Sat Feb 17 00:44:04 1996

From majordom  Sat Feb 17 00:44:04 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA27061; Sat, 17 Feb 1996 00:44:04 +0500
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 00:41:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: "Majority Text"
In-Reply-To: <9602142126.AA04990@nyx.net>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 3464
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu



On Wed, 14 Feb 1996, David Washburn wrote:

> Maurice Robinson wrote: 

> > method (I can hear it now: "just because the Byzantine text is now seen 
> > to be quite early does not make it authentic"). *:-)
> 
> Actually, as I recall, this is almost exactly what Harry Sturz concluded 
> after he showed that Byzantine readings were present in early papyri.  He 
> wasn't trying to argue that the Byzantine text should be primary, merely 
> put on an equal footing with other text-types for the application of 
> internal criteria.  That being the case, I doubt that such a discovery 
> would put much of a dent in eclectic methodology, because virtually all 
> internal criteria of the eclectic method leave Byzantine readings lacking 
> anyway.

Sturz' case was indeed that the Byzantine Textform should be treated as 
equally early with the Alexandrian and Western Texttypes.  Even though 
some have questioned his data in proof of this point, the problem with 
their criticisms lies in a redefinition of "distinctive Byzantine 
readings" from that which Hort originally stated. I think most of Sturz' 
data is applicable, but only with the proper definition of terms and not 
with what revisions to such definitions might occur.  

Sturz did have a method of approach however, and he applied his method in
a privately-printed booklet containing "The Second-Century Text of
Matthew".   His method was NOT a model of how to do textual criticism: it 
was entirely externally-based, with no use of internal evidence.  
Further, it was not based upon the MSS, but upon the texttypes (under the 
assumption that the texttype reading equalled the lost archetype MS of 
that interrelated group).  Then he simply "counted noses" among the 
texttypes, and let any 2 out of 3 decide the "second century" reading (at 
least he made no claims that this method would restore the autograph).

The problem with Sturz' method is obvious: once you let two out of three 
decide the case, you end up with a heavily Byzantine text automatically, 
but without a pro-Byzantine theory to undergird and support the conclusions.
I.e., any Alexandrian + Byz combination or Western + Byz combination will 
rule the day.  Using a little algebra, one can see that the common term 
to A+B and W+B is B, and A and W are basically dispensed with.

The only time that Sturz would abandon the Byzantine text would be when 
both Alex+West united in opposition to Byz -- and anyone knowing the 
characteristics of those two texttypes know how rarely these two agree 
against Byz.  However, even in the Alex+West union, Sturz' method is 
flawed, since he in such places ultimately makes the Western text the 
deciding factor, which no living scholar today would maintain.

It all goes back to the original dictum: "Textual criticism without a 
history of the text is impossible" (Colwell; H.H.Oliver).  Sturz' 
contribution regarding the antiquity of the Byzantine Textform can be 
appreciated, but his methodology in constructing a text certainly leaves 
much to be desired.


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

Back