Mon Jun 10 16:19:21 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Jun 10 16:19:21 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA26352; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 16:18:09 -0400
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:14:46 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199606102014.PAA19320@homer.bethel.edu>
X-Sender: holmic@mailhost.bethel.edu
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: Michael Holmes 
Subject: Re: Holmes Overview
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2637

In his 7 June response to my post of the same date, Maurice Robinson wrote:

>... but it still seems clear (as Calvin Porter pointed out in his Duke
>dissertation over 30 years ago), that modern eclecticism still proceeds
>as if it has no theory of textual transmission, and that the search for
>the original text is more like the myth of wandering Isis trying to
>reassemble the pieces of Osiris from here there and yonder, where they
>have been scattered by forces unknown, with no regard for an
>overarching original text which had to have a basis in consistent
>continuous text MS evidence.  This is not a mere generalization, but
>applies with equal validity to the current praxis of both rigorous and
>reasoned eclecticism.
>
With all due respect (and without getting a debate about circumstances 30
years ago), the generalization "that modern eclecticism still proceeds as if
it has no theory of textual transmission ... This is not a mere
generalization, but applies with equal validity to the current praxis of
both rigorous and reasoned eclecticism" is an inadequate description of the
current situation.  E.g.,
        --Kilpatrick (and Elliott after him) worked with an explicit theory
of textual transmission (namely, following Vogels, that nearly all variants
had been created before the year 200, and since nearly all our extant
witnesses are post-200, the dates and relevance of external evidence is of
little value.  See further Elliott, in the Ehrman-Holmes volume, 330-331).
        --a reasoned eclectic like K. Aland worked with an explicit and
well-developed theory of tranmission of the text, as is clear from Aland and
Aland, _Text_.
        --Zuntz was driven to the practice of eclecticism *precisely
because* of his study of the transmission of the textual tradition (see
_Text of the Epistles_, 282-283).
        --rather than extend ad nauseam the list of exx. (Fee, Colwell,
Birdsall, Metzger, etc.) of reasoned eclectics who do work with an explicit
theory of textual transmission, a generalization may be suggested: many
current "reasoned eclectics" practice a reasoned eclecticism *because of* a
certain understanding of or conclusion about the textual transmission of the
NT, namely, that no extant textual tradition has escaped the impact of
textual corruption.
        The (often widely-differing, to be sure) theories of textual
transmission held by current reasoned eclectics certainly may be critiqued
as inadequate, and may in the opinion of some be employed inconsistently.
But in view of the data it appears that one must demur from the
generalization quoted above.

Mike Holmes
Bethel College

Back