Thu Oct 24 00:57:44 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu Oct 24 00:57:44 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id AAA20825; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 00:51:59 -0400
Date: 24 Oct 96 00:46:03 EDT
From: Mike  Arcieri <102147.2045@CompuServe.COM>
To: TC-LIST 
Subject: Re: Multiple Replies (Was: Re: Textual Criticism Theories)
Message-ID: <961024044602_102147.2045_EHT106-1@CompuServe.COM>
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2386

>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.

Exactly.

>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. :-)

Which simply translates into no proof whatsoever.. ;-)  ;-)

>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.

If this is what Wallace said, he's wrong (again! What paper from Wallace are you
reading?? ;-))  ). Van Bruggen wrote a little book entitled "The Ancient Text of
the New Testament" where he presents his case in favour of the Byz text.  As for
Wisselink, his thesis re. Assimilation gives good support for the Byz text. I
don't remember if he comes out and says that he considers this text-type to be
_the_ best, but he certainly presents a case against Fee et al as to the alleged
inferiority of the Byz tradition

>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. 

Actually, here is a good quote from Scrivener's letter (dated Nov. 18, 1889) re.
his own position.:

"I think Burgon's wholesale disparagement of Codex Vaticanus as 'the most
corrupt of all copies' quite unreasonable. On this head we have held many a
conflict, without either of us yeilding an inch. You will see that I stand
midway between the two schools, inclining much more to Burgon than to Hort."

This quote is from Burgon's biography by Edward M. Goulburn (which I may add was
_not_ quoted by Wallace in his paper "Historical Revisionism and the Majority
Text Theory: The Cases of F.H.A. Scrivener and H. C. Hoskier" in NTS 1995).

I see now that Robinson has himself posted on the TC-LIST, so I will let him
answer for his GNT.

MIke A.

Back