Wed Oct 23 10:41:57 1996

From owner-tc-list  Wed Oct 23 10:41:57 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA12557; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 10:41:01 -0400
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <326D9C90.2E68@dhinternet.com>
References: <199610221547.QAA31046@ermine.ox.ac.uk>
 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:36:21 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Multiple Replies (Was: Re: Textual Criticism Theories)
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 13942

I'm replying to three different posts here, so forgive me if I can't keep all
the threads straight. I'll try to produce a coherent whole.

Hubert Arthur Bahr III , replying to me:
>
>> 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.
>
>So there is a full spectrum of approaches instead of three primary
>colors.  Discarding group 1 which would represent scholars in other
>fields. Groups two and three appear to blended in varying degrees to
>make the field we know as textual criticism.  Am I getting it or getting
>way off?
>
>Red     exclusive use of a particular text
>Orange  strong preference for a particular text
>Yellow  external eclecticism
>Green   mixed, mostly external
>Blue    Mixed, about evenly
>Indigo  Mixed, mostly Internal
>Violet  Internal Eclecticism

In a way, I like this, since it very nearly -- er -- covers the entire
spectrum. But I worry a little about trying to classify ourselves this
way. I can just see people trying to classify themselves exactly: "Hi,
I'm a magenta textual critic." "I tend more toward mauve myself...." :-)

>Is it possible for a version to preserve a better reading than the
>original language?  Why is it that we seem to concentrate so heavily on
>the Greek New Testament and virtually ignore the Latin, Syriac, Coptic,
>Georgian, Slavonic . . . Is it that we feel the versions have little to
>offer, or is it simply the difficulty of mastering all the
>languages?

In some cases, e.g. Georgian, it is lack of knowledge and critical
editions. (Georgian is neither Indo-European nor Semitic. Combine this
with the region's physical and political inaccessibility, and it's not
surprising that the language is not well known.)

There is a lot to be said for the use of the versions. The Old Latin is
our primary witness to the "Western" text of the Gospels and Acts (since
Codex Bezae is at least partly edited.) The Sahidic Coptic is one of
only three witnesses to its text-type in Paul. The Harklean Syriac is
the earliest representative of its text-type (family 2138) in the Catholics.
The Armenian and Georgian versions are leading witnesses to the "Caesarean"
text of the Gospels, and are also unique and interesting elsewhere.

The caution, of course, is that one must be *absolutely* sure what the
underlying Greek of the version was. If a version has a reading which
is not found in any Greek witness, the concern must always arise that
this is a paraphrase or a mistake in the transmission of the version.

>> -- 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.
>
>What are the weaknesses you see to internal eclecticism?

Subjectivity. As a person trained in physics and math, I find it hard to
accept a system that is not rigorous. There are a dozen or so "basic"
canons of internal criticism floating around (although they are all,
in fact, corollaries of the rule "That reading is best which best explains
the others"). How do you decide when to apply "prefer the harder reading"
as opposed to "prefer the reading which matches the author's style"?

Note that I sometimes use internal criteria. Since I find four early
text-types in Paul, there are often instances where the text-types
split in two, with two on each side. Here I must turn to internal
criteria. But internal criteria are my *last* refuge, whereas for
others they are the first.

*******************

Mike  Arcieri <102147.2045@compuserve.com>:

>Pardon this late rejoinder regarding a point raised early on. :-)
>
>>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."
>
>>This isn't really a theory of textual criticism, just a theory about the
>>text. As Daniel B. Wallace points out, there has never been a legitimate
>>textual scholar who has held *this* point of view.
>
>Actually Wallace is not entirely accurate. There was in fact a legit
>scholar who
>advocated a TR/KJV only position, namely Edward F. Hills. His Th.D diss (at
>Harvard) was on the "Caesarean Family of NT MSS" and 3 articles of his were
>published by JBL. There is no doubt as to his academics, but Hills' arguments
>regarding the superiority of the TR over against even the Byzantine tradition
>itself pretty much go against all that he learned in New Testament Textual
>Criticism. His _entire_ position is theological and full of holes (MSS
>evidence
>is secondary). I consider Hills to be the father of modern KJV onlyism
>(esp. in
>light of comments from modern KJV worshippers - like Ruckman - who said he
>owes
>"a great deal to Hills for his own view re. the transmission of the text" ).
>Hills' defense for the TR/JKJV is still the most "scholarly" in print.

I suppose I should have been clearer: There is a legitimate textual scholar
(Hills) who supports the TR -- but his defense of the TR does not make use of
any sort of textual methodology.

Hills defends the TR in much the same way that I would defend the belief that
humans have free will: I can't offer any proof, but I just *know* it. :-)

>>2. Byzantine priority [ ... ]
>
>>This is actually a complicated area, with at least three major sub-groups.
>>1. The followers of Dean Burgon.  Maurice Robinson is a modern example.
> >  They believe that the majority text is always "original."
>
>This is correct. Robinson is a legit "Burgonite" ;-) as compared to Donald
>Waite, president of the "Dean Burgon Society". Waite merely uses Burgon's name
>as a smokescreen to pass on his TR/KJV agenda.
>
>>2. The followers of Hodges & Farstad, e.g. Pickering. They believe that
>>  the Byzantine text is original, but use more complex methods (at times
>>   smacking of internal criticism) to determine the "original" text.
>
>External/internal evidence is legit and was used by Robinson/Pierpont in their
>edition of the GNT. The primary diff between Hodges/Farstad and
>Robinson/Pierpont is the use of stemmatics, which in a number of cases allows
>Hodges/Farstad and Pickering to prefer "minority" readings over "majority".

As I understand what Robinson has said (on this very list), he uses internal
evidence only where the Byzantine text is so divided that there is no true
majority reading (e.g. 2 Cor. 2:17). As you note, he does not use stemmatics.
Hodges and Farstad use stemmatics at only two places (the Pericope and the
Apocalypse), but their introduction appeals to internal evidence in places
where a simple majority may perhaps be found.

Of course, in both cases the differences arise only where there is *some*
division in the majority text.

>>There is also a third group exemplified by Harry Sturz. This group does not
>>claim Byzantine priority, but rather Byzantine *equality* -- that is, they
>>deny Hort's claim that the Byzantine text is secondary. They consider it one
>>of the original text-types, and reconstruct the text on this basis.
>
>>This is actually close to the views of Von Soden, although Sturz values
>>the Byuzantine text above all others while Soden considered it the least
>>of the text-types.
>
>I'm not sure of how many Byzantine supporters actually accept this view. I
>suspect Sturz may be alone on this.

Sturz is, as far as I know, alone among moderns. However, his view of
text-types
is actually quite similar to von Soden's, except that they differ in how
positively they view the Byzantine text. Sturz is, in fact, half-way between
the Majority Text view and a Westcott-Hort view.

It seems to me (and realize that I am getting this second-hand, via Wallace)
that van Bruggen and Wisselink also fall into this camp.

I would also argue that Scrivener came close to this view. Obviously Scrivener
was not a follower of Hort. But neither did he agree with Burgon. Scrivener
conceded the value of all text-types, and the various critical methods; he just
concluded that the Byzantine text was best. Witness the quotation already cited
(in a different post):

>That mere numbers should decide a question of sacred criticism never
>ought to have been asserted by any one....
>
>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.

Again from this post:

>>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.
>
>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".

This is the danger of summarizing; I did not give the full picture. It is true
that Hodges & Farstad argue for the Byzantine text on the basis of the majority
(and resort to stemmatics in some cases). Robinson prefers the Byzantine
text on
internal grounds. Pickering, on the other hand, while he tries to argue
from the
evidence, finally admits in his Appendix A that he believes in divine
preservation.

One cannot help but feel that this applies to many of the other Byzantine
prioritists. Most belong to conservative denominations (Burgon is an
exception). I can't help but feel that the belief in verbal inspiration
also leads implicitly to a belief in divine preservation.

But no matter how one views the above points, one thing is clear: Both
Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont resorted to internal evidence (stemmatics,
evidence of readings, whatever) only when there is *some* division in the
Byzantine text. So, ultimately, in both cases the majority rules.

Please note: I do not say this to denigrate their editions. I think both
must be
regarded as "rough drafts" (Hodges/Farstad openly admit to this). But they are
rough drafts of two things we need desperately: HF is a rough draft of the
original Byzantine text, and RP is a rough draft of a true edition of the
Majority
Text. We (at least, I) desperately need both.

> [ Burgon ]

Burgon, in fact, offered seven "Notes of Truth":

1. Antiquity
2. Consent of witnesses, or number
3. Variety of evidence, or Catholicity (witnesses from many different areas)
4. Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition
5. Respectability of witnesses, or weight.
6. Evidence of the Entire Passage, or Context
7. Internal considerations, or reasonableness

Most of these would, on their face, be accepted by other textual critics.
Note, however, how they are applied. To be "ancient," a reading must occur by
the twelfth century! Continuity, therefore, means that a reading attested
only in the twelfth through fifteenth centuries is preferable to one found
only in the third through fifth. And the only "respectable" witnesses are
the Byzantine witnesses (Burgon called Aleph, B, and D "scandalously
corrupt" and "liars" -- a charge that surely should not be leveled at any
manuscript that is not a forgery). And "internal considerations" applies
only to "impossible" readings.

In other words, Burgon had good criteria, but he used them in such a way
that only a Byzantine reading need apply.

I concede, as Arcieri's quotations show, that none of these scholars *claim*
that numbers are decisive. But I would challenge you to show me a single
instance
where their preferred reading does not have the support of at least 25% of
the manuscript tradition.

It should be noted that I actually agree with this position in part. I believe
that, if a reading is not supported by at least one text-type, it cannot be
considered original. But I really don't care which text-type it's found in.

>>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?

It is obviously possible to establish families within the Byzantine text.
(See Wisse.) From there it should be possible (though I don't think
anyone but von Soden has attempted it) to find relationships among
these families. Whether this is called "stemmatic" is, of course, a
matter of definition. But it *does* allow a historical view of the
Byzantine text. And, in theory, this is the approach Hodges & Farstad
advocate.

This is hardly possible for other text-types. For example, Zuntz's
so called "proto-Alexandrian" text-type in Paul has no more than
five witnesses (p46, B, 1739, sa, bo). I believe that both 1739 and bo
should be excluded, leaving only p46 B sa. It's awfully hard to do
historical or stemmatic work with only three witnesses!

***********

All right, that's all for today, folks. Next time I think I'll reply to the
various
postings separately. Maybe we won't wind up feeling so exhausted. :-)

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back