Mon Oct 28 10:06:57 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Oct 28 10:06:57 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA24772; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 10:05:52 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
 
References: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 09:36:59 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: 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: 3082

On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson  wrote,
in part:

[ ... ]
>
>> 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".

Let me stress that I do not think we can do away with internal evidence
entirely. There will always be places where the manuscripts *cannot*
settle things for us.

But I observe -- and we all know this to be true -- that different
critics can take *the same* manuscript evidence, and almost the same
list of critical criteria -- and produce editions which differ in
hundreds or thousands of places.

In other words, textual criticism is *not repeatable.* Therefore
it is not, and cannot claim to be, a science. What is more, even
the parts which are generally most susceptible to mathematical
treatment (e.g. the relationships between manuscripts) are rarely
treated in that way. Yes, Colwell did it; yes, Aland has now done
it (in a rather foolish way) -- but neither had any method to apply
their results.

All I am saying, in this particular context, is that textual criticism --
*if* it wishes to view itself as a science -- must come up with repeatable
rules, must formulate and test hypotheses (including mathematical
measures for goodness-of-fit), and must place itself on the soundest
possible mathematical basis.

This does not mean the elimination of internal criticism; it means
applying it *only where it needs to be applied*, and *only in a
rigorous manner*.

Note that TC need not regard itself as a science; I'm sure most people
who are aware of it think of it as one of the fuzzy subjects. It's
your choice, folks. (Consider the consequences: My scientific habits
have made me a "historical documentary eclectic," almost unique in
my emphasis on text-types.) Just don't claim the name "science" unless
you're ready to back it up. :-)

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back