The Byzantine text-type in Egypt

Tischendorf was a real expert in ancient handwriting. He handled probably more ancient manuscripts than anyone else.

First, Tischendorf never gave his reasons for his Sinaiticus handwriting dating, a point made by Milne and Skeat.

“In no case does he give any details of the characteristics of the various hands he professed to identify, and we must assume that, in the main, he was guided solely by the general appearance of the script” (Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, Milne and Skeat 1938 p.18).

Second, handwriting alone can never accurately give a terminus ante quem date for a document. Any handwriting can be copied years later, or 1500 years later. However, no one can write in a future script.

Third, Tischendorf had a rigged horse in the race, in Sinaiticus, and his dating arguments were far from objective.
 
However, no one can write in a future script.
What a ridiculously dumb and meaningless sentence.

Instead of positing your theories and endless attacks on Tischendorf at every turn, why don't you:

1. explain how a new manuscript of the 19th century has 23,000 variants.

2. explain how Sinaiticus lacks the Comma if Simonides wrote it.
 
Last edited:
Third, Tischendorf had a rigged horse in the race, in Sinaiticus, and his dating arguments were far from objective.
You omit to mention that Tischendorf submitted his manuscript pages to numerous scholars in England, who agreed with him. Personal hated of Tischendorf is not a legitimate reason to controvert the date of Sinaiticus, and its getting boring coming from you.
 
You omit to mention that Tischendorf submitted his manuscript pages to numerous scholars in England, who agreed with him. Personal hated of Tischendorf is not a legitimate reason to controvert the date of Sinaiticus, and its getting boring coming from you.

There is no “hatred”. Just realism.

There was no comparison of the yellow and stained Russian pages to the German pages, an absolutely critical element. We do not hear of Scrivener or Burgon or Cowper (the top scholars) seeing the Leipzig pages at these 1865 meetings, or any list of attendees. Simonides was not there, Tischendorf ducked that meeting. The report we do have sounds like a carefully controlled session, largely Tischendorf reading his discovery lies in French. We do not know what questions were asked (e.g. Cowper had carefully pointed out the dating difficulties with the sophisticated formatting of Song of Songs, which pages were in Russia.)

And I mentioned this to you earlier, and more.
 
There is no “hatred”. Just realism.

There was no comparison of the yellow and stained Russian pages to the German pages, an absolutely critical element. We do not hear of Scrivener or Burgon or Cowper (the top scholars) seeing the Leipzig pages at these 1865 meetings, or any list of attendees. Simonides was not there, Tischendorf ducked that meeting. The report we do have sounds like a carefully controlled session, largely Tischendorf reading his discovery lies in French. We do not know what questions were asked (e.g. Cowper had carefully pointed out the dating difficulties with the sophisticated formatting of Song of Songs, which pages were in Russia.)

And I mentioned this to you earlier, and more.
What has this got to do with the unanimous opinion of the English academic establishment as to the manuscript's antiquity? Either you show a really serious criminal attempt at deception by Simonides and his co-conspirators, or else you show why the entire English academic establishment was so easily deceived by such a modern manuscript.
 
First, Tischendorf never gave his reasons for his Sinaiticus handwriting dating, a point made by Milne and Skeat.

“In no case does he give any details of the characteristics of the various hands he professed to identify, and we must assume that, in the main, he was guided solely by the general appearance of the script” (Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, Milne and Skeat 1938 p.18).

Second, handwriting alone can never accurately give a terminus ante quem date for a document. Any handwriting can be copied years later, or 1500 years later. However, no one can write in a future script.

Third, Tischendorf had a rigged horse in the race, in Sinaiticus, and his dating arguments were far from objective.
You have a rigged horse in your race, not Tischendorf.
 
Extracts from Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman "The Text of the New Testament"

"Harry Sturz (in "The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism," Nashville, 1984) failed to prove that the Byzantine text type is older than the fourth century" at p.221.

p.313ff "Alexandrinus" has the Alexandrian text type in the Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles and Revelation only; and Byzantine in the gospels. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are Alexandrian (pre-eminently in Acts). Sinaiticus has the Western variant in John 1.1-8.38.

BYZANTINE TEXT TYPE
p.279 "The other major textual tradition to survive is the Byzantine text,
sometimes also known as the Syrian text (so Westcott and Hort), the
Koine text (so von Soden), the Eclessiastical text (so Lake), and the
Antiochian text (so Ropes). With the exception of those scholars who
continue to appeal to the "majority text" in making textual decisions,'
nearly all crkics today see the Byzantine text as a later development
in the history of transmission....."

"The Byzantine text is characterized by lucidity and completeness.
Those who framed this text over a long period of time sought
to smooth away any harshness of language, to combine two or more
divergent readings into one expanded reading (called conflation),
and to harmonize divergent parallel passages. These positive characteristics
are no doubt what made its readings so popular that by the
early Middle Ages it was the text of choice among most copyists. Its
earliest manuscript witness is the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus
(in the Gospels but not in Acts, the Episdes, or Reveladon); it can be
found in many of the later majuscule manuscripts and in the great
mass of minuscule manuscripts."

WESTERN TEXT TYPE
p.307 "A type of text of the Greek New Testament marked by a distinctive
clu.ster of variant readings was named the "Western" text
because the chief witnesses to it were thought to be of Western
provenance, that is, some Greco-Ladn manuscripts (e.g.. Codex
Bezae), the Old Latin, and quotations in the Latin fathers. It is now
acknowledged that this type of text is not confined to the West; some
of its variant readings appear also in Eastern versions, such as the
Sinaitic Old Syriac and the Coptic. Consequendy, when the designation
continues to be used by textual critics, it is more as a proper
name than as a geographical term."

"Although some have held that the Western text was the deliberate
creation of an individual or several individuals who revised an
eariier text,' most scholars do not find this type of text homogeneous
enough to be called a textual recension; it is usually considered to
be the result of an undisciplined and "wild" growth of manuscript
tradition and transladonal activity.' A marked characteristic of this
text is the love of paraphrase, resulting in clearly secondary features
of addition, omission, substitution, and "improvement" of one kind or
another."

"Because the Western type of text was used by such second- and
early third-century authors as Marcion, Justin (and probably Tatian),
Heracleon, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, most scholars date the emergence
of the Western text to the mid-second century or shortly thereafter.'^'
But they also, as Martini has put it, "leave the door open to
an appreciation of the presence of particular readings in which D or
other 'Western' witnesses have, perhaps, preserved the most ancient
reading."'''

"Various theories of the origin of the Western type of text have
been proposed. We.stcott and Hort considered it to have arisen as a
deliberate second-century revisions ... and corrupt...."

"The most important witnesses of the Westen text are Codex
Bezae and the Old Latin manuscripts,' all of which are characterized
by longer or shorter additions and by certain striking omissions...."

CAESAREAN TEXT TYPE

p.311 "The special character of the Caesarean text is its distinctive
mixture of Western and Alexandrian readings. According to Lagrange,
its maker evidently knew both and made a kind of compromise; in
substance he followed the Alexandrian text while retaining any
Western readings that did not seem too improbable, for the latter text
was widely current, although the former was the better. One may
also observe a certain striving after elegance and, thus, consideration
for the needs of the Church.'^^ A similar view is advanced by Globe,
who maintains that in their early form the "Caesarean variants
resemble the conscious harmonizations, paraphrases and smoothing
of grammatical details also found in Western sources. " Based on
his statisdcal analysis, Hurtado comes to a similar conclusion, arguing
that this type of text is "a form of Western text as it was shaped in the
East."

THE ALEXANDRIAN TEXT TYPE

p.312ff "It is widely agreed that the Alexandrian text was prepared by
skillful editors, trained in the scholarly traditions of Alexandria.'' The
text on which they relied must have already been ancient in all
important points. For much of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries,
the two chief witnesses to this form of text were B and א, dating
from about the middle of the fourth century. With the discovery,
however, of p66 and p75, both dating from about the end of the second
or the beginning of the third century, proof became available
that Hort's Neutral text goes back to an archetype that must be put
early in the second century. This earlier form of the Alexandrian
text, which may be called the "primary" Alexandrian text, is generally
shorter than the text presented in any of the other forms, the
Western being the longest. Furthermore, the primary Alexandrian
text appears not to have undergone the systematic grammatical and
stylistic polLshing that was given to other texts, including the later
form of the Alexandrian text itself.[29]"

[29] For the terminology of "primary" and "secondary" Alexandrian witnesses
and a discu.ssion of their internal relationships, see Bart D. Flhrman,
Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels (Atlanta, 1986), esp. pp. 262-7.

"Though most scholars have abandoned Hort's optimistic view
that Codex Vaticanus (B) contains the original text almost unchanged
except for slips of the pen, they are still inclined to regard the
Alexandrian text as on the whole the best ancient recension and the one most nearly approximating the original."

"In the course of time, the student will observe that generally the reading that is supported by a combination of Alexandrian and Western witnesses is superior to any other reading.....There is, however, an exception to this observation: in the Pauline Epistles, the
combination of B, D, and G is ordinarily not of great weight. The reason for
this is that though B is purely Alexandrian in the Gospels, it has a
certain Western element in the Pauline Epistles. Hence, the combination
of B plus one or more Western witnesses in Paul may mean only
the addition of one Western witness to others of the same class."

"The combination of Western and Caesarean witnesses does not
usually possess exceptional weight, for these two types of text are closely related, especially in the early periods."

"In the evaluation of readings that are supported by only one
class of witnesses, the student will probably find that true readings
survive frequently in the Alexandrian text alone, less frequently in
the Western group alone, and very rarely only in Caesarean witnesses.
As a rule of thumb, the beginner may ordinarily follow the
Alexandrian text except in the case of readings contrary to the criteda
that are responsible for its being given preference in general.
Such a procedure, however, must not be allowed to degenerate into
merely looking for the reading that is supported by B and א (or
even by B alone, as Hort was unfairly accused of doing); in every
instance, a full and careful evaluation is to be made of all the variant
readings in the light of both transcriptional and intrinsic probabilides.
The po.ssibility must always be kept open that the original
reading has been preserved alone in any one group of manu.scripts,
even, in extremely rare imstances, in the Koine or Byzantine text."
 
Last edited:
How could Sturz fail to show that the Byzantine Text is older than the 4th century? He showed Byzantine readings were in the earlist Papyri. For instance, p66 original scribe was Alexandrian, but the contemporary corrector, corrected the manuscript with Byzantine readings. Metzger is mistaken, and outdated.
 
How could Sturz fail to show that the Byzantine Text is older than the 4th century? He showed Byzantine readings were in the earlist Papyri. For instance, p66 original scribe was Alexandrian, but the contemporary corrector, corrected the manuscript with Byzantine readings. Metzger is mistaken, and outdated.
Metzger has a lot of issues with Sturz. He is effectively accused by Metzger of starting a conspiracy theory.

p.221 "The author argues that the Byzantine text is neither the original nor
an entirely secondary text; it is an early, independent text that deserves
as much attention and respect as the Alexandrian and Western
types. About a third of the book presents extensive lists, tables, and
charts that allow the reader to assess the evidence of about 150 passages
throughout the New Testament where typical Byzantine readings
are supported also by one or more of the early papyri. On the
basis of such instances, Sturz concluded that the Byzantine text
derives from at least the second century and represents a stream of
tradition independent of other early traditions."

"Unfortunately, few of the 150 variant readings that Sturz lists are
distinctively Byzantine; most of them have significant non-Byzantine
witnesses supporting them as well. Moreover, one must also ask
whether the evidence of this or that Byzantine reading among the
early papyri demonstrates the existence of the Byzantine text type. A
text type involves a particular constellation of readings in a characteristic
pattern, and the fact is that not one of the papyri collated by
Sturz can be characterized as Byzantine in the text that it presents.
Other serious questions remain, most especially why patristic writers
prior to Basil the Great and Chrysostom show no acquaintance with
the Byzantine text. In short, one is led to conclude that Sturz failed
to prove that the Byzantine text type is older than the fourth century."
 
Metzger has a lot of issues with Sturz. He is effectively accused by Metzger of starting a conspiracy theory.

p.221 "The author argues that the Byzantine text is neither the original nor
an entirely secondary text; it is an early, independent text that deserves
as much attention and respect as the Alexandrian and Western
types. About a third of the book presents extensive lists, tables, and
charts that allow the reader to assess the evidence of about 150 passages
throughout the New Testament where typical Byzantine readings
are supported also by one or more of the early papyri. On the
basis of such instances, Sturz concluded that the Byzantine text
derives from at least the second century and represents a stream of
tradition independent of other early traditions."

"Unfortunately, few of the 150 variant readings that Sturz lists are
distinctively Byzantine; most of them have significant non-Byzantine
witnesses supporting them as well. Moreover, one must also ask
whether the evidence of this or that Byzantine reading among the
early papyri demonstrates the existence of the Byzantine text type. A
text type involves a particular constellation of readings in a characteristic
pattern, and the fact is that not one of the papyri collated by
Sturz can be characterized as Byzantine in the text that it presents.
Other serious questions remain, most especially why patristic writers
prior to Basil the Great and Chrysostom show no acquaintance with
the Byzantine text. In short, one is led to conclude that Sturz failed
to prove that the Byzantine text type is older than the fourth century."
So then, what do the byzantine readings in the Papyri mean then? There not really there? Dismissed? Brushed aside?
 
Metzger has a lot of issues with Sturz. He is effectively accused by Metzger of starting a conspiracy theory.

p.221 "The author argues that the Byzantine text is neither the original nor
an entirely secondary text; it is an early, independent text that deserves
as much attention and respect as the Alexandrian and Western
types. About a third of the book presents extensive lists, tables, and
charts that allow the reader to assess the evidence of about 150 passages
throughout the New Testament where typical Byzantine readings
are supported also by one or more of the early papyri. On the
basis of such instances, Sturz concluded that the Byzantine text
derives from at least the second century and represents a stream of
tradition independent of other early traditions."

"Unfortunately, few of the 150 variant readings that Sturz lists are
distinctively Byzantine; most of them have significant non-Byzantine
witnesses supporting them as well. Moreover, one must also ask
whether the evidence of this or that Byzantine reading among the
early papyri demonstrates the existence of the Byzantine text type. A
text type involves a particular constellation of readings in a characteristic
pattern, and the fact is that not one of the papyri collated by
Sturz can be characterized as Byzantine in the text that it presents.
Other serious questions remain, most especially why patristic writers
prior to Basil the Great and Chrysostom show no acquaintance with
the Byzantine text. In short, one is led to conclude that Sturz failed
to prove that the Byzantine text type is older than the fourth century."
Here is p46. http://waltzmn.brainout.net/ManuscriptsPapyri.html#P46
My own results imply that there are fully five text-types in Paul:The Alexandrian text of ℵA C 33 81 1175 1506 and the Bohairic Coptic; the 𝔓46/B type (consisting onlyof these two and the Sahidic Coptic; this type too seems associated with Egypt, andso needs a name); the Western text of D F G and the Latins, the Byzantine text, andthe Family 1739 text (in Paul, 1739 0121 0243 6 424** 630+2200 (Romans-Galatians) 1881;Origen's text is close to, but not identical with, that of this group
 
So then, what do the byzantine readings in the Papyri mean then? There not really there? Dismissed? Brushed aside?
What do you mean by a "byzantine reading in the Papyri"? To be "byzantine," it must exclusively byzantine.

Per Metzger: most of [the byzantine readings in the Papyri] have significant non-Byzantine witnesses supporting them.

"God has preserved his text" is not a scientific statement, but a statement of propaganda intended a priori to favour the majority text.

You need to realize that, in general, the academics don't talk to Pickering and his handfull of academic votaries. And vice versa. Effectively the two camps have excommunicated each other. You need to read the Wallace article I cited on the other thread to learn why.

________________________________

Pickering Interview [source]

"I became convinced reading Burgon that the Westcott and Hort and all that stuff was totally mistaken. In fact, I wrote my master's thesis on John Burgon and so on."

" I am not a textual critic. I am a student of the text. A critic is above the text. The text is above me. Very crucial difference."

"What not everyone knows is that John Fenton Anthony Hort did not believe that Jesus was God. He did not believe that the New Testament was inspired. As soon as Darwin published his Theory of Evolution, Hort embraced it with both arms, so he probably did not even believe in God for that matter."

["Jesus is not entitled "[the God]" by the NT, at all, or in the same way as the Father. To pretend otherwise is dissembling. Evolution is a credible but not a sufficient theory. So Pickering is a propagandist, first and foremost. That is very dangerous for a serious academic, as propaganda can conceal poor logical arguments, for which see Wallace.]

&etc
 
Last edited:
What do you mean by a "byzantine reading in the Papyri"? To be "byzantine," it must exclusively byzantine.

Why? does an Alexandrian reading have to be exclusive? Does a "western text" reading have to be exclusive? The Byzantine Text Type is well known.
Per Metzger: most of [the byzantine readings in the Papyri] have significant non-Byzantine witnesses supporting them.
So what did Metzger just admit to?
"God has preserved his text" is not a scientific statement, but a statement of propaganda intended a priori to favour the majority text.
When I followed the Alexandrian Text I believed it was the original text. So I said God preserved his word in the Alexandrian Text. Do you believe that God has preserved his word or do you think His Original word is lost? It seems to me to be very scientific to follow the evidence where ever it leads? Or should we say with some textual critics the original text is unrecoverable? If we take a hand full of early manuscripts that would seem to be the case. That or retreat to a Vaticanus is the best position is what I did. But neither position is very scientific?
You need to realize that, in general, the academics don't talk to Pickering and his handfull of academic votaries. And vice versa. Effectively the two camps have excommunicated each other. You need to read the Wallace article I cited on the other thread to learn why.
I heard from a member of this board that says Wallace and Pickering exchange emails on occasion.
________________________________
Pickering Interview [source]

"I became convinced reading Burgon that the Westcott and Hort and all that stuff was totally mistaken. In fact, I wrote my master's thesis on John Burgon and so on."

" I am not a textual critic. I am a student of the text. A critic is above the text. The text is above me. Very crucial difference."

"What not everyone knows is that John Fenton Anthony Hort did not believe that Jesus was God. He did not believe that the New Testament was inspired. As soon as Darwin published his Theory of Evolution, Hort embraced it with both arms, so he probably did not even believe in God for that matter."

["Jesus is not entitled "[the God]" by the NT, at all, or in the same way as the Father. To pretend otherwise is dissembling. Evolution is a credible but not a sufficient theory. So Pickering is a propagandist, first and foremost. That is very dangerous for a serious academic, as propaganda can conceal poor logical arguments, for which see Wallace.]

&etc

You must read those that you disagree with. Its ok to disagree with them. It's ok to reject their work. But you must read them for yourself, instead of just reading about them. I assure you that Burgon is one of the very best ever, and that Pickering includes all textual critics. He even uses their data. Why avoid Textual Criticism. Anyone who has just read Metzger is behind the times.
 
Why? does an Alexandrian reading have to be exclusive? Does a "western text" reading have to be exclusive? The Byzantine Text Type is well known.
Well, these are questions you should address to scholars.

So what did Metzger just admit to?
The words in brackets were mine.

When I followed the Alexandrian Text I believed it was the original text. So I said God preserved his word in the Alexandrian Text. Do you believe that God has preserved his word or do you think His Original word is lost? It seems to me to be very scientific to follow the evidence where ever it leads? Or should we say with some textual critics the original text is unrecoverable? If we take a hand full of early manuscripts that would seem to be the case. That or retreat to a Vaticanus is the best position is what I did. But neither position is very scientific?
I haven't formulated any views myself, yet, except that I'm inclined to regard Pickering with deep suspicion: too much propaganda, too much appeal to sentiment and too much technical detail capable of bamboozling people; and withal, denouncing people on contentious issues is really not my style.

I heard from a member of this board that says Wallace and Pickering exchange emails on occasion.
I don't doubt it, but I can't find Pickering's work peer reviewed by any other academics, so I conclude that the camps are de facto excommunicate. The Wallace article is the only one I've found so far attempting to bridge the gap. If you know of any others, please let me know.

________________________________


You must read those that you disagree with. Its ok to disagree with them. It's ok to reject their work. But you must read them for yourself, instead of just reading about them. I assure you that Burgon is one of the very best ever, and that Pickering includes all textual critics. He even uses their data. Why avoid Textual Criticism. Anyone who has just read Metzger is behind the times.
Indeed, I've got a lot of reading to do, as I'm fairly new to this subject. But Metzger is pretty clued up - more so that many others.
 
Why? does an Alexandrian reading have to be exclusive? Does a "western text" reading have to be exclusive? The Byzantine Text Type is well known.

So what did Metzger just admit to?

When I followed the Alexandrian Text I believed it was the original text. So I said God preserved his word in the Alexandrian Text. Do you believe that God has preserved his word or do you think His Original word is lost? It seems to me to be very scientific to follow the evidence where ever it leads? Or should we say with some textual critics the original text is unrecoverable? If we take a hand full of early manuscripts that would seem to be the case. That or retreat to a Vaticanus is the best position is what I did. But neither position is very scientific?

I heard from a member of this board that says Wallace and Pickering exchange emails on occasion.
________________________________


You must read those that you disagree with. Its ok to disagree with them. It's ok to reject their work. But you must read them for yourself, instead of just reading about them. I assure you that Burgon is one of the very best ever, and that Pickering includes all textual critics. He even uses their data. Why avoid Textual Criticism. Anyone who has just read Metzger is behind the times.

As one of Wallace’s former interns I can affirm that he and Pickering are good friends and exchange emails (at least they did in 2010-11 during my time).
 
How could Sturz fail to show that the Byzantine Text is older than the 4th century? He showed Byzantine readings were in the earlist Papyri. For instance, p66 original scribe was Alexandrian, but the contemporary corrector, corrected the manuscript with Byzantine readings. Metzger is mistaken, and outdated.

Agreed. Both text types should be fully embraced. The Greek Orthodox assembly has a long history of employing the Byzantine form. There is very little doubt the eastern assemblies carried such into the collection that found its way into Alexandrinus.

There is really no reason to contrast one with the other. They took similar paths and were used concurrently.
 
But Metzger is pretty clued up - more so that many others.

He is confident. Which is the case with most any person that puts pen to paper. I don't make choices between sources. I look for agendas. When I find someone that obviously "has no agenda", I pay attention. I can't say I believe Metzger didn't "paint a narrative".
 
Agreed. Both text types should be fully embraced. The Greek Orthodox assembly has a long history of employing the Byzantine form. There is very little doubt the eastern assemblies carried such into the collection that found its way into Alexandrinus.

There is really no reason to contrast one with the other. They took similar paths and were used concurrently.
I guess they all come from the Originals. But one tradition came through with less mistakes than the others. Less changes to the text.
 
He is confident. Which is the case with most any person that puts pen to paper. I don't make choices between sources. I look for agendas. When I find someone that obviously "has no agenda", I pay attention. I can't say I believe Metzger didn't "paint a narrative".
He made the New Testament less accurate.
 
Back
Top