Sat Oct 26 11:44:43 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sat Oct 26 11:44:43 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA12746; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:43:18 -0400
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:39:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Some comments on the "textual theories" discussion
In-Reply-To: <199610241645.QAA61328@r02n05.cac.psu.edu>
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: 4531



On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, William L. Petersen wrote:

> (3) When speaking of Westcott and Hort, as several participants have, I must
> point out once again that Westcott (Hort was dead by then), in the second
> edition of the "Introduction to the NT in the original Greek" (1896), in
> some cases REPUDIATED the use of the "primary Greek texts" to reconstruct
> the earliest text of the NT.  The quotation (p. 328) is as follows:
> 
> "The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. of the Old Syriac raises the question
> whether the combination of the oldest types of the Syriac and Latin texts
> can outweigh the combination of the primary Greek texts.  A careful
> examination of the passages in which Syr.sin and *k* [Vetus Latina, codex
> Bobiensis] are arrayed against alaph [= Greek codex Sinaiticus] B would
> point to the conclusion"

Correct me if I am wrong, but is that comment not in the additional
appendix by Burkitt, rather than coming from Westcott himself?  As regards
the main (1881) theory, Hort was clearly the master there rather than
Westcott in any case.  But even if Westcott and not Burkitt wrote the
above quote, I hardly would see it as a "reversal" of his position, since
the quotation only "raises the question" but does not necessarily override
the matter of favoring the "primary Greek texts." 

> The odd
> (from a European perspective) American fixation on the Byzantine Text or TR
> is a product of our very conservative and generally "unlettered" theological
> history.

Granted that in the US we probably have a weaker training in the versional
languages.  However, I still fail to see the point in statements to the
effect of blaming the Byzantine-priority hypothesis on some "conservative"
theological viewpoints when it remains the fact that the vast majority of
"conservative" and even "fundamentalist" NT scholars continue to favor the
modern eclectic text over against the Byzantine Textform. 

In general, there really is very little "fixation" in the US on the
Byzantine Textform (though there is far more "fixation" from within ultra-
fundamentalist circles on the KJV and TR). It seems to me that this type
of statement becomes more of an _ad hominem_ argument intended to
discredit the Byzantine-priority position rather than a serious
consideration of the theory and/or explanation of its merits or demerits. 

> (4) In closing, I would observe that while the list has been quite quiet for
> some time, as soon as textual theories come up, it comes alive.  

And interestingly, this usually only occurs when the issue of the
Byzantine text is raised and I happen to post. *;-)

> This is an
> interesting phenomenon, for there is little (if any) discussion of concrete
> readings or textual evidence in all of this.  

Theory does precede praxis, regardless of one's textual position, and one
of my contentions has been that the modern eclectic position is strong on
praxis but weak on theory, and I choose to call that matter to account.
However, I think that a good number of concrete instances have been
previously discussed on this list and certainly more will occur. 

> Building theories is easiest if one has minimal information.  The
> more information one possess, the more difficult it becomes to construct a
> valid theory.  

This is true, and comprises the heart of my critique of modern eclecticism
-- it is a very simplistic theory which sets up hypothetical canons of
criticism and then proceeds to apply them haphazardly without any real
guidelines for their application and with no concept of transmissional
history.  No wonder Metzger tries to excuse the current situation by
claiming the task is an "art" rather than a "science"!

However, it is _not_ essential to "read all the requisite languages", nor
to be an expert in virtually every theological or historical field before
one can postulate theories of textual criticism or reconstruct the
original text.  Otherwise, virtually all textual critics of the past and
present would be excluded. Considering and incorporating the specialized
work of scholars in the related disciplines is certainly of much value,
and textual criticism can proceed on the basis of shared knowledge, even
if none of us will ever become a Baarda. 

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

Back