Tue Oct 22 20:59:47 1996

From owner-tc-list  Tue Oct 22 20:59:47 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id UAA08397; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:58:32 -0400
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <326D5FCB.721D@dhinternet.com>
References: <199610221547.QAA31046@ermine.ox.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 19:54:11 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3433

On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, Hubert Arthur Bahr III  wrote:

>I wonder how these theories can be restated to include the HB/LXX
>instead of just the NT.  What are the benefits to be derived from each
>theory? What are the shortcomings of each? how can we best overcome
>those shortcomings?

I would say that the MT/LXX debate is much like a truncated version
of the NT debate. The MT and LXX correspond roughly to the *text-types*
of NT criticism. It's like scholars choosing whether they prefer the
Alexandrian or "Western" text. They make the decisions on some
idiosyncratic basis.

This means, obviously, that any critical rule that applies to number
or provenance of manuscripts has little application to OT criticism.
Those which have to do with the nature of variation units still apply.

>I am also confused as to why those who prefer the Byzantine text type
>should be a seperate group from those who prefer a particular text type.

There is a similarity between the two classes, but there is also a
difference. Two differences, in fact.

First, the majority of those who prefer the Byzantine text prefer
it on theological grounds ("God must consider the Byzantine text
right, of (s)he would not have made so many copies") or on numerical
grounds ("it's the majority; it must be right"). There are, of
course, exceptions (so don't say it, Maurice), but this is how
most Byzantine prioritists feel. The proponents of the other text,
by contrast, make their choice based on some perceived "inner
excellence" (obviously a subjective matter).

Second, the fact that Byzantine texts are so numerous forces a change
in approach. Unlike the other text-types, it is possible to do stemmatic
work, and certainly historical work, on the Byzantine text. This
inevitably will affect the final text (note the differences between
Hodges & Farstad and Robinson on this very point).

>perhaps we could group scholars into 3 groups
>	1. Textually uncritical.
>        2. Champions of a particular text type.
>        3. Eclectics.
>coments anyone?

Does group 1 really qualify as "scholarly"? :-)

Seriously, I don't think this division is fair. Eclecticism *must*
be categorized. My approach, based strongly on text-types, is very
distinct from Kilpatrick and Elliot, whose approach is based on
internal evidence. I'm willing to lump it as 3a (internal
eclecticism), 3b (external eclecticism), and 3c (mixed) -- but if my
choices are to be an internal eclectic or to choose to always follow
the text of family 1739, I'll take 1739 any day.

jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) wrote:

>Another way of classifying, probably complementary, is:
>1. Those who have something to say about a global history of the text.
>2. Those who have no hypothesis about the relation of text-types to one
>another.

This strikes me as a much more important way of doing things. (My opinion,
obviously.) It strikes me that I could much more easily work with a
person whose theory of the text disagreed with mine than with someone
who had no theory of the text. As witness the fact that I have learned
from Maurice Robinson, whereas that person -- whoever it was -- who
preferred the TR was beyond my comprehension. By my standards, Robinson's
text and the TR are almost equally bad -- but Robinson himself is a
knowledgeable and insightful scholar.

My two cents. Now back to our regularly scheduled lives.



Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back