Mon Oct 28 06:52:17 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Oct 28 06:52:17 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id GAA23524; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 06:51:22 -0500
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 06:47:35 -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: 2676



On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

[Lengthy Defense of Robinson omitted]

> 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.

Viewed from the other perspective, this is indeed what I have been saying.
W-H assumed that the Byzantine simply "adopted" probably about 98% of the
readings of either the Alexandrian or Western texttypes, with the other 2%
or so actually conflating the readings of the opposed texttypes.  A
Byzantine-priority perspective views the same phenomenon as merely places
where the Alexandrian or Western texttypes did not happen to depart from
the Byzantine original (remember, for 90% of the Greek NT _no_ texttype
departed from the "majority" testimony).  Therefore an
Alexandrian/Byzantine or Western/Byzantine combination is seen merely to
reflect the original text, and not a subsequent development of it as
regards the Byzantine.

> 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.

Since I continue to use and maintain the validity of internal evidence, I
need to respond on this point in particular.  I do not think all internal
criticism is unscientific, but I do think that a haphazard application of
internal principles, selecting whatever principle best happens to support
the reading found in the favored MSS, and generally using those principles
in that fashion merely to discredit the Byzantine reading is invalid.  Yet
Metzger applies internal principles in this manner throughout his "Textual
Commentary."  My own use of internal principles is followed far more
strictly, and does not include some of the principles adduced by most
eclectic scholars, as well as adds in some other principles which most
eclectics do not choose to apply.  Even so, there remains a good deal of
overlap, and I do not think anyone who has seen my previous comments on
this list would conclude that I do not make use of internal principles in
a scientific manner rather than that of the "artiste".


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

Back