Sat Oct 26 18:44:39 1996
From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 18:44:39 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id SAA15054; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:42:26 -0400
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:38:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: An Interminably Long Post.
In-Reply-To: <199610262046.UAA935176@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: 18480
On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, William L. Petersen wrote:
> (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).
I will defer to Dr. Petersen here, since I only have access to the 1881
W-H volume (though I do have a copy of Burkitt's 1896 appendix). I had
not noticed any specific change in the main text on cursory examination,
so this probably explains why Metzger also asked the same question.
> A: Go and reread the quote, and my presentation of it. I said:
>
> >>> "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"
I still read "raises the question" as equivalent to "not decisively
answers it". The final sentence does appear to "point to the conclusion"
which the question raises, but I am not fully convinced as to whether
Westcott here is suggesting to abandon Aleph/B in such places. It may be
that Westcott was overwhelmed by recent discovery in this area much as was
Tischendorf upon examination of Aleph, and in fact was ready to abandon
the principles he and Hort had worked on for over 30 years, though this
still seems unlikely to me.
> 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").
Which is the correct quote? That the combination "would point to the
conclusion" or "does indeed point to that conclusion"? The first form
seems more tentative, so I think the precise words are needed here.
>I leave it
> to the list members to read Westcott's statement for themselves and discern
> Westcott's meaning.
As do I.
> (3) Dr. Robinson goes on:
> >... 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.
Please allow my continued objection to what remains to me an _ad hominem_
argument on this point (which point I am _not_ avoiding).
The problem here _still_ remains that, if conservative/fundamentalist or
charismatic theology were somehow inclined to support what might be
perceived as a more conservative texttype, why then have not a large
number of those conservative scholars in the US favored such?
Certainly, unless we have a martyr complex, every one of us who knowingly
have accepted this "despised" minority position are not exactly in it for
either fame or fortune. We have, however, basically arrived at certain
conclusions based upon a thorough examination of the evidence.
I know of not one of the other pro-Byzantine or majority text advocates
around today who had not previously been (like myself) supportive of the
standard reasoned eclectic methodology before independently changing our
position. As I have repeatedly mentioned regarding my own situation, blame
Kenneth W. Clark for setting me on the pro-Byzantine route; he most
certainly was not a theological conservative to any degree.
Were I still convinced of the superiority of the reasoned eclectic
position, I certainly would not be standing outside of the mainstream of
even conservative scholarly opinion. Therefore I continue to object to
_ad hominem_ associations which seem to imply that I hold my position
somehow because of my other conservative theological views, just as I
would not suggest that the remainder of American conservatives hold to the
modern eclectic position because they must be closet liberals. It is the
_theory_ which must be dealt with, and not the theological views of its
advocates, unless such can be shown to drive the theory in some compelling
fashion.
I had already mentioned Van Bruggen and Wisselink as well as the Roman
Catholic Hugh Pope and even Bover (according to O'Callaghan) as either
leaning or holding the same views, and these are not American and may or
may not be "conservative" in various senses (I really do not know), but
certainly nowhere near the fundamentalist or charismatic wings of American
Christianity. If the discussion is limited only to American advocates of
the Byzantine or majority text position, Petersen's assessment may be
correct, but it then is quite incorrect to ignore the European contingent
which also advocates some form of pro-Byzantine originality.
> Our
> European members have commented on the oddity of the attention given TR and
> Byzantine priority here in N. America
Actually, aside from this list, the Greek NT's of Hodges/Farstad and
myself, and a few papers presented to the ETS in this country by me, what
attention is really being given to anything dealing with majority text
theory or Byzantine priority. The negative attention given by Holmes,
Fee, and Wallace is hardly of significance for most scholars, and I am
certain that pro-Byzantine theory rarely comes up in the SBL, if at all.
Yet the European community appears to think that the US is almost
dominated by the pro-Byzantine faction. Who knows? Maybe we have more
impact overseas than here, but I doubt it. *;-)
> 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
And should it ever be so taught, would this suddenly commend the theory?
I think not. Still an _ad hominem_ critique.
> 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.
Nor is it taught as the "default" theory in any conservative school that I
know (though I do present it as one theory among equals at my own
seminary), and I am certain that Dan Wallace (who is not an advocate)
presents it equally and fairly at his own seminary. I certainly am not
opposed to balance in teaching, but I would question the wisdom of not
even mentioning opposing hypotheses at all, and presenting all as a single
"default" hypothesis.
> 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 will cheerfully admit to making my ten fingers function more frequently
on the list than Dr. Petersen......but what does length of posting have to
do with the question of _ad hominem_ argumentation?
> 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).
Wachtel has apparently made a significant contribution to the study of the
Byzantine Textform, and I find some of his arguments very helpful for
framing elements of my own case, especially in regard to stemmatic
considerations. I too would like Dr. Wachtel to elaborate regarding his
theories on the tc-list.
[from summary of Wachtel regarding the Byzantine text:]
> It often can and does preserve very old
> readings--but usually in concord with other earlier witnesses.
This precisely has been one of my primary claims, though my definition of
"often" probably differs from that of Wachtel. The point I have tried to
make previously has been in regard to the combined Alexandrian-Byzantine
or combined Western-Byzantine readings, which from the modern eclectic
perspective are merely "ancient" readings of either the Alexandrian or
Western texts which later were adopted into the Byzantine Textform, but
which from a Byzantine-priority position are actually original readings
from which the Alexandrian or Western texttypes happened not to depart.
As Wachtel points out, in almost all cases, a Byzantine reading has
support from earlier witnesses. It is only in the very few "distinctive
Byzantine readings" (Hort's term) where the Alexandrian and Western texts
_both_ depart from the Byzantine.
> 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?
Wachtel of course will not claim that the Byzantine is the best text, but
that it must be regarded far more highly than most modern eclectics are
willing to do. However, the real question is not the preference for
individual Byzantine variant readings, with or without support from the
Alexandrian or Western witnesses, but with the overall _pattern_ of
readings which characterize the Byzantine Textform -- but this delves into
the history of transmission where most modern eclectics do not venture. It
is to Wachtel's credit that he does look at the transmission issue and at
the pattern of Byzantine readings question, even though he does not come
to the same conclusion as do I.
> 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.
Thank you for the help. Of course the slim 2nd century evidence of the
"woman accused of many sins" being a possible allusion to the pericope may
have merit, but anything more substantial will naturally be welcome. My
position would not rise or fall, however, on the presence of such
evidence, but if substantial, it will be of help.
> 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!
The Byzantine people might willingly help sift for evidence that will not
directly support their position, but I do think it a bit much to require
that the abandonment of their principles is requisite to prove their
scholarly neutrality. That probably will happen as soon as an eclectic
scholar will admit that all the internal principles he relies on cannot
supersede the external evidence of the Byzantine Textform. *;-)
> 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.
Which reflects the heart of my critique against the modern eclectic method
as currently practiced: working on one variant unit at a time, within one
verse at at time, and one pericope at at time is well and good, but
without some sort of integrated theory of transmission, all the eclectic
decisions put together do not create the original text in any form which
can maintain historical validity.
The critique of Colwell and Clark remains valid: the text is treated as if
it was dispersed to the four winds shortly after completion, and critics
try to fit all kinds of variants back into the puzzle in the hope that
some of them _might_ reflect the original; yet any normal view of
transmissional history would not and could not argue in such a manner when
attempting to determine the original text. The best transmissional
explanation still remains that _some_ MS, _some_ version, _some_ family,
_some_ texttype _must_ reflect the original text better than anything an
eclectic method might put together.
In this, Westcott and Hort were correct: they certainly began working from
an eclectic model, but once they had determined what to them were the
"best MSS", the readings chosen eclectically were then all revised to
concur with the hard data of those "best MSS" and not the reverse. In the
end, _some_ form of external evidence must dominate; otherwise everything
remains shifting sand (this all is Colwell, Clark and Epp -- no need to
blame Robinson for such comments).
> 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.
As noted, I do think that the rigorous eclectic procedure is wanting, but
such also is the view of the reasoned eclectics. I merely take the
situation one step further, and maintain that there has to be some solid
external mooring for even a reasoned eclectic approach (and I care not
whether that be in the "best MS", group of MSS, family, or texttype).
Without such, there can be no evidence that any reasoned eclectic decision
is correct in any given case, and certainly not when the text of any given
book or even pericope is taken as a whole.
> 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.)
I will concur regarding the value of Housman's comments (often quite
satirical and biting). However, as a Classicist and not a New Testament
scholar, Housman must be taken within the proper context of dealing with
an extremely limited number of MSS of any classical work (Juvenal and
M.Manilius are among his best known editions), and having to deal with a
world in which conjectural emendation prevailed and undue favoritism
existed for "best" MSS where genealogical stemmas had been constructed for
the entire MS tradition. Housman protested within that world to the
effect that (I paraphrase) "no MS is more important than common sense" and
that the stemmaticians were themselves for the most part corrupt. Were
Housman thrust into the NT text-critical realm, I suspect some very
different views might arise from his pen than anything yet seen within the
present discussion.
> 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.
More _ad hominem_, as many Harvard graduates I am sure will attest
regarding some of their classmates. *;-) Yet I understand the
implication: in terms of outward reputation, the Harvard degree might
commend more respect, but this should not disparage the scholar who may
have studied under a specialist at Podunk. I need only remind this list
that the KJV-Only defender Edward F. Hills had his Th.D. from Harvard in
hand, while D.A.Waite (another KJV-Only defender still living) has his
Ph.D. from Purdue.
> In other words, anyone
> can produce or hold to a theory, but not all theories are of equal worth or
> validity.
Precisely. And this is my main complaint against modern eclectic theory in
contrast to a theory based more on external evidence. But different
theories will be held by different persons, and there is precious little
one can do to alter perceptions (I should know).
> 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.
You seriously have KJV-Only students entering your classes up there?
Thankfully by the time they show up at our seminary most of them have
either abandoned that view or stopped with their B.A. degree. *;-)
> My apoligies in advance to Dr. Robinson for the "interminably long" post.
My apologies to the entire list for the same. *;-)
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back