Fri Oct 25 10:38:37 1996
From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 25 10:38:37 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id KAA03994; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:37:29 -0400
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:33:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Multiple Replies (Was: 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: 16929
On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
[quoting Bahr]
> >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?
Speaking from my perspective only, the versional testimony is certainly
important, and tends to confirm the weight of existing Greek readings.
When a number of versions read in concert, their testimony obviously has
more weight than when a single version stands alone. However, I would be
extremely suspicious of any versional testimony which does not possess any
Greek support whatsoever, and would not claim such to possibly reflect the
original text (much the same as my strong opposition to conjectural
readings which was discussed previously).
[Waltz]
> 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).
This is not precisely correct. I believe in my previous post I spoke to
the matter of internal evidence and its use, and in fact advocate using
internal criteria in regard to _every_ variant unit studied, even if 99%
of the manuscripts read in a single direction. Internal evidence alone
will not be decisive in cases where (basically) 70% or more of the MSS (=
the Byzantine Textform) are in agreement, but still must be employed to
show that there _is_ an internal evidence support for the Byzantine
reading, and that mere number alone is not the only point of
consideration. In places where the Byzantine MS support drops below 70%,
then internal evidence plays a more decisive role; but in no case should
internal evidence be altogether dismissed.
> As you note, he does not use stemmatics.
Another clarification: I do not use stemmatics in the manner of Hodges and
Farstad, which means the assumption that identity of reading implies a
stemmatic/genealogical relationship. I strongly support a stemmatic
approach which is based upon agreement in plain and clear error among MSS;
however, I suggest that there is little evidence among our minuscules to
support close genealogical connections beyond the family groups hitherto
identified (this also was the position of Lake, Blake, and New mentioned
some time ago [HTR 1928]). Where legitimate stemmatic connections can be
shown to exist, I have no problem in utilizing such.
> 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.
Van Bruggen and Wisselink, from my own contact with them, appear to be
more on the Byzantine-priority side than on the Hodges/Farstad side, since
neither appeal to the H/F brand of stemmatics in regard to the NT 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.
I would not consider Scrivener an advocate of the Byzantine Textform. His
own stated preferences make it clear that he was more or less eclectic,
with a lean somewhat toward the Byzantine, but hardly in an overwhelming
manner. Wallace has pointed this out in his brief article on revisionist
history as applied for the most part by the KJV-Only advocates in regard
to both Scrivener and Hoskier. While I think that Wallace did overkill in
the opposite direction and tried to hard to make these two both
anti-Byzantine, his point is still valid that neither Scrivener nor
Hoskier really favored the Byzantine Textform en bloc.
The portions quoted from Scrivener amply demonstrate this fact:
> >That mere numbers should decide a question of sacred criticism never
> >ought to have been asserted by any one....
With which I would agree. However, the following quote would not reflect
my methodology, and likely not Burgon's, since Scrivener seemingly
elevates the principle of "variety of evidence" above all else:
> >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.
I would not so swiftly dismiss the mass of the minuscules without
carefully considering the internal evidence of the passage and seeking to
establish clearly which reading was more likely to give rise to all the
others, etc. Patristic testimony can be highly corrupt (e.g. Jn.1:13), and
versional testimony can only go back to the MS or MSS which were utilized
in the formation of that version. I do not consider each by themselves or
in combination to be automatically as overwhelming as did Scrivener, and
certainly Burgon held an opinion similar to my own on this point.
> >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.
I would concur more with Scrivener on this point, though I still would be
extremely cautious in its application. I find only two places in the
entire NT where this principle really has justification (1Jn.2.23 and
3.1), but even there the question remains as to (especially) the 9th
and 10th century minuscules which differ from the earlier data and which
therefore seems to exclude such variant units from Scrivener's principle,
assuming it was strictly to be applied. The other remaining question is
whether the earliest minuscules can be assumed to reflect independent
testimony from lost uncials from which they presumably were copied, or
whether there is some demonstrable genealogical connection which obviates
their testimony here.
> 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.
Burgon is no exception, since he was an ultra-conservative within the
Anglican church who also held to verbal plenary inspiration and consequent
inerrancy. I do note that those who favor the Byzantine Textform or
"majority text" position do tend to be within the more conservative camp,
including myself. However, I would argue for divine preservation of ALL
NT manuscripts of ALL texttypes, in all versions, as manifested by their
sheer quantity as opposed to all other secular or theological works.
Such an affirmation does _not_ limit or restrict my search for the
original text one iota. As mentioned, I previously held to a reasoned
eclectic position, and had no theological difficulties there; in fact
almost all verbal plenary inerrantist conservatives hold that the modern
eclectic text is closest to the originals -- and these certainly are not
compartmentalizing their inerrantist views in order to accept a text which
they believe not to be "preserved."
The error lies with those who claim that divine preservation _must_ of
necessity lead to a specific single text as equal to the autograph, and
these tend to be of the KJV-Only variety rather than among those who
actually deal with NT textual criticism.
> 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.
Still an oversimplification: internal evidence was _regularly_ utilized;
however, the case of a strong Byzantine majority forced the question as to
whether internal evidence principles tend to _support_ such a
strongly-supported reading, and not the reverse process of first
determining the best reading on internal principles and then opposing such
to the external evidence when they differ, and automatically assuming the
internal criteria to be superior in virtually all cases of such
disagreement. Were such to be done, there obviously would be _no_
"Byzantine priority" case or position.
> 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.
I would suggest you have the items reversed: R/P is the "rough draft" of
the Byzantine Textform ("original Byzantine text"), while H/F is the
"rough draft" of the "majority text". While it is true that both editions
are "tentative" to some degree, I believe that H/F claims to be far more
tentative than it is, since they have made _no_ changes to their text
since it was originally published, save for correction of typo errors.
The R/P text on the other hand, has made at least six (minor) alterations
to its base text since it first appeared in electronic form, and probably
30 or so changes since it originally appeared as typescript notes in the
1970s. Three alterations were made just within the past few months as a
result of considering evidence found in the _Text und Textwert_ volumes.
I would suggest, however, that "rough draft" is really an inappropriate
term. Basically (as stated in the Introduction to my edition) the main
items of the Byzantine Textform are known and are secure. The only items
which remain tentative are some minutiae, which will be corrected from
time to time, as evidence becomes available. I do not expect to see any
changes whatsoever in the H/F edition, so far as I can perceive from my
correspondence and contact with the editors tends to show.
> 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!
Are we certainly quoting Burgon here, or is he being misread? Burgon is
VERY strong on the point of "antiquity" being within the first 6 centuries
of the Christian era. He might not consider readings which appear later
than the 12th century, but any reading attested only from the 12th century
onward he would certainly _not_ consider to be "ancient".
> 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.
This too is a gross distortion. Burgon made it absolutely clear that
"continuity" indicated that a reading _had_ to show some line stretching
back to at least the period of antiquity. Burgon would _never_ consider
that a reading transmitted _only_ from century XII-XV would be more
original than one found in earlier centuries. He _would_, however,
consider that a reading found _only_ in centuries III-V with no _further_
continuity would be suspect as non-original.
> 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).
Agreed that Burgon was greatly in error in calling MSS by such names, but
anyone who has read Burgon knows his abrasive style and should be able to
go beyond that to the main point.
"Respectability of witnesses" remains a valid point, which is itself
exemplified by the MSS cited when compared against each other. At any
given point of difference (which are many) all three MSS cannot be correct
as reflecting the autograph, so one or two of them at any variant unit
must present a false reading.
As the number of such false readings increases, certainly the character of
those witnesses can be increasingly called into question, though in a more
civil atmosphere we would do much as did Colwell when describing the three
early papyri in his "Scribal Habits" article: i.e., do not trust a certain
MS in regard to additions; do not trust another in regard to omissions;
do not trust another in regard to transpositions, etc. The scribal
character of ALL manuscripts should be ascertained (which is a very slow
process), and those peculiarities noted and applied in any given variant
unit to include or exclude witnesses based upon their know proclivities.
My own study of scribal habits in MSS of the Apocalypse showed a wide
variety of skill and care in the copying habits of scribes, whether uncial
or minuscule-based. Even in the Apocalypse, Sinaiticus ended up as one of
the most "editorial" and scribally corrupt MSS, followed closely by MS C,
and some other MSS, some also early. There certainly is no question in my
mind as to the proper application of the "respectability" canon as Burgon
intended it (though without his invective).
> And "internal considerations" applies
> only to "impossible" readings.
This point was not intended to reflect what we today term "internal
evidence", but rather what Burgon would term "internal consistency and
reasonableness" of readings, on the assumption that a scribe would not
knowingly create an illogical or contradictory reading which would be
perpetuated in great quantity without further correction. Any reading
which seems "unreasonable" (e.g. "Jeremiah" in Mt.27.9) yet which _was_
perpetuated in great quantity would more likely be original than the
creation of a scribe at a point subsequent to the autograph.
It should be noted also that Burgon never ruled out internal evidence --
indeed, his (posthumous) "Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional
Text" volume is a virtual catalog of scribal corruptions and their causes
as well as their resolution based upon internal criteria.
> In other words, Burgon had good criteria, but he used them in such a way
> that only a Byzantine reading need apply.
Once more I think this is an oversimplification. There are places where
Burgon himself did _not_ favor a numerically superior reading (where I
might identify such as "Byzantine") due to his other criteria. I probably
am more tied to the Byzantine Textform based upon an integrated theory of
transmission than was Burgon. All readings can apply; however only
Byzantine readings will be hired (noting of course that numerical majority
does _not_ always equal "Byzantine").
> 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.
Scrivener did not accept the Pericope Adultera. The omission certainly
does _not_ have at least 25% of the MS tradition. There probably are
more, but this is one case I know of for certain.
Yet what would you expect from scholars like Burgon or Scrivener or even
myself? That we can "prove" we are somehow independent and not
pro-Byzantine automatons merely by selecting 10 readings with 5% support
or the like? This would be tantamount to asking Metzger to prove he is an
open minded scholar by preferring Byzantine readings at least 50% of the
time. One cannot be expected to abandon the leading principles of his or
her theory merely to prove some nebulous point. Rather, we should be
pleased to find these various scholars acting in accordance with and not
contrary to the principles of their respective theories.
> 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.
My Byzantine preference and A.C.Clark's unilateral preference for the
Western text are also so _easy_ also for a textual critic to follow. You
almost don't even have to _think_! Why get bogged down in eclectic
decision making all the time, and frustrate the brain. *;-)
(I _am_ being sarcastic, but if one doesn't really care _which_ texttype
a reading comes from, the task seems irrelevant).
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back