Fri Oct 25 15:41:33 1996
From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 25 15:41:33 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id PAA07255; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:40:27 -0400
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:36:42 -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: 3595
On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Jean Valentin wrote:
> Seen from here (Europe) it's quite strange to see all these (often
> passionnate) discussions about the Byzantine text / Received text /
> Majority text that are going on in the US. How do you explain this
> difference?
Kurt Aland asked me precisely that question in 1989 when I visited
Muenster. Probably the primary reason is simply that there are in the US
those who advocate each of those positions (though they certainly are
quite different in comparison with each other), while in Europe the
discussion does not exist due to lack of advocates (I will be perfectly
happy to present such in a European setting during my sabbatical, should I
end up there next year).
The TR position even in the US is held by only a very few, and usually
those with a KJV-Only agenda to push. I would not group this category
along with the others, and would agree with the European view that a
defense of the TR is not a priority nor even possible on a scholarly basis
(though it does have historical significance, to be sure).
The majority text and Byzantine-priority positions stem from other
considerations, sometimes theological, as has been mentioned with
Pickering, other times methodological, as with myself and Hodges/Farstad.
The only reason such positions are advocated is because the advocates
sense certain weaknesses in the modern eclectic methodology (reasoned or
rigorous), and also have a concern with a comprehensive integrated theory
of textual transmission. The European solutions, whether from the Aland
quarter or from Amphoux, are seen to suffer from similar weaknesses.
> Here in Europe, most of the discussion goes between the german school
> (Aland and his text) and the French school (arguing for the Western text,
> even more specially, as with C. Amphoux, for Codex Bezae). For Europeans,
> the question of the Byzantine text is settled for a century.
The Aland solution, whether from the Byzantine Imperial Text standpoint or
the "genealogy of readings" standpoint appears to be seriously flawed in
many of its particulars; and this is not only the view from the
pro-Byzantine quarter, but also from the perspective of many eclectic
scholars in the US and Britain. The French school probably stands quite
alone in defending a primarily Western text as original, and I do not know
any US scholars who would follow Amphoux in this regard.
> Why is it so, why are our approaches so exotic to one another? Is
> theological background the only reason?
Certainly not theological background, since most US scholars regardless of
denominational background or conservative/liberal/neo-orthodox theology
would still probably hold to a reasoned eclectic methodology. Here it is
the pro-Byzantine side and Bob Waltz' MS 1739 positions which are
primarily documentary.
> As I see that some of you argue in favor of the Byzantine text, I would
> specially appreciate to have their comments. Also all your comments about
> European NT textual criticism will be appreciated.
I would suggest that you obtain back segments of the tc-list wherein many
of these items regarding the pro-Byzantine position were previously
discussed in great detail. European textual criticism has not played a
large part in those discussions, however.
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back