Sat Oct 26 10:18:07 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sat Oct 26 10:18:07 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA12187; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:16:14 -0400
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:12:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: TC-LIST 
Subject: Re: Multiple Replies (Was: Re: Textual Criticism Theories)
In-Reply-To: <961024044602_102147.2045_EHT106-1@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1557



On 24 Oct 1996, Mike  Arcieri wrote:

> Actually, here is a good quote from Scrivener's letter (dated Nov. 18, 1889) re.
> his own position.:
> 
> "I think Burgon's wholesale disparagement of Codex Vaticanus as 'the most
> corrupt of all copies' quite unreasonable. On this head we have held many a
> conflict, without either of us yeilding an inch. You will see that I stand
> midway between the two schools, inclining much more to Burgon than to Hort."
> 
> This quote is from Burgon's biography by Edward M. Goulburn (which I may add was
> _not_ quoted by Wallace in his paper "Historical Revisionism and the Majority
> Text Theory: The Cases of F.H.A. Scrivener and H. C. Hoskier" in NTS 1995).

Mike, thank you for this quote from Scrivener; I had not seen it
previously, since I do not have access to a copy of Goulburn's Life of
Burgon.  

In view of this letter as contrasted with what Scrivener does in praxis,
even in the posthumous 4th edition of his "Plain Introduction", it seems
Scrivener felt in theory far more connected with Burgon's position than
his actual text-critical praxis tended to indicate. 

In any case, this does serve as a significant corrective to Wallace's
"Revisionism" article on this point.  Thank you for your research.

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

Back