Sat Oct 26 19:49:52 1996
From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 19:49:52 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id TAA15515; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 19:47:31 -0400
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References: <199610262046.UAA935176@r02n05.cac.psu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:42:48 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz"
Subject: In Defense of Robinson (Was: An Interminably Long Post.)
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 9163
I won't quote most of this message, but I want to defend Maurice Robinson.
We don't often agree, but I think his perspective is valuable and useful.
So I'll add my two cents in his support at various points.
>On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, William L. Petersen wrote:
[ ... ]
>>
>> >>> "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".
I agree with Robinson. Westcott was allowing the possibility that OL+OS
*might* be stronger than B plus Aleph -- but it need not be so, and
certainly not in all instances. Even if the possibility be conceded,
we must look at the actual readings involved, not just some theoretical
comparison of groups.
[ ... ]
>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.
Even allowing that Robinson is not responding to the point being raised
(and that can certainly happen; he's failed to respond to what I meant and
I have failed to respond to what he meant), that does not mean he is
dodging the argument. He just views the argument in a different light.
[ ... ]
>
>> 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.
I have to agree with this. It's hard to hear the arguments of the
Byzantine prioritists. The only works of the school that I own
are Hodges & Farstad and Pickering -- and Pickering I found at a
used bookstore. The local seminary, as best I could tell, has only H&F.
That's not much exposure....
[ ... ]
>
>> 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.
Just an observation: The fact that a theory is widely accepted does
*not* make it right. It doesn't make it wrong, but Robinson is right
to say that such opinions do not constitute evidence.
>> 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 think it only reasonable that Robinson post more to this list than others.
After all, he stands *alone*. (Believe me, Maurice, I sympathise. :-) If
he is to defend his position -- as he so ably does -- of *course* he must
spend more time and effort at it. It certainly doesn't mean that he
dominates the list.
[ ... ]
>
>> 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.
I think this point worth remembering by all of us: The Byzantine text
very rarely creates readings. Almost all of its readings are found in
some other text-type (what I would call an earlier text-type). In
that sense, at least, it is the most conservative of text-types.
[ ... ]
>> 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. *;-)
It is one thing to ask Byzantine people to admit exceptions to their
theory. But Robinson is right -- why should *he* have to look for them?
Isn't that *our* job?
[ ... ]
>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).
To prove the point, see the articles Robinson and I posted earlier.
[ ... ]
>> 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.)
Snide comment from one whose training is in physics and math: If textual
critics want their discipline treated as a science, why don't they use a
more scientific approach?
Internal criticism, after all, is about 80% subjective -- i.e. completely
unscientific.
[ ... ]
>> 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.
But less worthwhile than an open and intelligent mind. :-)
[ ... ]
>> My apoligies in advance to Dr. Robinson for the "interminably long" post.
>
>My apologies to the entire list for the same. *;-)
And mine for adding fuel to the fire. :-) Once again let me stress: I don't
agree with Robinson (obviously). But his work should be examined on its
merits, or lack thereof. How about some examples, folks?
Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Back