Sat Oct 26 16:53:56 1996
From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 16:53:56 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id QAA14432; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 16:49:59 -0400
Message-Id: <199610262046.UAA935176@r02n05.cac.psu.edu>
X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 16:47:03 -0400
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen)
Subject: Re: Some comments on the "textual theories" discussion
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 10730
In answer to Dr. Robinson's post of 26 Oct (the 11:39 AM one...), in which
he raised the following points:
(1) Q: Isn't the statement I attribute to Wextcott actually from Burkitt's
appendix to the second edition?
A: No. Look at the volume. Burkitt's section is clearly identified.
(Metzger proffered the same suggestion when I drew his attention to the
statement; I checked then to see if he was correct; he was not).
(2) Q: >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."
A: Go and reread the quote, and my presentation of it. I said:
>>> 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"
First, I don't see what is so difficult about it. Westcott poses a
rhetorical question ("Can the combination of the Vetus Syra and the Vetus
Latina outweight the Greeks?"), and then answers it in the affirmative ("the
careful examination of passages does indeed point to that conclusion").
What Robinson means by "not necessarily override" is unclear. I leave it
to the list members to read Westcott's statement for themselves and discern
Westcott's meaning.
Second, let me distance myself from Westcott's assertion, and say
that *I* would not apply a mechanical rule like this here--or anywhere
else--in textual criticism. Note that in my introduction, I said "in some
cases," for, indeed, *in some cases* there seems to be good reason to follow
the conjunction of the oldest of the Vetus Latina and the Vetus Syra (esp.
the older Syr.sin) against alaph + B; in other cases, not.
(3) Dr. Robinson goes on:
>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.
He avoids my point (as he did on a different issue last summer) by changing
it. I am *not* concerned with what theory the "majority" of
conservative/fundamentalist (his words) NT scholars favour. I am concerned
with the theological "home" of those (few?) who favor Byzantine priority.
It appears to be limited--exclusively, in my (admittedly, limited)
experience--to those who are members of/associated with/studied at/adhear to
churches/schools/theologies which would be characterized as
fundamentalist/charismatic/conservative/"right"/"traditionalist". Our
European members have commented on the oddity of the attention given TR and
Byzantine priority here in N. America, and that is correct, for Europe is
much more liberal theologically and, in fact, is undergoing a process often
referred to as "de-Christianization." One can verify that by looking at
the reverse: I do not know--again, in my limited experience--of any textual
scholars who advocate Byz priority and are associated with any
"liberal"/humanist/secularist/"left wing"/"progressive"/"main-stream"
schools/churches/theologies: it is not taught as the "default" theory in
main-line seminaries (Lutheran, Episcopal, etc.), nor at the leading
"secular" theological centers: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Chicago, Muenster,
Oxford, Cambridge, Leiden, Trondheim, Upsala, or even at the dual
religious/secular centers such as Rome, Louvain, Georgetown, etc., etc. I
rest my case.
Dr. Robinson continues:
> 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.
It was Dr. Robinson who characterized one of my posts last summer as "nearly
interminable," if I recall correctly (it was long, but certainly no longer
than some of his, and the reason for its length was that it was filled with
texts). I leave it to the list to decide who is making "ad hominem"
arguments--or even who has deposited more bytes on the list.
I must also observe that I find it odd that no one--even those defending the
Byz Text--have introduced the most significant work on the subject in recent
years into the discussion. That work is by a Muenster student of the
Alands, Klaus Wachtel. The title is *Der Byzantinische Text der
Katholischen Briefe*, ANTT 24 (De Gruyter, 1995). He presented a paper on
the subject in the Textual Criticism seminar of the SNTS in Strasbourg, last
summer, which I summarize (he has occasionally be on the list, and is
invited to present his work himself). His findings--based on extensive
analysis of the TEXT--are that the disparagement traditionally accorded the
Byzantine text is unwarranted. It often can and does preserve very old
readings--but usually in concord with other earlier witnesses. Muenster has
found it useful to use the Byzantine text as one of their tools when
deciding between conflicting ancient readings (e.g., where alaph divides
from B, or a few minuscules offer a reading against the uncials). Wachtel
feels it should be valued more highly than it is--but, of couse, he stops
far short of saying it is the "best" text. Why is this study ignored?
Another point for the Byzantine text people: I have an article for the
Baarda Festschrift (Brill 1997) which will adduce textual evidence for the
existence and use of the *pericope adulterae* in the first half of the
second century. This evidence increases the likelihood that the *pericope*
MAY have been part of John at that date (the earliest evidence listed in all
the commentaries is the Didascalia Apostolorum [early thrid cent.]). Since
it is in the Byzantine text, and many Byz people feel it was part of the
earliest version of John, this is ammunition for their position, and again I
give it to them. But of course, finding such bits of hard, textual evidence
takes time and effort--and note that I am NOT concerned with finding only
evidence which supports MY position. Let's hear some instances where the
Byzantine text people feel that text doesn't preserve the best reading!
(4) Robinson concludes by saying that:
>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.
>...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.
If one is trying to reconstruct the text of the NT "in toto," then Dr.
Robinson is correct. But I--and most textual critics who are NOT
enthusiastic adherents of Bezaean or Alexandrian or Byzantine priority--are
not trying to do that. I work with one variant, one verse, one pericope at
a time, for I know that the theological pressures upon and the transmission
history of each pericope (indeed, the evidence for each pericope) have been
different. IMHO, Robinson's complaint is that we are all not as he is:
zealous defenders of a particular text-type or manuscript. But that is
precisely what many find so absurd. It is rather like adhering to one
church, and having to defend all of its doctrines and practices as "the
best" in all cases. Few would do that; life and the history of any
religion are too complex--if you know it. It is precisely that analogy
which leads some to make the connection between such "absolutist" positions
theologically and such absolutist positions in terms of the text (we are
back to July, folks: look up the posts).
>No wonder Metzger tries to excuse the current situation by
>claiming the task is an "art" rather than a "science"!
Metzger is merely paraphrasing A.E. Housman, who called textual criticsm
BOTH an "art" and a "science". I reproduce Housman's statement (from a
lecture given to the Classical Association in 1921) in *Tatian's
Diatessaron*, p. 373, n. 31. It is interesting that Housman (like most, if
not all Classicists), went where the evidence led him, and did not argue
that a single MS or family always preserved the "best" reading. (The entire
lecture, "The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism," Proceedings of
the Class. Assoc. 18 [1921], pp. 67-84, is, IMHO, one of the most profound
utterances on the praxis of textual criticism. For this list, Housman's
comments on "hard and fast rules" are quite pertinent, and his insights useful.)
>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.
No it is not. But it sure helps! We live in a free land, and anyone can do
anything they want. But we also know the consequences of that: a Harvard
diploma is worth more than a diploma from Podunk U. In other words, anyone
can produce or hold to a theory, but not all theories are of equal worth or
validity. Example: I have many English-only pious undergrads who enter my
classes certain that the "theory" they received is correct (KJV priority is
the norm)--without even knowing in what language the NT was originally
written. They are "unhappy campers" when they learn that there is a bit
more to the game than just the KJV... They learn, painfully, that old
lesson that humanity constantly has to relearn: believing something does
not make it true. They also learn that the more one knows, the more complex
the pattern discerned, and the more difficult it is to create a
comprehensive theory.
My apoligies in advance to Dr. Robinson for the "interminably long" post.
--Petersen, Penn State University.
PS: I'll be away for the next week.
Back