Sat Feb 10 15:41:24 1996
From majordom Sat Feb 10 15:41:24 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA00536; Sat, 10 Feb 1996 15:41:24 +0500
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery)
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 15:39:20 -0600
Content-Length: 4548
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
This is in answer to a post from Rachel off list. I hope its ok if I put
it on-line.
>But I wonder why is there is so much hull-a-ba-loo
>over the Maj T. It seems like the conservative spectrum is really
>getting excited over it. I like and read Gordon Fee's articles and
>books (have not finished some yet..... )
>But some even feel that anyone who goes along with the TC tradition
>is suspect (of liberalism... humanistic feminism.... and any other
>bogeyman...)
>Why is the Byzantine text type hyped so much?
My first response to your question is that there are several reasons. One
is that some have sold the Majority Text (MT) as the equivalent of the text
behind the King James Version. In fact the dust cover of The Greek NT
according to the Majority Text has a statement to that effect. "The
Majority Text, similar to the kind of text found in the King James Version,
has never before been printed." After that statement few people among the
right wing of Evangelicalism ever noticed other disclaimers in the
introduction to the text. In fact I've had several people call me and ask
if I used the Greek text behind the KJV. When I replied that I did not
have a copy of the Beza text, they asked, "who was Beza?"
>Do you agree that the Alexandrian text type was
>influenced by the theological debates at that time?
I can only reply that all mss are corrupt. The Alexandrian scribes tended
to make grammatical corrections (not updating the language like the
Byzantines) and in some places show a tendency to clarify statements that
are used in theology. There are Byzantine readings that seem to do more in
that direction.
>Lastly if the Maj Text and the Nestle-Aland (or
>the Alexandrian text type) are nearly identical
>what are the reasons for the small difference?
All texts have about 90% agreement, but the vast majority of NT mss are
Byzantine and these are further from the early papyrii and uncials than
from other texts or mss that cannot be text-typed. The refinements of
Aland in typing mss as level 1, level 2, etc. is long needed. There are
major differences, as mss go, between the MT as edited by Hodges and the
UBS or Nestle-Aland. I did a review of the MT of Hodges when it first came
out and one of the things I did was show that it was not the Textus
Receptus on which the KJV was based.
>Of course I know that I should read the articles
>below before asking these questions (which I will
>start looking at tonight....;)
>but I just need a brief comment from you or another.
>My way of studying the biblical text is too go at it
>myself first, doing inductive study, create my hypothesis about what
>the text means, how to apply it, and then
>I start reading lots and lots of other stuff to see where my
>"intuition" leads me. Actually intuition may not capture what I mean
>but there is a distinct impression that when I read something or
>start building something that it "jells together"? Things seem to
>fall into place and I am able to build a conviction (flexible to be
>changed if necessary later on....)
My word of caution is "Check it out." Don't accept any conclusion without
checking not only the egs. cited but contra egs. that you can find in other
sources. There is no substitute for reading mss in the process of learning
to apply the canons of TC. When you have mastered the subject of reading
mss, what scribes did and the mass of info about types of mss, you are only
just beginning. You still have to study Pauline style, etc., current Greek
style, history and social environment, ecclestical demands, local means of
controling mss production, theological and canonical developments, and
several other disciplines. Hence, most of us are not bold enough to call
ourselves NT Textual Critics, but prefer to say we hope to be someday.
>Thus this is why I am asking you or Conrad or another
>that I consider to be a reliable source. (Of course I do not really
>know you very well but I sure like your attitude...... :) And I
>appreciate your responses.....
>BTW if you are ever in Asian drop by over here and Me and my family
>will show you around.....
>You can even try out Hakkanese food..... ;)
>
>Of course I hope you get here before Beijing does.......
>
Thanks, you never know. I have an adopted son whose relatives live in
Taiwan. He was born in Viet Nam and got out with the boat people.
Grace,
Carlton Winbery
Chair Religion/Philosophy
LA College,
Pineville,La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
fax (318) 442-4996 or (318) 487-7425
Back