Wed Oct 23 13:59:52 1996

From owner-tc-list  Wed Oct 23 13:59:52 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id NAA15192; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 13:58:31 -0400
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
 
References: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 12:54:13 -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: 10643

On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson 
wrote (in two separate posts):

[BTW... I'm not going to repeat most of what Maurice said... I assume
he knows more about his views than I do. :-) Where I have truly
misrepresented him, I am sorry.... At least I learned more about his
views as a result.]

[ first message, much omitted... ]

>> 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.
>
>At least good scholars can prefer bad texts, is that what you are saying?
>I myself have thought precisely the same about most rigorous or reasoned
>eclectics.  *;-)

Straight out of Newton: "For every action there is an equal and
opposite reaction." Yes, good scholars can prefer bad texts. My
feeling about your text is probably exactly the same as your
feeling about mine (or about UBS/GNT, anyway...).

[ second message, much omitted... ]

>> 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.

See my previous post for my reaction to this.

>
>> 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.

Interesting. All I've read is his "Identity," which has always struck
me as a very strange book... part good sound reasoning, part special
pleading (especially against the outdated theories of Westcott & Hort)
and part pure balderdash.

I'm curious: When did he dissociate himself from the movement? Before
or after the two Byzantine/Majority editions appeared?

>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.

I would note that I offered (perhaps not clearly enough) Maurice
Robinson as an *exception* to those who claim "providential
preservation."

>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".

This is why I believe that *both* H/F and R/P deserve to be in scholars'
"toolboxes." R/P is the best available edition of the Majority Text.
H/F gives more of a historical reconstruction. Even if one does not
consider the resultant texts original, they are very important for
studying influences on other text-types.

>> 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?!),

Depends on which definition of the "Western" text we use, and which
part of the Bible. It happens often in Paul.

>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.

The problem, of course, is that Sturz never did produce a text, so we
can't tell what his results would have been. His introduction has been
variously interpreted: Wallace reads it as very pro-Byzantine, I read
it as *mildly* pro-Byzantine (my feeling is that Sturz would follow
the Byzantine text in the event of a three-way split), Robinson reads
it as neutral.

>> 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.

Agreed on all points. We all know the defects of von Soden's theories
of influence. Still, von Soden's text -- at least according to Aland --
is more Byzantine than any "modern critical" edition except Vogels.

>> 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.

And to further clarify, A.C. Clark was working primarily on Acts,
not the gospels.

>>    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.

As Robinson notes, in terms of method, he and I have some similarity.
We are both, as Michael Holmes would put it, "Historical-documentary"
workers -- that is, the evidence of the manuscripts is paramount.

Where we differ (here again it is Holmes who made the point) is in our
reconstruction of the history of the text. And it is here that the
differences are vast. :-)

[ ... ]
>
>> 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! *;-)

Hey, this one will never go away. :-)

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....

I would say that, in one sense at least, I was complementing the
Byzantine scribes. While I consider KAUQHSWMAI the primary reading,
and KAUQHSWMAI secondary, KAUQHSOMAI is *tertiary.* It's completely
worthless. It *cannot* have been original. Yet it's the text most
scholars print, even today.

The Byzantine scribes copied a secondary reading, but at least they
were careful enough to preserve the secondary reading, rather than
make the obvious correction to the tertiary reading.

I wouldn't call the "Western" scribes "skilled"; I'd call them
careless.

Frankly, I am surprised the "rigorous eclectics" don't favour KAUQHSWMAI.
It is so *obviously* the harder reading. If it had any support at all
(by my standards), I would adopt it.

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back