Wed Oct 23 08:26:12 1996

From owner-tc-list  Wed Oct 23 08:26:12 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id IAA11262; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 08:24:40 -0400
Date: 23 Oct 96 08:19:20 EDT
From: Mike  Arcieri <102147.2045@CompuServe.COM>
To: TC-LIST 
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories
Message-ID: <961023121919_102147.2045_EHT76-3@CompuServe.COM>
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 5771


>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).

I think this is a slight confusion here re. Byzantine defenders. The
"theological" argument is _primary_ among TR/KJV onlyism, followed with little
or no text-critical argumentation. Byzantine supporters make their case
_primarily_ from the MSS evidence. Hodges/Farstad and Robinson?pierpont did NOT
use theological arguments to produce their GNT, but canons of criticism.
Secondly, it is not entirely true that "most Byzantine prioritists" hold to
"it's the majority; it must be right". In my review of the Robinson/pierpont
GNT, I quoted the leading proponants of the Byzantine text to show precisely
that "majority" does _not_ always rule:

"Before dealing with this question, it will serve us well to see exactly what
Byzantine defenders think of the 'rule' of 'majority = autograph':

a] F. H. A. Scrivener
	That mere numbers should decide a question of sacred criticism never
ought to have been asserted by any one; never has been asserted by a respectable
scholar.

	If you shew us all, or nearly all, the uncials which you prize so
deservedly, maintaining a variation from the common text which is recommended by
all the best versions and the most ancient Fathers, depend upon it we will not
urge against such overwhelming testimony the mere number of the cursive copies,
be they ever so numerous on the other side.

	That where there is real agreement between all the documents prior to the
tenth century, the testimony of later MSS., though not to be rejected unheard,
is to be regarded with much suspicion, and, unless supported by strong internal
evidence, can hardly be adopted.

b] J. W. Burgon/E. Miller
		
	Besides which antiquity is not the sole note of truth any more than
number is.

	Be so obliging as not to say concerning me that I 'count' instead of
'weighing' my witnesses.

	The same may be said of 'o Ihsous"' in S. Matth. xiv. 22, -words which
Origen and Chrysostom, as well as the Syriac versions, omit; and which clearly
owe their place in twelve of the uncials, in the Textus Receptus, in the Vulgate
and some copies of the old Latin, to the fact that the Gospel for the ixth
Sunday after Pentecost begins at that place...

{FOOTNOTE: _The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark_ (Oxford:
J. Parker and Co., 1871), p. 216. It appears, however, from Miller's _Textual
Commentary_, that Burgon may have changed his mind concerning the
non-authenticity of this variant. My decision to include it was to show that
Burgon did not hesitate to reject the reading of the majority of MSS when
necessary.}

c] W. N. Pickering

	Chapter 6 of my book makes clear that all of Burgon's 'Notes of Truth'
need to be applied, not just 'majority' (Burgon's 'Number'). Burgon himself
never argued that a simple majority of MSS was sufficient, by itself, to
determine the text. On page 274 Wallace correctly points out that neither Hodges
nor van Bruggen espouse mere majority. In fact, I am not aware of any "Majority
Text' theorist who does.

d] J. van Bruggen

	we must agree with modern textual criticism that the majority in itself
is not decisive. Not the majority of manuscripts, but the weight decides.

e] M. Robinson

	In sum, a strong emphasis was made on Continuity and Variety, with Number
taking a secondary role. The goal is to reconstruct the Byzantine textform, and
not merely to count noses, as Fee suggested. The 'Majority' partisans have yet
to overcome this problem in their methodology...Antiquity of course plays its
proper role; Respectability of witnesses (scribal character) is considered
significant; and Context as well as Reasonableness are also taken into account
on the Internal side.

f] Z. Hodges

	I have never held the position that every single original reading must
have a majority (or, plurality) among the extant manuscript copies. All other
things being equal, a reading with a very large majority is likely to be right,
but as the numerical advantage decreases so does this probability...I hold,
then, that the Majority textform is the preferred form of the original, but not
that all of its actual readings must survive in greater numbers than any of
their rivals. This latter view is basically a petitio principii, and is
transcriptionally implausible.

So it does indeed appear, as Pickering stated, that no 'Majority text' theorist
believes that a numercal superiority of MSS will always attest to the true
reading." (pp. 7-10)

>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. 

Stemmatic work on the Byz _text_, or merely on some small _family_ within the
Byz tradition?

>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"? :-)

If you refer to KJV onlyism, then I think they are scholarly.....not!!  ;-)


Mike Arcieri

Back