Mon Oct 28 06:50:56 1996
From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 28 06:50:56 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id GAA23515; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 06:49:52 -0500
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 06:35:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: In Defense of Robinson (Was: An Interminably Long Post.)
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: 6931
On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
}j> [ ... ]
> >
> >> 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