Mon Oct 21 19:50:15 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Oct 21 19:50:15 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id TAA26785; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 19:48:18 -0400
From: KHGrenier@aol.com
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 19:44:33 -0400
Message-ID: <961021194431_215738187@emout17.mail.aol.com>
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Textual Criticism Theories
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 6604

My apologies if this is a second copy. My computer took a coffee break in the
middle of my first attempt to send this. - Kevin 

Dear all,

I have been a lurker on this list for some time now and have enjoyed the many
exchanges of ideas--this summer especially. Things have calmed down recently,
however, so this seems like a good time to come out of hiding and stir things
up. 

As one who is interested in tc, but has little experience and no formulated
viewpoint, I'd like to take some time setting out my thoughts on the subject
so far. I doubt any of these will be profound. They will probably reveal more
about what I don't know than what I do know. I'm just doing this off of the
top of my head, so let me say my mea culpa's in advance.

Hopefully, though, any misconceptions I have can be corrected and perhaps
something I say may be a springboard for further discussion. What I propose
to talk about is the current state of textual criticism with regard to its
theoretical underpinnings. I do this with some timidity based on my own
inexperience and uncertainty over what I am unleash, but here goes.

History

Textual criticism is a relatively new field of study in NT circles. While tc
has been performed since the Church fathers (as demonstrated by Origin's),
there was no widespread systematic approach to its practice until Wescott &
Hort in 1881. Prior to that time, many had posited arguments against mere
acceptance of the TR, but it wasn't until W&H that a methodology for a
different selection was proposed.

Since then, the entire tc world has lived in the shadow of W&H, either
supporting them or fighting them. However, even though there are some severe
weaknesses with W&H, no one has yet to dethrone their view, primarily, it
seems, because no one has been able to come up with a theoretical framework
to replace it that has met with wide acceptance.

The most recent attempt past the logjam has been the eclectic movement,
which, it seems, everyone tries to lump everyone but themselves into. The
problem with the eclectic view, however, is that it does not seem to provide
enough of a framework to build a truly unified theory of tc. It still leaves
too much up to the individual textual critic and too little up to our
understanding of the transmission of the text.

Therefore, in the tc world today, we conduct our affairs generally within the
W&H paradigm whether we agree with it or not. However, there are still some
very divergent views of the nature of NT textual criticism. I'm sure I do not
know them all and I've probably missed the mark in some cases. I do know that
very few people seem to fit well in any category except in cases where their
view defines the category. Here are the ones I can think of off the top of my
head:

1. KJV only - the TR was shepherded by God to us through the centuries and we
should not deviate from it based on what passes for "human wisdom."

2. Byzantine priority - While the Byzantine text is not present significantly
prior to 500 (?) CE, it does reflect the autographs better than the other
text types. Maurice Robinson would say (correct me if I'm wrong) that the
process of copying and cross-checking would generally bring most deviant
texts back into line with the autographs.

3. Alexandrian priority - Although there are far more Byzantine witnesses
than any other type, the earlier witnesses must be given priority by virtue
of their date and quality.

4. Eclectic - The best way to determine the nature of the autographs is
through an eclectic process examining each significant issue on its own
merits. The decision for which reading is best is based on the internal
evidence and the external evidence, however, it is up to the textual critic
to determine in each instance which evidence has the most weight in each
instance.

The Difficulty of the Task

Part of the difficulty of the task is that we do not understand with
certainty how we ended up with the texts that we have. Most agree that the
majority of variants probably occurred prior to 325 CE., certainly before 500
(?) CE. During this time, people did not understand the writings as scripture
and there was little opportunity for comparison of MSS. 

One of the main problems facing the textual critic is that there are no truly
satisfactory ways to place the different MSS into their place in the family
tree. First, we don't have enough MSS to really trace out the branches and
second the nature of the variants is of little help.

Variants may be categorized in general into 2 categories - intentional and
accidental. The intentional variants are those made on purpose by the scribe
for a variety of reasons. i.e., to correct a "bad" reading, to make it more
understandable, to harmonize texts, to correct grammar, to push a theological
point, ad nauseam. Accidental variants include the whole range of scribal
errors that may occur. 

The problem with variants is that they may be corrected at any time.
Therefore, just because one MS has a misspelling that doesn't mean that its
ancestors will. Likewise, variants may be introduced at anytime. In addition,
cross correction may occur from any one of a number of different textual
traditions.

The result, therefore is that we have not so much a family tree, but rather a
spider's web connecting all of the different MSS. Instead of an autograph
leading to archetypes leading to families, etc., what we have is a web
radiating out from the autograph (or archetype) with an unknown maze of
interconnections following that.

Dumb Thoughts from a Novice

While the most significant battles in tc will be fought over the
theologically significant variants, it seems that those are precisely the
wrong places to understand tc. Just like in Greek we want to learn the
grammar from the mundane areas so that we can apply it accurately to the more
theological ones, so perhaps the same is true in tc. 

It seems to me that our critical apparati all seem to focus our attention on
the significant variants and ignore the large mass of minor variants to
include slight misspellings and other obvious issues. Maybe we need to start
grouping readings based on their insignificant variant readings and their
date. If we do that, the four text types (Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western,
Whatever) will probably fade away, while the basic principles of W&H would
remain. 


There.

I'm sure I have said much wrong, much over-generalized, but occasionally a
few things right. I'd appreciate any comments from others on my
misconceptions and any thoughts on what type of paradigm, if any, should
replace W&H.



Kevin Grenier

Back