Mon Feb 12 16:26:07 1996
From majordom Mon Feb 12 16:26:07 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA07116; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 16:26:07 +0500
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 16:23:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: "Majority Text"
In-Reply-To:
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 6043
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Bart Ehrman wrote:
> Thanks to Maurice Robinson's explanation of the five differnet kinds
> of "Majority Text" advocates. It's a very useful taxonomy. I have a
> question, Maurice, about one of your statements:
>
> On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:
> >
> > It is true that most if not all advocates of the true "Majority Text" or
> > "Byzantine-priority" hypotheses (groups 4 and 5 above) reflect a
> > theological conservatism, including a belief in biblical inerrancy.
> My question (actually, questions): Do you know of *anybody* who
> subscribes to such a theory who does not "reflect a theological
> conservatism, including a belief in biblical inerrancy"?
Probably it depends upon the time frame we are speaking of. At the
present time I am not aware of any outside of a conservative theological
framework who hold to a Byzantine-priority or "majority text" position,
though there is no _a priori_ reason why non-conservative scholars could
not hold to a Byzantine-priority hypothesis.
Earlier in this century (ca. 1950) the Roman Catholic scholar Hugh Pope
openly acknowledged his text-critical position to be that of Burgon, and
(from what Jose O'Callaghan reported to me in private correspondence) the
Spanish Catholic scholar M.-J. Bover was strongly moving to the position
before his death, and the Greek-Latin-Spanish "edition trilingual" which
O'Callaghan completed in Bover's behalf supposedly bears some indication
of the change in Bover's views (though admittedly I have not collated the
text of that edition to see if these things be so).
In the 19th century, the Roman Catholic scholar J.P.P.Martin published a
five-volume work in lithograph from his handwritten manuscript taking the
same position; and of course the Anglicans J. W. Burgon, Edward Miller and
F.H.A. Scrivener (Daniel Wallace's inaccurate claims regarding "historical
revisionism" notwithstanding) all held to a basically pro-Byzantine
position, though (except for Burgon) I would not exactly categorize those
Anglicans as "conservative" in the inerrantist sense.
Keith Elliott of course is quite interested in the pro-Byzantine position,
not so much because of the transmissional theory, but because the internal
defense of various Byzantine readings is right up his alley, and helps him
in his continual quest to refute any reading favored by the UBS/Nestle
tradition which he chooses not to accept.
> If not, how do
> you explain this phenomenon, that scholars who have nothing at stake in
> the matter (I'm excluding the scholars who *do* have something at stake,
> i.e., those whose agenda include the desire to overthrow conservative
> views of the Bible) uniformly take the other side of this "debate"?
The problem is not at all conservative versus liberal in the matter of
accepting or rejecting the various text-critical hypotheses. Most (90%+)
conservatives within the ETS would currently not hold to a majority text
type of position, and even at my own school, there are only two faculty
members who hold this view (even our president, concerning whom you are
well aware would be considered ultra-conservative, does not hold to a
majority text type of view).
The issue is muddied, as I see it, by the slew of pretenders who claim to
appropriate the "majority text" label when they in reality have no
interest in that theory nor in textual criticism at all, but are solely
concerned with the ultra-fundamentalist defense of the KJV-Only position
(i.e. my categories 1, 2, and 3). This KJV-Only guilt-by-association
keeps a large number, even of conservatives, from seriously considering
the Byzantine-priority hypothesis on its own merits. (Just for the
record, I don't even use or read the KJV; the language is too archaic and
its NT text is simply too inaccurate from a Byzantine-priority
perspective). *:-)
Further muddying is done by some within category 4 who opt by various
means to follow principles which are ultimately destructive of the theory
they espouse. Example: Hodges and Farstad's text of Revelation was
accurately referred to by Wallace as the "Intra-Byzantine Stemmatic Text"
in that book rather than anything approaching a "majority text" as the
title of their edition claims, solely due to their decision to abandon
their own principles once full collation data becomes available. Another
example: the tendency of the Category 4 crowd to make everything
ultimately revolve around a providential preservation and (ultimately) an
inerrantist agenda -- if that won't keep non-conservatives away, nothing
will. *:-)
My own position (to reiterate) is neither tied to a KJV or TR position,
nor is there any theological agenda regarding providential preservation
or inerrancy which characterizes my approach. I prefer to keep the
discipline of NT textual criticism theologically neutral if possible.
> As you probably know, I don't mean for these to sound like rhetorical
> questions; I'm genuinely interested in knowing what you make of this.
And I definitely believe you. Of course, unless a second-century MS of
unquestioned Byzantine character should be discovered in the sands of
Egypt (which I hardly think possible), I do not doubt that the "majority
text" or Byzantine-priority hypothesis will ever see much play in the
SBL. Were such an discovery ever to occur, I would be quite interested in
seeing the scurrying which would transpire to preserve the current eclectic
method (I can hear it now: "just because the Byzantine text is now seen
to be quite early does not make it authentic"). *:-)
=========================================================================
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina
=========================================================================
Back