Wed Oct 23 12:08:20 1996
From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 12:08:20 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id MAA13655; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 12:07:19 -0400
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 12:03:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 10949
Allow me to respond to two items at once regarding my views of the
Byzantine Text:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, KHGrenier@aol.com wrote:
>
> >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.
Even though this is an over-simplification, I do hold that
cross-comparison and correction do tend to move a text to a more
"Byzantine" type which then becomes reflected in exemplars later copied
from such corrected texts, etc.
However, I do not hold that this is the only or even primary means by
which the Byzantine Textform was created or perpetuated, nor do I
necessarily think that it was primarily "most deviant texts" which were
necessarily so corrected as opposed to those texts which already reflected
a "standard" Byzantine Textform. Certainly those MSS which _were_
corrected (regardless of the level of "deviancy") will tend to show in
their corrections a trend more in the direction of the standard Byzantine
Textform than away from such in almost all cases; however, the amount of
such correction and the variant readings inserted as corrections will
differ widely, depending upon the MS and how much correction may have
taken place upon that MS.
It remains of far more importance to postulate a stemmatic descent of
Byzantine MSS from previous Byzantine exemplars (of which cross-comparison
and correction are a reflection but not the substance) in a quantity
proportional to that which the extant evidence reflects than to build a
case solely upon the observed phenomena of cross-correction.
On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
> 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."
I do not object to being called a follower of Burgon (indeed Dan Wallace
has so characterized me), but I do object to the caricature of that
position as merely "the majority text is always original". Apart from
the erronoues implication of mere "nose-counting" (Fee et al.) which this
implies, it also makes it appear that there is no other criterion by which
the text is established in that system, when Burgon himself went into
great detail concerning his seven varied "notes of truth", only one of
which (and that #4) was "number". Burgon also was careful not to use the
term "majority text", but preferred "traditional text"; I of course argue
for "Byzantine priority" and not "majority" anything. As I have pointed
out previously on this list, there are many places where the Byzantine
Textform is numerically divided, and where "number" is irrelevant to the
case. In such places other external and internal principles of textual
restoration remain applicable, including the examination of versional and
patristic data, as well as the evidence of non-Byzantine MSS concerning
such variants. I really would consider my own position to be more within
the "more complex methods" attributed to Hodges and Farstad and Pickering
below (though I am very careful to make distinctions there as will be
shown).
> 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.
Pickering should be separated from Hodges and Farstad, as well as from
myself. Recently Pickering formally disassociated himself from any
so-called "majority text" position because no one within the field agreed
with some of his more extreme postulates, such as heretics being
responsible for virtually all sensible non-Byzantine variants, and a
theological bias favoring only readings which support his own
theological views, including inerrancy as he sees it.
Hodges and Farstad are "Burgonites" like myself for the most part,
although I do see more of the theological "preservation" argument in their
case than I think fits the evidence. However, the primary difference in
approach between myself and H/F is that they claim a "majority text"
position when convenient, and then proceed to abandon much of it in places
where they apply their own particular stemmatic approach (which I consider
flawed, since it is based upon mere agreement in readings rather than
agreement in plain and clear error). Since I follow something like John
G. Griffiths' "Numerical Taxonomy" approach for grouping MSS, a stemmatic
approach such as that of H/F plays no part within my theory, even though I
would not be opposed to a proper stemmatic inquiry regarding MS
interrelationships.
The greatest weakness with H/F's stemmatic approach is that, where they
have applied their stemmatics, they end up championing a sub-type family
within the Byzantine tradition which no longer reflects their professed
"majority" position, e.g., in the Apocalypse, they follow a sub-group
which reflects only 19% of the MSS, and which often stands opposed to the
81% remainder. I would not so swiftly depart what appears to be a strong
Byzantine tradition in such cases (this being an instance of where the
Byzantine tradition is not seriously divided). As Dan Wallace has pointed
out, their text should more rightly be called something like "The
Intra-Byzantine Stemmatic Text" rather than 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.
Sturz, however, reconstructed the text almost mechanically, playing off 2
versus 3 texttypes. Basically if the Alexandrian and Byzantine agreed, so
be it. If the Western and Byzantine agreed, so be it. And if the
Alexandrian and Western agreed, so be it. One does not have to look long
at this purely mechanical approach to see that, except where there might
be Alexandrian and Western agreement against the Byzantine (and how often
does that occur?!), then the Byzantine text will be followed. Although
Sturz' method ends up producing a highly Byzantine text, there is nothing
methodologically to commend it, even to those who might favor such a text.
> 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 do not think Sturz valued any texttype more highly, though he did
elevate the Byzantine text to equal status. Von Soden, had he been
consistent with his own principles, would have probably produced a far
more Byzantine text than he did, since he would have followed Sturz'
methodology. However, Von Soden considered any agreement of the Byzantine
text with Tatian or Marcion, or with parallel passages to be a corruption,
and would not follow the Byzantine in such cases. This effectively made
most of Von Soden's text Alexandrian in character, despite his claim that
the Byzantine text was of co-equal authority with the Alexandrian and
Western texts in its uncorrupted state.
> noted, there are scholars (e.g. Vaganay, Amphoux, also Clark) who consider
> the "Western" text the best.
Just to clarify: this was A.C. Clark, and not Kenneth W. Clark.
> first. So in Paul, for example, if a reading is attested by p46 Aleph
> A B C D F G 33 1739, I *must* adopt it no matter what internal
> evidence says. Only if the text-types (p46-B-sa, Aleph-A-C-33-bo,
> D-F-G-latt, 1739-0243-1881-424**-6) divide am I even *allowed*
> to look at internal evidence.
This has parallels with my own Byzantine-priority method: if a reading is
supported by 70%+ of the MSS, and especially if by 80%+ or 90%+, I am more
bound to accept it -- not because of numerical "majority" but because it
tends more and more to reflect a united Byzantine tradition. When the
support for a reading drops below 70%, and especially as it approaches 50%
(or, if more than one reading exists within the variant unit, as it drops
below 50%), then internal evidence comes into significance and usually
will be the determining factor in selecting a reading. This is _not_ to
say, however, that internal evidence is not or should not be invoked in
_any_ variant unit, even one where 99% of the MSS agree -- there still
should always be a reasonable solution sought for the most strongly
attested variant as well as an explanation for the rise of the weaker
variant(s). This might not always be possible with certainty, but it
should occur nevertheless, and in reality within any text-critical
methodology.
[quoting Grenier]
> >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.
I would take exception to this categorization, since there is little
question regarding the fourfold gospel as scripture before AD 200, as well
as most of the undisputed books before or around that date (which Colwell
considered the point by which most sensible variant readings had been
created). AD 500 would be far too late to postulate the writings as
non-scripture. Also, I do not think there was "little opportunity for
comparison of MSS" when even our earliest papyri show evidence of
cross-comparison and correction, not to mention the uncial fragments from
the 3rd and 4th century.
> a deliberate correction. See, for example, 1 Cor. 13:3. The original reading
> is probably KAUCHSWMAI (p46 Aleph A B 33 1739* pc). An error converted this
> to KAUQHSWMAI (K Psi Byz). This is impossible, so scribes "corrected" it
> to KAUQHSOMAI (D F G L al).
Not that again! *;-) I still would like someone to inform me as to _why_,
if KAUQHSWMAI is such an "impossible error", that the vast majority of all
Byzantine scribes _never_ corrected it to the more "proper" KAUQHSOMAI
etc. We have been through all that before, but no one seems to take the
mentality of the scribe into consideration -- do you seriously think that
99% of all scribes were such mere automatons that they could not correct
an error of orthography, but only a few skilled scribes of the Western
tradition were able so to do? Still illogical to me....but this is a
different matter....
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back