Sat Oct 26 12:26:10 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sat Oct 26 12:26:10 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id MAA13028; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:24:10 -0400
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:20:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: No apology necessary....
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: 7151



On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> BTW -- I should concede that some of my statements, e.g. concerning
> Burgon, may be in error; I have not seen most of his works, and own
> none of them. Perforce I looked up his "Notes of Truth" from
> Pickering; obviously Pickering commentary on the notes was more
> Pickering than Burgon -- but that was not evident from the book....]

I can assure you that Pickering's summary of Burgon does not do justice to
what Burgon originally wrote, since Burgon devoted a separate chapter to
each of his "notes of truth" and Pickering was overly-brief and not
entirely accurate in his handling of Burgon.

> I meant simply that Burgon belonged to a denomination not inherently
> fundamentalist. I suppose it could be argued that Anglican was as
> conservative as you could get in nineteenth century Britain. :-)

Not in light of the Oxford Movement, the Newman situation, and other
occurrences during the 19th century.  Burgon reflected the older, more
conservative Anglicanism which was by then departing.

> Perhaps I should clarify what I said: Hort's approach, and mine -- and,
> I believe, Maurice Robinson's -- *starts* by finding text-types, then
> uses internal evidence to evaluate them, then is based primarily on
> the text-types. Of course internal evidence is used -- but it is used
> more at the early stage, and less at the late stage, than is usually
> the case with the "reasoned eclectic" school.

With Hort the process was first to use internal criteria to select the
"best" readings, then to determine which MSS were the "best MSS" by
possession of the greater quantity of those "best" readings.  Once the
"best MSS" were established, then the readings were once more examined to
revise the previous opinions as to "best" in light of the testimony of the
"best" MSS. (Complicated process, that).

With my process the primary issue is determining what reading reflects or
best reflects the Byzantine Textform, based upon a number of external
criteria.  Once a clear Byzantine reading is determined, it is then
examined from an internal evidence perspective.  

If the Byzantine reading has less than 70% external support among MSS of
its texttype, then the internal evidence becomes extremely significant for
the determination of the text; otherwise, the question is raised as to
which reading appears to be most strongly supported by the internal
evidence, but such is not in itself decisive should such conflict with the
larger quantity of external evidence (and yes, there have been a very few
places where it appears to me that the internal evidence supports the
quantitatively-superior non-Byzantine reading -- but these are in a small
minority.  In most cases I find the internal criteria do tend to support
the Byzantine reading.

> By "rough draft" I did not mean that there is a "final draft" impending;
> I meant that our knowledge is inadequate to produce a final draft. H/F
> admit that their volume is constructed based largely on von Soden. Ultimately
> a majority text edition should be constructed from the manuscripts.

This is correct.  However, it would not take more than a significant
representative sample (say 10% or about 500 MSS) in order to establish a
highly accurate Byzantine Textform edition.  For the most part, Von
Soden's K-groups are substantiated and hold up well as shown in the "M"
readings of Nestle-Aland and also in the _Text und Textwert_ variant
units, so the text as currently published is considered quite secure as a
reflection of the Byzantine Textform.

There still is the terminology matter which needs correction, to avoid
confusion: As I noted, <>

> I would agree that we generally know the readings of the Majority text form.
> But -- as our friend 2 Cor. 2:17 shows -- there are cases where we need to
> make an adjustment. Certainly we *cannot* treat the TR as "the Byzantine
> text." This is disasterous -- no matter *which* textual school you belong to.

Certainly not.  But of course none of the "majority text" or pro-Byzantine
supporters would identify the TR with the Byzantine text, although it is
clearly more Byzantine than anything else.

> My fault. This is Pickering's version of The Gospel According to Burgon.

Obviously a corruption made by heretics. *;-)

> Having read this and Robinson's following post, I promise never again
> to use Pickering as an example of a Majority Text advocate.

But not to throw out the entire baby with the bathwater: when Pickering
wrote his book, he was considered to be within the "majority text" camp,
even though there were even at that time serious disagreements with
Pickering from the remainder of us who fall into that category.  From the
beginning, for example, Pickering's view of transmissional history was
called into question by the rest of us. 

> >> I concede, as Arcieri's quotations show, that none of these scholars *claim*
> >> that numbers are decisive. But I would challenge you to show me a single
> >> instance where their preferred reading does not have the support of at
> >> least 25% of the manuscript tradition.
> >
> >Scrivener did not accept the Pericope Adultera. The omission certainly
> >does _not_ have at least 25% of the MS tradition.  There probably are
> >more, but this is one case I know of for certain.
> 
> But Scrivener, as noted, is not a Burgonian.

Fully agreed, but he was lumped into the discussion by Arcieri.  For the
remaining "Burgonian" types, I suspect few readings favored by them (or
myself) would ever have less than 25% support, though in theory there is
no cutoff line of demarcation.  I know that I myself have argued at least
once for the possible authenticity of a reading as Byzantine which had
around 40% support (though there the evidence was divided in three or more
ways).  

> I am not trying to argue. I have the strange feeling that Maurice thinks
> I am "out to get him." 

No, not at all.  I merely am reacting to what seems to be an impossible
challenge within the integrity of a consistently applied theory.

> >(I _am_ being sarcastic, but if one doesn't really care _which_ texttype
> >a reading comes from, the task seems irrelevant).
> 
> Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the point. Why does a willingness to
> follow multiple text-types make the task irrelevant?

The point was to be taken only if it _really_ did not matter, and if
textual criticism were merely to be performed on a whim or by flipping a
coin.  An eclectic methodology certainly can construct a text on what it
sincerely believes to be solid grounds; I merely call that method into
question, suggesting that the ground is somewhat less solid than presumed.

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

Back