Fri Oct 25 16:53:27 1996

From owner-tc-list  Fri Oct 25 16:53:27 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA08237; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 16:50:57 -0400
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 16:46:54 -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: 3263


On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Nichael Cramer wrote:

> I don't think a theologicial (or perhaps more correctly a faith) stance is
> the _only_ reason behind the MT position, but I think it is safe to say
> that it is the primary reason motivating the overwhelming majority of its
> advocates. 

Since there are so few advocates, I'm not sure how broad a brush is
painting this picture.  I would not include myself, Hodges, or Van Bruggen
within that group, though Pickering and Farstad might qualify.  There
still remains the problem that, even with nearly the same theological
views I previously (pre-1972) advocated the Nestle25/UBS3 type of text as
superior, and never once felt theological concern about the matter, nor do
I feel any compulsion in this direction currently. I know Hodges himself
has mentioned that he sees no reason why a functional atheist could not
hold to either theory of textual criticism, since the matter is a question
of evidence and its interpretation rather than a matter of theological
perspective.  

> Now it is certainly true that there are a few scholars who argue for the
> MT/TR on genuinely scholarly grounds.  But it is also true that you can 
> count those scholars on one hand (with plenty of fingers left over). 

Please place the TR defenders in a separate category.  They are clearly
not within the loop of the MT/Byz defenders (and we would not want them in
the loop merely so we could use the remaining fingers of our hand to
count).

> Your point is well taken that there is lots of noise on this topic.  But
> viewed more appropriately --i.e. in terms of a scholarly debate-- given
> that there are only (at most) two or three scholars supporting the
> minority position.

On the tc-list I suspect there is only one (myself) who really defends
that position.  Other advocates of the theory do exist, but most of them
are apparently not on the list or even on the internet.  The only noise
created therefore stems from myself, and I will be pleased if anyone can
argue convincingly to the contrary position.

> the sound and fury tends to overwhelm the substance of
> the debate. And certainly makes it sound bigger/more important than would 
> otherwise appear. 

Actually, I am not certain that the real substance of the debate has ever
been considered on this list.  By this I mean the failure of the eclectic
method convincingly to establish or maintain a text of the NT which can be
supported in any form on secure historical grounds within an integrated
theory of transmission.  It is much easier to take pot shots at the
Byzantine advocates for holding to what is supposedly a "secondary" form
of the text than it is to supply a comprehensive theory of eclecticism
which will provide some hope of correctness in establishing a dominant
text of the NT which can reasonably be considered to be equivalent to the
autograph.  (And don't blame me on this point: Epp, Colwell and Clark
started the critique in this area).

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

Back