Sat Oct 26 10:53:15 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sat Oct 26 10:53:15 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA12449; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:51:31 -0400
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:47:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Multiple Replies (Was: Re: Textual Criticism Theories)
In-Reply-To: 
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: 3278



On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> The article I read was in Ehrman and Holmes, and I will admit that I did not
> re-read it when I wrote my reply. The relevant statement (p. 307) is
> 
>    Third, the Dutch schollars, van Bruggen and Wisselink, would hold to
>    Majority text priority but not Majority text exclusivity. Theirs is the most
>    nuanced Majority text position. Although they do not explicitly argue
>    against particular majority readings, they allow, at least in theory,
>    for Byzantine harmonizations and corruptions.
> 
> This sounds like Sturz's position to me, at least in outline.

No, this is definitely a very far cry from Sturz.  Sturz clearly did not
hold to any Byzantine priority, let alone exclusivity, but only held the
Byzantine texttype to be co-equal with the Alexandrian or Western types. 
Certainly in practice (as I have pointed out), most of the time Sturz'
"second-century" resultant text ends up Byzantine, but this is by strict
application of his 2 out of 3 theory and not by intent of Byzantine-
priority any more than the Textus Receptus ends up 98% Byzantine because
of any supposed text-critical theory underlying its construction.

As for the Dutch scholars, I know Van Bruggen personally and have
corresponded and talked on the phone with Wisselink, and I find them both
very much in close accord with my own position; closer in fact than Hodges
and Farstad. 

I suspect that the quoted statement above about their "at least in theory" 
allowing for non-Byzantine readings possibly to be correct must be taken
in the same light as the matter of conjectural emendation, where some want
it in theory to remain a "possibility", but in practice never really
applying conjecture to the NT text. I believe these Dutch scholars simply
state matters in a typical scholarly manner; in practice, from what I have
seen, they depart from the Byzantine Textform about as much do I.
Contrary to the Ehrman and Holmes volume, Scrivener has a far more
"nuanced" majority text position than either Van Bruggen or Wisselink.

> This also shows that there are continental scholars who have not entirely
> written off the Majority text.

Though they are probably written off by most other European scholars. *;-)

[re: the Scrivener quote,]

> >"...inclining much more to Burgon than to Hort."

> I read somewhere -- and this time I really can't recall where -- that Scrivener
> at the end of his life inclined somewhat more toward W&H than he had earlier.
> But, since I can't recall the source, I can't say how reliable it was. :-)

Seems that such would be wrong, if this letter were in fact written in
1889, as Arcieri stated, since Scrivener was clearly deceased before the
4th edition of his "Plain Introduction" came out in 1894.  I think
Scrivener died in 1892, but memory fails me here.  In any case, Scrivener
in 1889 was near the end of his life, and from this quote seemed to tend
far more closely to Burgon than to WH.


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

Back