Sat Jan 4 17:38:59 1997

From owner-tc-list  Sat Jan  4 17:38:59 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id RAA14073; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 17:32:56 -0500
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 16:33:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: H&F Maj Text apparatus
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: 6736



On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> It depends on your purpose. If you want to reconstruct a text -- then,
> yes, the H&F apparatus is inadequate. It is inadequate even for the
> purpose of determining the true majority text, because it doesn't
> include the readings of any manuscripts, and does not even give the
> readings of textual groupings consistently (that is, it will sometimes
> list Kr or Kc or whatnot, but where it lists an Mpart reading, you
> can't tell which groups go which way).

Bob and I would concur on this point.  The H/F text probably should never
have included an apparatus if the intent were somehow to demonstrate how a
"majority text" might be constructed or evaluated.  H/F themselves refer
their readers to Von Soden as the primary apparatus (which obviously
everyone does not possess, but it is available in most seminary libraries
or by interlibrary loan if its use is required).  

All the data in the H/F apparatus is intended to do is to (a) clearly show
where their "majority text" differs from Nestle 26/27 (and this probably
should have been done solely by printing "N26" instead of attempting to
give the "E" for "Egyptian text" symbol along with the supposed leading
representatives of that Egyptian text in each book etc., as well as
selected papyrus readings.  There is obviously some attempt in that
portion of the apparatus to reflect the H/F view that there are but two
texttypes, the "majority" and the "Egyptian", but I fail to see how their
apparatus as presented really demonstrates that aspect.  Better simply to
list the N26/27 variants, and refer readers to the Nestle edition for
their apparatus data. 

The other portion of the H/F apparatus is more valuable, since it attempts
to show some (but not all) Byzantine sub-variants as listed in the Von
Soden apparatus, reflecting the Ka K1 Kc Kr etc. sub-groups.  Even here,
however, the H/F apparatus fails, since it does not list all the various
K-group sub-variants cited by Von Soden, but only those considered most
significant.  Once more, the reader is forced to use Von Soden to
understand the whole scope of the Byzantine (K) Textform and its
sub-variant groups.

So all in all, while the H/F text could and probably should stand alone as
the result of their process of critical editing, their apparatus is not
and, under the circumstances, could not be adequate for further textual
study of the "majority" or Byzantine Textform.  I would have preferred
that the apparatus had either been left out entirely, or else had been
totally restricted only to showing variation from N26/27 and the various
K-subgroup readings in their entirety. 

The R/P text included no apparatus for this very reason, though I do agree
that there is a place for a solely continuous text edition such as R/P for
the general reader, as well as for the scholarly reader an apparatus which
lists at least the N26/27 differences and K-subgroup readings, which
perhaps may be included in a later edition, electronic or printed. Part of
the problem was that in the publisher's rush to print, there was no time
left to prepare an apparatus of that type before publication, even though
we had all the data completely listed within the margins of a master copy
of the TR which had been adjusted to reflect the Byzantine Textform.

As it stands, the only indication of variant readings in the R/P edition
is the enclosure of certain words in square brackets [ ], which indicates
only a divided Byzantine text regarding inclusion or omission of the words
so bracketed.  These bracketed cases do not, however, reflect all the
divided Byzantine readings, and many instances where transposition or
substitution occur are simply not noted; only the editors' choice is
printed in such cases. 

Back to the discussion of the H/F edition:

> On the other hand, as a starting point for controversial discussions,
> it's fairly good. Yes, it would be better if it cited more TR editions,
> and also if it cited at least two other critical editions (I would
> say it should cite Stephanus, Elzevir, Beza, and -- now -- R&P in
> the first apparatus, and W&H and NA25 along with UBS in the second).

I differ dramatically from Bob here.  The TR is basically totally
irrelevant, whether the Oxford 1825 used by H/F in their apparatus, or any
of the other editions. The citation of the TR in any apparatus has no
bearing on either textual criticism or the establishment of the text,
majority/Byzantine or otherwise.  H/F would have been wiser not to have
included any TR reference in their apparatus.  I most certainly hope that
they do not similarly decide to include other editions such as W-H and R/P
in any future editions -- a similar waste of time, no more valuable than
all the subvariants listed in the Berry interlinear edition which merely
reflect the choices of editors of that time (Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Griesbach, Lachmann, etc.) as well as the Elzevir differences from the
Stephens 1550 base text.  What is most important in an apparatus to a
majority text edition is basically the Byzantine sub-groups and how the
text as a whole differs from that in current use by eclectic scholars.
Nothing more.

> But you see why I keep calling out for a Majority Text edition with
> a *real* critical apparatus. :-)

Simple solution: use Nestle 27 and follow the gothic "M".  That will take
anyone virtually 99% toward a "majority" or Byzantine text edition, and
you don't even need H/F or R/P for that purpose.  Use Von Soden to cover
the remaining places where "K" differs from N27 but is not cited in the
N27 apparatus, and you will have it all.  The only remaining item of
significance is the K-subgroup testimony and the decisions made when the
main "K" groups is itself divided.  Constructing a Byzantine Textform
edition is (on the surface at least) far easier than the creation of an
eclectic text -- what is difficult is determining the entire theory of
textual transmission which will explain both the favored Byzantine
Textform as well as explain the other texttypes, sub-types, families, and
other remaining readings as found in our extant manuscript resources.
That is why I have consistently addressed the issue of the underlying
history of transmission rather than the matter of determining the
Byzantine readings in most cases.  There is a world of difference between
that methodology and that which underlies that of the modern eclectics.


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

Back