Thu Apr 11 00:09:35 1996

From majordom  Thu Apr 11 00:09:35 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA08738; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:09:35 +0500
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:06:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Syriac + it-k
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 12361
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu


[long -- part 1 of 2]

William L. Petersen wrote on Tue, 09 Apr 1996:

>This response addresses only what I see as our main points of
>disagreement.

>(1) As to whether Robinson begins with an _a priori_ assumption, that I
>leave to the readers of the list.  His assertion, to which I took
>exception, was that "versional and patristic evidence certainly can be
>of significance,...but such should never become primary evidence or
>even suggested to be such, in view of the quantity and quality of the
>Greek MS evidence we possess."

Since other scholars follow this methodological principle, though 
differing in text-critical theory and practice, I fail to see that the 
supposition of _a priori_ is even addressed.  One need not "examine 
every version at every variant" before determining a basic working 
methodology. I doubt that most eclectic scholars have examined even all 
known _Greek_ MS variants at every point before proclaiming originality 
or at least a strong probability of originality for a text within a 
given variant unit or for their overall NT text as a whole.  One does 
not make _a priori_ assumptions in either case, but merely draws
conclusions based upon a sufficiently adequate examination of a
reasonable database of evidence.

It is as much of an _a priori_ claim to presume that in some unknown 
and as-yet uncited case there is a likelihood that versional testimony 
will be original over the vastness of Greek MS data we possess, even 
though the evidence continually points in the opposite direction.  What 
benefit therefore comes from working within a framework like that as 
opposed simply to maintaining its converse?

>The equivalent would be to say that the Byzantine text should _never_
>be used to reconstruct the most ancient version of a text;  I would
>call that an _a priori_ as well--and one with which I would
>disagree--for here and there it _might_.

Westcott and Hort basically held to that very position, and were rigid 
in their application of it.  Further, their theory was based upon a 
tightly reasoned argument regarding the age of MSS, the development of 
early texttypes, and the issues of conflation and harmonization as 
indications of the secondary nature of the Byzantine texttype.  Their 
theory as stated did not proceed from an _a priori_ basis (though their 
initial motives may have been a distrust of and opposition to the TR, 
as Colwell pointed out), and such a claim should NOT be alleged against 
their theory any more than against my own (note that I continue to 
regard their theory as superior to that of modern eclecticism, even if 
I do not accept their premises or conclusion, since they followed what 
I consider a proper methodology and strenuously worked out a history of 
transmission of the text before proceeding).


>Quite frankly, since Robinson has several other _a prioris_ later in
>his post ("My previous exclusion of conjectural emendation also
>reflects such an application of my own principles", and at #3 below), I 
>don't see why he should claim his absolute rejection of the evidence of 
>the versions ("never") should not also be read as an _a priori_.

By definition,  arguments made _a priori_ are axioms made in the 
absence of evidence, with no need of proof, and without taking data or
probabilities into account.  Were I merely to declare "MS B is the best
MS in the Gospels, and should be followed implicitly except in cases of
obvious scribal error," that would be a true _a priori_ statement.  

If I give _reasons_ for making such a claim, based upon a reasonable 
amount of examination of the data and drawing conclusions therefrom, 
the case is no longer _a priori_, but reflects the normal application 
of a hypothetical theory and implementation procedure.  On the specific 
issue at hand, from my own perspective, after looking long and hard at 
as much of the evidence I have been able to examine for over 25 years, 
I still see nothing therein which would move me to claim versional
superiority over the Greek data, especially when the versions stand
wholly apart from the Greek data.  Why this is somehow _a priori_, I do
not know, since no claim is made without having fairly examined the
extant evidence.

>(2) Robinson states that the idea of a single MS preserving the
>original is "absurd in the extreme."  He holds up for ridicule the idea
>that "all or nearly all Greek MSS at a given point have 'lost' the
>original reading, but somehow a single version or perhaps two (e.g., sy
>+ it-k) mysteriously escaped the otherwise universal corruption."

My statement of course is based upon a presumption regarding basic
transmissional history within which, apart from an extremely radical
dislocation (of which no record exists), the expected survival of the
autograph reading among the MS copies in the original language would
under all "normal" circumstances be expected.  For any piece of
literature, the probability that this is true statistically increases
as the original language database increases.  Since the quantity of
original language MSS is exceedingly large, there would be little
opportunity for _all_ such original-language witnesses to mysteriously
"lose" such an original reading, and this simply need not be postulated
or expected as part of a working hypothesis for textual restoration.
There is nothing illogical in maintaining such a presumption when
compelling evidence to the contrary does not exist.

>The problem is that textual criticism is full of examples where one MS
>has preserved the "original" reading, while the many have erred.  While
>this cannot be demonstrated on the basis of the Biblical text...it can
>be observed in Classical and other texts by looking at any apparatus.

Which makes my point precisely.  Those other traditions in secular, 
classical or other theological works are beset with innumerable 
text-critical problems, not merely reflected in a paucity of MSS in the 
original language, but in some cases restricted to works known only in 
versional translation.  Even Homer in Greek, with its approximately 600 
or so MSS, reflects problems unknown within NT text-critical circles,
including multiple recensions, a continuing "uncontrolled popular
text", and more text-types and sub-types than ever graced the MSS of
the Greek NT.  

In order for the principle to even begin to approach validity in the NT 
situation, compelling examples of versional or patristic originality 
when unsupported by the Greek MSS must be put forth and argued 
favorably in a manner more sufficient and convincing than can the 
reading(s) of the extant Greek MSS.  (Kilpatrick and Elliott on 
occasion have argued _contra mundi_ in favor of readings in even a 
13th-century Old Latin MS, but few if any have accepted their
conclusions in such cases).


>I offer a single example, from the Diatessaron....[discussion
>omitted]...  Only MS R--that is 1 MS out of 26--has preserved the 
>Diatessron's reading.  The empirical evidence shows that the phenomenon 
>of a single MS offering the original text DOES occur.

But once more, this does not apply to the NT MSS, but is related to the 
reconstruction of the Diatessaron -- a totally different work with its 
own transmissional history (aggravated by the declaration of Tatian to 
be a heretic and the forced suppression of his works).  Tatian's text 
basically has to be reconstructed almost entirely from versional 
evidence due to its history. (And I willingly defer to Petersen's
expertise in Diatessaron-related matters).


>(3) Robinson's logic appears faulty--and appears to err in a manner
>which is self-serving--in the following, which I reproduce directly.
>My original text is first, followed by Robinson's reply:

>>>Souter put it thus in an article on Hebrews 10.29 in _The Expositor_ 23
>>>(1922), p. 135:  "...there is a salutary lesson for all those who
>>>neglect the early versions.  _A reading may be right, even if no single
>>>extant Greek MS. contains it_" (Souter's italics).

>>Since Souter can be dogmatic in his stance without being faulted, then
>>I too should be allowed to be just as dogmatic, declaring Souter to be
>>dead wrong in light of the converse: "A reading _cannot_ be right if it
>>is not contained in any single extant Greek MS."  Dogmatism cuts both
>>ways, and is entirely dependent upon the theory being espoused.

I admittedly _was_ self-serving in that statement, merely to take the 
point to a _reductio ad absurdum_.  Not much is altered even if my
statement should be more cautiously rephrased as Petersen suggests,
i.e., "A reading is _not likely_ to be right if it is not contained in
any single extant Greek MS."  The only item missing in the "cautionary" 
form of the statement is a probability claim.  Since I have argued that
probability to be basically nil, then the stronger statement is no 
different from the more guarded statement, and that is all I intended.

>He [Souter] does not claim exclusivity (that ONLY readings in the
>versions, or SUPPORTED by the versions, are "right").

>Souter is NOT dogmatic or exclusivist;  whence comes this dogmatism in
>the inversion of his statement???  It certainly doesn't come from
>Souter--or myself...  "Cannot" and "never" are not found in my or
>Souter's statements...

Souter nevertheless remains dogmatic, even though "may" appears in his
original statement: when a hypothesis is expressed which is based upon
an uncertainty principle, the word "may" utterly and dogmatically
opposes any opposite notion that such could _not_ be the case.  To
express uncertainty in any given situation is to dogmatically claim
that statements to the contrary are to be considered erroneous.  E.g.,
"Scholars who agree with my views _may_ be right, even if no other
scholar should agree."

Neither I nor most of the "reasoned eclectic" scholars would argue 
against the weight proffered by strong or united versional testimony 
_in addition to_ their Greek support.  I know of no scholars who would 
ever claim in a blanket manner that versional testimony standing 
utterly alone should be the norm for determining the NT Greek text, 
and even Petersen would not claim such.

>(3) Robinson continues with another _a priori_:  "...the quantity of
>Greek MS evidence we possess remains eminently suitable for
>establishing the text of the NT."  In general, I tend to agree, but
>would not exclude either the Fathers or the versions, as Robinson
>would.

Please take note that I do _not_ exclude either versional or patristic 
testimony, and such is often quite useful in determining the original 
text where the Greek witnesses are divided.  My objection is _only_ to 
a claim that -- just as with conjectural emendation -- in light of the 
amount of data we possess, _all_ Greek witnesses should be suspected of 
"primitive error" to such a degree as to render either conjecture or 
the testimony of versional or patristic data standing alone as superior
to the Greek MS evidence we possess. There is nothing implausible or
unreasonable in holding to that type of objection, and it is not a 
mere _a priori_ declaration.

>I do not claim that the original text IS ALWAYS in the Fathers or
>versions, much less ONLY in the Fathers or versions.  I say only that
>one errs if one _commences_ by saying that they can "never" provide
>evidence anterior to the extant Greek MSS.

This is completely granted on your part, and I too will agree that a 
very large number of readings "anterior to the extant Greek MSS" can be 
provided by versional and patristic testimony.  This is _not_ the same 
as claiming that there are cases where versional and/or patristic 
testimony standing alone against the Greek MSS must be right and that 
all the Greek MSS must of necessity be wrong.  I say only that one errs 
in a different direction when he or she commences with a presumption of 
possible unreliability regarding the Greek MS data we possess, despite 
the quantity of available Greek MS evidence.  Two different theories,
two different perspectives.

[continued in part 2]

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back