Mon Dec 4 23:55:24 1995

From majordom  Mon Dec  4 23:55:24 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA10980; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 23:55:24 +0500
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 23:50:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: "Dale M. Wheeler" 
Cc: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Collation against MT vs. TR
In-Reply-To: <199512042134.NAA17107@desiree.teleport.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 3983
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk



On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Dale M. Wheeler wrote:

> This is a general misconception of what Hodges and Farstad were trying to
> accomplish with their text.  The point was not to produce a Majority text
> for its own sake, rather it was to show the nature of rigorous stemmatics
> applied to the history of the transmission of the mss.  

I would differ somewhat with that assessment, since they admittedly only
applied this principle to the Pericope Adultera and the book of
Revelation, due to the amount of data they had at hand.  Admittedly, they
would have liked to apply their stemmatic conceptions to the remainder of
the Greek NT, but were unable to do so, due to limitations of available
data. 

> It is their
> contention that if stemmatics were applied to the entirety of the NT mss,
> the Majority type of text would in fact be shown to be the progenitor of all
> the various "text-types," and thus represent the original.  

This in fact is NOT what their own stemmatic explorations led to.  The Ma
group in Revelation with only 19% support was declared by them (on what in
my opinion were wholly inadequate grounds) to be the progenitor of all
other groups, including the circa 40% Andreas group and the 40% Q group. 
They simply did NOT declare a single "majority" group to be the origin of
all the others, but a minority sub-group -- and this alone totally
nullifies their basic theory, since they declare they would follow a
similar methodology throughout the NT were sufficient data available. 
Wallace correctly labeled it something like the "Intra-Byzantine Stemmatic
(Minority) Text" position, which it truly is, rather than a real
"pro-Byzantine" or "majority text" position. 

> I don't think one should understand Hodges' conclusion that
> the statistical majority does not represent the original to be an indication
> of his forsaking the majority opinion, but rather as a clear indicator of
> the fact that he believes that rigorous stemmatics is the only way to "find"
> the original (it also shows that his approach was NEVER counting
> manuscripts; his "Majority" text was based on the above-mentioned working
> theory that the Byz/Maj would stand at the top of a rigorous NT stemma).

When an approach claiming to be "majority" becomes subsumed under 
minority stemmatics, something in the terminology needs to change.  If 
you want a text of Revelation which is far more "majority" in nature, my 
own reconstruction will give a clear example of such, based not at all on 
stemmatics, but upon Colwell's 70% threshold plus internal evidence 
analysis in places where support is more evenly divided.  As Wallace has 
noted, I am far more of a "true Burgonite" than either Hodges and Farstad 
on this point.

> I hasten to add that Maurice's view of the history of the
> manuscripts is also not as simple-minded as simply counting mss (ie., he has
> a reason for choosing it, whether one agrees with his working theory or
> not).  

And I thank you for making this clear to all and sundry, so I won't have 
to explain why "counting noses" is NOT the procedure followed in a 
pro-Byzantine theory.  *8-)

> Indeed, Maurice's text would probably be preferable for a collating
> base..which is what we were talking about in the first place.

And again, I really prefer that everyone continue using the TR (Oxford 
1873 edition, standard for the IGNTP).  The issue of a collating base is 
not all that important.  The primary issue is utilizing a standard base 
which all can readily consult and which all collations can readily be 
compared with.


=========================================================================
                       Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
            Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
              Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
                      Wake Forest, North Carolina
                   
=========================================================================

Back