Fri Oct 25 13:37:01 1996

From owner-tc-list  Fri Oct 25 13:37:01 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id NAA05754; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 13:32:00 -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: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 12:27:45 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: The debate continues (sorry, folks)
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 14307

On Date: Fri, 25 Oct 199, Maurice Robinson 
wrote:

[I'll omit much of this, as I either concede Robinson's expertise or
think our differences more a matter of terminology than of substance.
BTW -- I should concede that some of my statements, e.g. concerning
Burgon, may be in error; I have not seen most of his works, and own
none of them. Perforce I looked up his "Notes of Truth" from
Pickering; obviously Pickering commentary on the notes was more
Pickering than Burgon -- but that was not evident from the book....]

[ ... ]

>> 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.

I thought that was what I said. :-)

[ ... ]

>> 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 meant simply that Burgon belonged to a denomination not inherently
fundamentalist. I suppose it could be argued that Anglican was as
conservative as you could get in nineteenth century Britain. :-)

[ ... ]

>Such an affirmation does _not_ limit or restrict my search for the
>original text one iota.

Nor did I intend to imply such.

[ ... ]

>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.

Agreed.

>> 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.

Perhaps I should clarify what I said: Hort's approach, and mine -- and,
I believe, Maurice Robinson's -- *starts* by finding text-types, then
uses internal evidence to evaluate them, then is based primarily on
the text-types. Of course internal evidence is used -- but it is used
more at the early stage, and less at the late stage, than is usually
the case with the "reasoned eclectic" school.

>> 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.

By "rough draft" I did not mean that there is a "final draft" impending;
I meant that our knowledge is inadequate to produce a final draft. H/F
admit that their volume is constructed based largely on von Soden. Ultimately
a majority text edition should be constructed from the manuscripts.

I would agree that we generally know the readings of the Majority text form.
But -- as our friend 2 Cor. 2:17 shows -- there are cases where we need to
make an adjustment. Certainly we *cannot* treat the TR as "the Byzantine
text." This is disasterous -- no matter *which* textual school you belong to.

>> 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".

My fault. This is Pickering's version of The Gospel According to Burgon.

>> 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.

Believe it or not, I'm open to this point, too. At least in Paul and the
Catholics, where there is so little early material, and so much good late
material. :-)

Again, I was following Pickering's version of Burgon.

Having read this and Robinson's following post, I promise never again
to use Pickering as an example of a Majority Text advocate.

>> 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).

Again, I agree. I think it very important to *know* the witnesses.Most
manuscripts have some sort of peculiar errors, which make them more or
less "respectable" for different variants -- e.g. the article by Colwell
(which is a masterpiece of its type) shows that p45 is very susceptible
to add/omit. Aleph is particularly subject to loss (note that I agree
with Robinson on this). My own oft-quoted 1739 seems to have a certain
habit of changing (often deleting) particles at the beginning of a
sentence. (Though I beg you, folks, *do not* consider that an assured
result. Since I don't have complete collations for most of the other
members of family 1739, I can't tell if this is characteristic of 1739
itself or of its text-type.)

>> 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.

To add point to this (note that I again agree with Robinson), note that
Pickering [p. 137] offered five examples of this phenomenon -- and in only
one of them could I feel really certain as to what variant he was arguing for!

[ ... ]

>> 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.

But Scrivener, as noted, is not a Burgonian.

>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.

I am not trying to argue. I have the strange feeling that Maurice thinks
I am "out to get him." Even if I were out to get somebody (and I hope that
I am not), I would be going after Hills or Pickering or one of the real
nuts. (As, in fact, it turned out I was doing. :-) I *don't* believe in
Byzantine priority -- but the position needs to be examined and ably debated.

Nor do I expect you to depart from your criteria. As they say of generals
in wartime, better to be wrong and decisive than to be right and indecisive.
My point was not an attack on your method; it was a description of the
general thrust of your method. If that is *not* the general thrust, then
you can hardly be a Byzantine prioritist. :-)

>> 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'm not sure how to react to that one, except to say that, yes, a preference
for one text-type *does* make things easier. I've been stewing all morning over
Mark 1:28, for instance. I could make a good case for any of the four readings
there.

Let's look at it another way. In the text of 1 Thessalonians, my methods gave
me 16 readings (1:4, 5b, 5c, 2:16, 3:1, 13b, 13c, 4:1a, 8a, 14, 5:9a, 9b, 10,
13b, 13c, 21) where I really am not sure of the text, and another 32 (1:5a, 7,
8, 9, 10, 2:4, 5, 7, 12, 13a, 13b, 3:2, 4, 5, 13a, 4:1b, 2, 8b, 9, 10, 11, 13a,
13b, 5:3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 13a, 15a, 15b, 25, 27) where I have some doubts.
Frustrating? Assuredly. But is it better to deny my uncertainty?

>(I _am_ being sarcastic, but if one doesn't really care _which_ texttype
>a reading comes from, the task seems irrelevant).

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the point. Why does a willingness to
follow multiple text-types make the task irrelevant?

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back