Mon Feb 12 12:09:56 1996

From majordom  Mon Feb 12 12:09:56 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA05582; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:09:56 +0500
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:07:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 6948
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu



On Sat, 10 Feb 1996, Carlton Winbery wrote:

> This is in answer to a post from Rachel off list.  

> >Why is the Byzantine text type hyped so much?

> the dust cover of [Hodges and Farstads's] 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."  

>From what I understand, that blurb was not from Hodges or Farstad, and no 
mention of the KJV appears within their own introduction (so far as I can 
determine from a quick re-read). Credit that to a Thomas Nelson marketing 
executive who figured it would increase sales to the KJV-only crowd.

> 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?"

I simply tell them "of course" and let it go at that *:-)  Should they 
question further, I carefully explain that ANY Greek edition reflects 
about 90-95% of the text of the KJV and that NO single Textus Receptus 
edition available in 1611 contained ALL the readings found in the KJV.  
They usually don't pursue it farther than that.

> >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.

I will here agree wholeheartedly with Carlton.  The KJV-Only propagandists
continually allege that the Alexandrian text is "Gnostic", "Arian",
"heretical" or part of a "Luciferian Conspiracy" -- and that is simply
because they refuse to see anything except the KJV-Only position.  

There simply is NO evidence whatsoever that the Alexandrian texttype was
influenced in any significant manner from the various theological 
viewpoints which affected orthodox Christianity.  Here and there there 
are isolated readings in some few MSS which might have stemmed from or 
were utilized by non-orthodox, but insofar as a texttype-as-a-whole would 
be affected by heretical doctrines would imply that the fathers, pastors, 
and other theologians of the early church were not keen watchdogs against 
the intrusion of such heresy in their sacred texts.  I do not think this 
is the case, nor do I consider Ehrman's case (The Orthodox Corruption 
of Scripture) to be valid once one gets to the texttype level (Bart will 
differ on this, of course).

Most of the Alexandrian variants I consider to be stylistic and
grammatical in nature, along with Carlton.  I would not concur with his
view of Byzantine readings in his statement above, of course, since I will
maintain their autograph originality rather than later corruption. 

> >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

Here we agree.  For the Gospels, 90% is about right, regardless of which 
manuscripts are compared with each other.  In the Epistles the amount of 
agreement rises to around 95-96%.  

, 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 Byzantine MSS clearly differ further from the early papyri and also from 
the uncials; this however is primarily a texttype-specific division 
between Byzantine on the one hand and Alexandrian or Western on the other.

> The refinements of
> Aland in typing mss as level 1, level 2, etc. is long needed.  

Although I am not sure Aland's method works without utilizing the 
Claremont Profile Method or something like it as a standard of 
comparison.  All I seem to see in Aland's method is a summary declaration 
based upon percentage of agreement in his scattered 1000 test passages, 
which is not exactly what the  more closely-refined Claremont method 
would recommend. 

> 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.

Absolutely correct on both counts.  Daniel Wallace has estimated the 
Hodges/Farstad text to differ from the TR in over 1800 places.  I have 
never collated my edition against a TR, but it would be about the same.  
Both the H/F and my edition will differ from the Nestle26-27/UBS3-4 texts 
in around 5000-6000 places, most of these inconsequential and untranslatable.

> >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.

In order to be informed regarding all sides, I would suggest at a minimum
reading Gordon Fee's critique of the Majority Text position in conjunction
with my own response to Gordon Fee on the two "test passages" he 
mentioned (Mk.1:2 and Mk.13:14) which I presented at ETS Chicago 1994.

> 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.  

Absolutely true.  Examine all sides and be absolutely fair in evaluating 
the evidence.

> 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.

Don't make the task too hard, Carlton!  None of us are total experts in
ALL those fields, but I hardly think that such precludes one from becoming
quite skilled in textual criticism merely from an intensive study of all
the primary sources and working directly with the MSS themselves. (I
certainly would like to encourage and not discourage my own students! *:-)


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

Back