Thu Oct 24 10:15:18 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu Oct 24 10:15:18 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA23565; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:14:07 -0400
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <961024044602_102147.2045_EHT106-1@CompuServe.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 09:07:40 -0700
To: tc-list@SCHOLAR.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: 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: 2909

On 24 Oct 96, Mike  Arcieri <102147.2045@compuserve.com> wrote:

[ ... ]

>>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

The article I read was in Ehrman and Holmes, and I will admit that I did not
re-read it when I wrote my reply. The relevant statement (p. 307) is

   Third, the Dutch schollars, van Bruggen and Wisselink, would hold to
   Majority text priority but not Majority text exclusivity. Theirs is the most
   nuanced Majority text position. Although they do not explicitly argue
   against particular majority readings, they allow, at least in theory,
   for Byzantine harmonizations and corruptions.

This sounds like Sturz's position to me, at least in outline.

This also shows that there are continental scholars who have not entirely
written off the Majority text.

>>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 read somewhere -- and this time I really can't recall where -- that Scrivener
at the end of his life inclined somewhat more toward W&H than he had earlier.
But, since I can't recall the source, I can't say how reliable it was. :-)

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back