion it is a good manuscript and when it disagrees then it is not to be trusted. Nobody seems to want to simply accept D for what it is: A witness in its own right. Of course, my proclivities as they pertain to D have been stated before but I do really like that manuscript. I think we can learn more from that one codex than from any other. Even when it is wrong we stand to profit.

Julian

Julian

Cross-posted similar thoughts there...

Ecrasez L'infame

I'm trying to understand this debate, and maybe learn a little about this subject - which I didn't even know existed yesterday. But can I ask for a little extra guidance?

I followed someone's link from another thread to Stephen's stemma for John 4 at
http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2...or-john-4.html

First, it is reasonable to apply this to John 5?

Second (and assuming it is), my Greek NT gives the variations in a footnote. Basically 5:4 is omitted in P66 & 75, ℵ, B, C, D & W, and inserted in A, K, L, X, Δ, Θ, and Ψ. I have found all these on the stemma, and I see that the first text that includes the verse would be somewhere about node [48] or [42], two or three nodes down the middle of Stephen's great branches. Most of the manuscripts below this point have the verse, most of the others don't (there are interesting exceptions, which IIUC are allowed for by his "mixed" descent - eg C omits the verse). Is that an accurate-ish picture? If so, it'd be amazing - with this tool, you'd be able to PREDICT variations in any given manuscript - a prediction that could be falsified. In another page Stephen says this technique is only possible for the NT with recent advances in computing power, tho' it's well proven with texts with fewer varying copies. In a way, this is a more detailed and intricate version of what scholars have always done when trying to decide which of the Gospels influenced which. Very exciting development!

Third. Am I right in saying the stemma is a relationship chart, and not a chronological one? It looks strange that for example L is higher in the chart than A, but much later than it. AFAICS, the earliest manuscript that includes the verse is A, the Alexandrinus, C5th. Presumably that's why Julian says the texts that omit it are correct! But there seems a lot to fit in if L is as late as C8th... might the stemma be in contradiction with received dating, or does it just ignore it? And doesn't there seem to be two node [42]s?

Next, my NT gives C9th manuscripts which include the verse as "asterisks" - S, Λ, ∏. But the lineage isn't so clear here - they don't all come from the same node, and they seem to be together with manuscripts that include the verse in full. What gives?

Finally - what reaction do people have with D (IIUC the Cambridge)?

Thanks

Robert

(BTW - today is my birthday, so if above is amateurish nonsense and a complete misunderstanding of elementary principles... nobody is allowed to say so.)

Julian

I have to go but I will try for a longer and better answer later. Probably Stephen would be a better person to answer much of this. A few quick points:

1) The stemma is based on parsimony, right most of the time but probably wrong sometimes, as well.
2) Stephen's stemma is on John 4, not John 5.
3) An asterisk next to a ms means 'the original scribe,' in other words what was originally written. In the same variation we then generally see something like the same manuscript with a superscripted number, which would be the number of the corrector who 'fixed' the text.

More later.

Julian

Steven Avery

While I know Ben shares this with a smile and a bit of edginess he actually pinpoints a real problem with popular textual Bible views in this day and age.

Each one does what is right in his own eyes. They try to mold the Bible to their own preferences, rather than accept God's pure and perfect word. This is a spirit of the age.

Thank you Lord Jesus for your pure word.
May we be broken upon the Rock.

Shalom,
Steven