Subject: Re: Collation against MT vs. TR

From: [email-masked] (Dale M. Wheeler)
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 13:34:12 -0800

Mark O'Brien wrote:

>I agree wholeheartedly with you here.  When H/F move away from
>just presenting the majority evidence (or when they have no choice
>because of the "split" nature of the data), they not only undermine, at
>points, their Majority Text theory, but they make the MT possibly
>difficult to use for collation purposes.  I guess that one advantage is
>that there is now a "generally" majority text edition we can work
>against, but I appreciate your concerns here about it perhaps not being
>"genuinely" majority text.
>

This is a general misconception of what Hodges and Farstad were trying to
accomplish with their text.  The point was not to produce a Majority text
for its own sake, rather it was to show the nature of rigorous stemmatics
applied to the history of the transmission of the mss.  It is their
contention that if stemmatics were applied to the entirety of the NT mss,
the Majority type of text would in fact be shown to be the progenitor of all
the various "text-types," and thus represent the original.  Thus, since they
themselves had only preformed a stemmatic reconstruction on a small (and
accessible) portion of the text, they were forced by necessity to present
what they believed would be the resultant text of such a rigorous stemmatic
reconstruction applied to the rest of the NT; namely the Majority.  

It probably is unfortunate that the only book for which sufficient textual
information existed was Revelation, since its textual history is so
iconoclastic.  I don't think one should understand Hodges' conclusion that
the statistical majority does not represent the original to be an indication
of his forsaking the majority opinion, but rather as a clear indicator of
the fact that he believes that rigorous stemmatics is the only way to "find"
the original (it also shows that his approach was NEVER counting
manuscripts; his "Majority" text was based on the above-mentioned working
theory that the Byz/Maj would stand at the top of a rigorous NT stemma).

Maurice is certainly correct that his text represents the "majority" at each
point, as far as that is able to be discerned (and that Hodges had a
preference for certain Byz sub-families when the numbers seemed to be
split).  I hasten to add that Maurice's view of the history of the
manuscripts is also not as simple-minded as simply counting mss (ie., he has
a reason for choosing it, whether one agrees with his working theory or
not).  Indeed, Maurice's text would probably be preferable for a collating
base..which is what we were talking about in the first place.

The above in no way should be seen as an endorsement for any view (I'm not
telling my view...I don't have the time to answer all the mail :-)  ). I'm
simply trying to explain Hodges' view; Wallace's articles have gone a long
way in helping people understand the stemmatic and Majority views, but in my
opinion, have not gone far enough or been clear enough on certain points
(not to say that that was his purpose anyway).
***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Chair, Biblical Languages Dept                  Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street                               Portland, OR  97220
Voice: 503-251-6416    FAX:503-254-1268     E-Mail: [email-masked] 
***********************************************************************

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 23:50:51 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Dale M. Wheeler wrote:

> applied to the history of the transmission of the mss.  

I would differ somewhat with that assessment, since they admittedly only
applied this principle to the Pericope Adultera and the book of
Revelation, due to the amount of data they had at hand.  Admittedly, they
would have liked to apply their stemmatic conceptions to the remainder of
the Greek NT, but were unable to do so, due to limitations of available
data. 

> It is their
> the various "text-types," and thus represent the original.  

This in fact is NOT what their own stemmatic explorations led to.  The Ma
group in Revelation with only 19% support was declared by them (on what in
my opinion were wholly inadequate grounds) to be the progenitor of all
other groups, including the circa 40% Andreas group and the 40% Q group. 
They simply did NOT declare a single "majority" group to be the origin of
all the others, but a minority sub-group -- and this alone totally
nullifies their basic theory, since they declare they would follow a
similar methodology throughout the NT were sufficient data available. 
Wallace correctly labeled it something like the "Intra-Byzantine Stemmatic
(Minority) Text" position, which it truly is, rather than a real
"pro-Byzantine" or "majority text" position. 

> I don't think one should understand Hodges' conclusion that

When an approach claiming to be "majority" becomes subsumed under 
minority stemmatics, something in the terminology needs to change.  If 
you want a text of Revelation which is far more "majority" in nature, my 
own reconstruction will give a clear example of such, based not at all on 
stemmatics, but upon Colwell's 70% threshold plus internal evidence 
analysis in places where support is more evenly divided.  As Wallace has 
noted, I am far more of a "true Burgonite" than either Hodges and Farstad 
on this point.

> I hasten to add that Maurice's view of the history of the
> not).  

And I thank you for making this clear to all and sundry, so I won't have 
to explain why "counting noses" is NOT the procedure followed in a 
pro-Byzantine theory.  *8-)

> Indeed, Maurice's text would probably be preferable for a collating

And again, I really prefer that everyone continue using the TR (Oxford 
1873 edition, standard for the IGNTP).  The issue of a collating base is 
not all that important.  The primary issue is utilizing a standard base 
which all can readily consult and which all collations can readily be 
compared with.

=========================================================================
                       Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
            Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
              Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
                      Wake Forest, North Carolina
                   <[email-masked]>
=========================================================================