Sun Nov 3 09:02:40 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sun Nov  3 09:02:40 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA24395; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 09:01:40 -0500
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 08:57:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Hort's prejudice against the TR
In-Reply-To: <327A51F9.3D51@voicenet.com>
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: 1983



On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, L. Mark Bruffey wrote:

> Is it true, as Pickering asserts, that Hort at age 23 had studied few if
> any mss when he said he wanted to do away with the TR?

At that time Hort was a young college student, and his statement regarding
"that vile textus receptus" probably reflected more of his teachers than
anything original to himself.  

This was a time (ca.1840) when textual criticism had already progressed
away from the TR into critical editions such as Mill, and slightly revised
texts such as that of Bengel or Griesbach, but the influence of Lachmann,
whose 1830s edition was based _entirely_ upon early manuscript evidence,
was probably the most significant item influencing Hort at that time,
since it would have been strongly praised by his professors and fellow
students of that era.

Quite frankly, taken in context, Hort's quote is quite appropriate.  The
complaint was primarily in regard to anyone slavishly following "that vile
TR" which "rested entirely on the evidence of late MSS" (I paraphrase,
since I do not have the exact quote at hand).  To that extent, even the
pro-Byzantine proponents would agree with Hort -- the TR as an edition may
be a fair reflection of a predominantly Byzantine texttype, but not one of
us (nor even Burgon) would attempt to maintain any authority or viability
for the TR, having been composed as it was from mainly late MSS.

Pickering (as well as Colwell on this point) appears to make too much of
this early statement of Hort as somehow reflecting a determined attitude
to replace the TR with a non-Byzantine text, when his primary criticism
was only over the matter of the TR being based on a few late MSS.

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

Back