Fri Oct 25 11:29:52 1996

From owner-tc-list  Fri Oct 25 11:29:52 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA04404; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:28:55 -0400
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:25:09 -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: 4124



On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> 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...).

At least we agree on one point. *;-)

[regarding Pickering]

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

Shortly after his book appeared in the early 1980s, Pickering started on a
course toward believing in "continual purification" of the text as the
centuries wore on, and, therefore in his view, the Kr type of text (the
most recent form within the Byzantine tradition) was to be assumed as
closest to the autograph.  Naturally, no other "majority" or Byzantine
text partisan agreed with Pickering on this point (nor did Burgon or
Scrivener).  

Pickering this year took it further, and now has opted for a sub-family
reflecting only about 3% of the MSS to have preserved this "final
purification" of the text, and has formally repudiated connection with the
name "majority text" and has substituted his own term "original text
theory" for his current position.  Some of us within the
Byzantine-priority position are not too sorry to see Pickering depart from
the "majority text" perspective. *;-)

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

I am probably an exception to about everything within the "majority text"
movement since I am one of the few advocating a similar position with a
major in NT textual criticism.  

> 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.

Wallace has argued for using H/F as a collation base, which I opposed for
non-majority reasons (the TR is simply more of a convenient standard, and
would not require reworking of older collation data); but in fact, my own
text is more "Byzantine" than the H/F text, if one is actually seeking the
closest approximation to that Textform.

> The problem, of course, is that Sturz never did produce a text, so we
> can't tell what his results would have been. 

Actually Sturz _did_ produce a text, albeit only of Matthew, which he
called "The Second-Century Greek NT".  I have a copy, and can assure you
it is clearly Byzantine (Alex/Byz or West/Byz) in most portions, though
departing in the very few cases where Alex/West agreement occurs).

> it as *mildly* pro-Byzantine (my feeling is that Sturz would follow
> the Byzantine text in the event of a three-way split)

I don't think Sturz would make a decision in such cases, but merely choose
one reading and place the others in footnotes.  Of course, triple division
would be infrequent in any case.

> 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.

True enough, but then Aland's 26/27th edition is "more Byzantine" than the
25th or any of its predecessors.  The difference is minimal, but still
significant, just as with Von Soden.

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

Though he would hold his principle as valid even in the Gospels.

> 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. :-)

Agreed.


_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back