Subject: Re: Textual Criticism

From: [email-masked] (Carlton Winbery)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 15:39:20 -0600

This is in answer to a post from Rachel off list.  I hope its ok if I put
it on-line.

>But I wonder why is there is so much hull-a-ba-loo
>over the Maj T.  It seems like the conservative spectrum is really
>getting excited over it.  I like and read Gordon Fee's articles and
>books (have not finished some yet..... )
>But some even feel that anyone who goes along with the TC tradition
>is suspect (of liberalism... humanistic feminism.... and any other
>bogeyman...)
>Why is the Byzantine text type hyped so much?

My first response to your question is that there are several reasons.  One
is that some have sold the Majority Text (MT) as the equivalent of the text
behind the King James Version.  In fact the dust cover of The Greek NT
according to the Majority Text has a statement to that effect.  "The
Majority Text, similar to the kind of text found in the King James Version,
has never before been printed."  After that statement few people among the
right wing of Evangelicalism ever noticed other disclaimers in the
introduction to the text.  In fact I've had several people call me and ask
if I used the Greek text behind the KJV.  When I replied that I did not
have a copy of the Beza text, they asked, "who was Beza?"

>Do you agree that the Alexandrian text type was
>influenced by the theological debates at that time?

I can only reply that all mss are corrupt.  The Alexandrian scribes tended
to make grammatical corrections (not updating the language like the
Byzantines) and in some places show a tendency to clarify statements that
are used in theology.  There are Byzantine readings that seem to do more in
that direction.

>Lastly if the Maj Text and the Nestle-Aland (or
>the Alexandrian text type) are nearly identical
>what are the reasons for the small difference?

All texts have about 90% agreement, but the vast majority of NT mss are
Byzantine and these are further from the early papyrii and uncials than
from other texts or mss that cannot be text-typed.  The refinements of
Aland in typing mss as level 1, level 2, etc. is long needed.  There are
major differences, as mss go, between the MT as edited by Hodges and the
UBS or Nestle-Aland.  I did a review of the MT of Hodges when it first came
out and one of the things I did was show that it was not the Textus
Receptus on which the KJV was based.

>Of course I know that I should read the articles
>below before asking these questions (which I will
>start looking at tonight....;)
>but I just need a brief comment from you or another.
>My way of studying the biblical text is too go at it
>myself first, doing inductive study, create my hypothesis about what
>the text means, how to apply it, and then
>I start reading lots and lots of other stuff to see where my
>"intuition" leads me.  Actually intuition may not capture what I mean
>but there is a distinct impression that when I read something or
>start building something that it  "jells together"?  Things seem to
>fall into place and I am able to build a conviction  (flexible to be
>changed if necessary later on....)

My word of caution is "Check it out."  Don't accept any conclusion without
checking not only the egs. cited but contra egs. that you can find in other
sources.  There is no substitute for reading mss in the process of learning
to apply the canons of TC.  When you have mastered the subject of reading
mss, what scribes did and the mass of info about types of mss, you are only
just beginning.  You still have to study Pauline style, etc., current Greek
style, history and social environment, ecclestical demands, local means of
controling mss production, theological and canonical developments, and
several other disciplines.  Hence, most of us are not bold enough to call
ourselves NT Textual Critics, but prefer to say we hope to be someday.

>Thus this is why I am asking you or Conrad or another
>that I consider to be a reliable source.  (Of course I do not really
>know you very well but I sure like your attitude......  :) And I
>appreciate your responses.....
>BTW if you are ever in Asian drop by over here and Me and  my family
>will show you around.....
>You can even try out Hakkanese food..... ;)
>
>Of course I hope you get here before Beijing does.......
>
Thanks,  you never know.  I have an adopted son whose relatives live in
Taiwan.  He was born in Viet Nam and got out with the boat people.
Grace,

Carlton Winbery
Chair Religion/Philosophy
LA College,
Pineville,La
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
fax (318) 442-4996 or (318) 487-7425

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 11:31:05 -0500 (EST)

On Sat, 10 Feb 1996, Carlton Winbery wrote:

> This is in answer to a post from Rachel off list. 

> > I wonder why is there is so much hull-a-ba-loo
> > getting excited over it.  

Some clarification is probably in order, since there are a number of
degrees of "conservative" advocates who seem to use the term "majority
text", and this really muddies the waters over this issue.  The various
groups can be described as follows: 

Class 1: King James Only advocates

(1) There are those who know nothing about textual criticism, and read
misleading propaganda from sources such as the tracts and comic books
(seriously!) of Jack Chick and the writings of Peter Ruckman, and
especially Gail Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions."  In all of these a
modicum of textual data is highly distorted and misapplied so as to
support an agenda defending the KJV-Only position.  This view is rightly
seen as cultic hyper-fundamentalism at its worst.  Mostly affects the 
anti-intellectual "independent fundamental" churches.

(2) Then there are those who know slightly more about the NT text and 
manuscripts, but who still have the same agenda of defending the KJV-Only 
position at all costs.  These include David Otis Fuller's "Which Bible?" 
group and D.A.Waite's "Bible for Today" organization, as well as the 
Trinitarian Bible  Society.  The viewpoint is still ultra-fundamentalist, 
and not far removed from the previous position, since all text-critical 
data must be made to fit a KJV defense mode, with no possibility of any 
other reading being correct.  

Within this group, lip service is usually given to the Greek text, but
only in the TR form which directly underlies the KJV (the Trinitarian
Bible Society currently reprints Scrivener's 1894 TR which was
artificially constructed by Scrivener to for the first time reflect the
underlying text the KJV translators chose -- even though Scrivener himself
did not favor that text!).  Needless to say, if the Greek even of the TR
differs from the KJV (due to certain Latin readings in the KJV with little
or no Greek support), you can guess whether the KJV or TR wins the toss.
*:-)

(3) Then there are the "numerical majority text" partisans, for whom the
basic case is "number" or "counting noses" which Gordon Fee wrongly claims
that all partisans of all "majority" groups do).  These people see nothing
except "majority" as the deciding factor, and may have come from either
groups (1) or (2) or from those which follow, due to a misunderstanding of
all the ramifications which exist within a "majority text" perspective. 

This group usually cannot tell the Greek TR from the majority or Byzantine
text, and still has a KJV fixation or at least a concern for translations
only to reflect the KJV underlying Greek text. 

Class 2: Majority Text Proper advocates

One definite demarcation line is now crossed: the remaining two groups are
not tied to the KJV or the TR in any manner whatsoever, even though some 
of their works are misquoted and misapplied by KJV-Only distortionists.

(4) Within the "Majority Text" camp proper one finds Zane Hodges and 
Arthur Farstad, who produced the Majority Text Greek NT edition.  These 
are joined by Wilbur Pickering who wrote "The Identity of the NT Text" 
volume some years back -- a work which was long on critique of the W-H 
theory but quite short on "majority text" theory.  

A basic contention of this group is theological: the text found in the
greatest number of copies is that which God providentially preserved. 
Pickering alleged from this that virtually all other variant readings were
the result of Satanic and heretical activity, since scribes were (in his
opinion) uniformly "orthodox" and had a "high view" of Scripture,
including its inerrancy.  

The theological argument in Hodges and Farstad is not so explicit, but is
still mentioned as an underlying factor in their theory (Hodges and
Farstad sacrifice much of their theory, however, in Revelation, where they
follow stemmatics and end up favoring a sub-group (Ma) comprising only 20%
of the known MSS, thus giving rise to the anomaly that their "majority
text" in Revelation at times has only 20% support as opposed to the "true"
80% majority. *:-)

(5) The Byzantine-priority group (which I claim to reflect) does not begin
nor end with a theological agenda regarding providential preservation
(i.e., if such occurred, then all MSS of all texttypes reflect that
preservation), nor is "number" a primary factor.  Rather, the question of
whether the Byzantine text as a texttype might be more likely to reflect
the autograph text is the primary question.  

This approach is coupled with a detailed historical transmission
hypothesis and takes into account all the relevant data, as well as
performs praxis by utilizing standard external and internal criteria of NT
textual criticism (with modifications befitting the transmissional
hypothesis).  

William Pierpont and I have produced our own edition of the
Byzantine/Majority Textform in both printed and electronic form (text
only; no apparatus), utilizing the data from the Von Soden, Tischendorf,
and the Nestle26-27/UBS3-4 apparatuses.  Even if one does not share the
same hypothesis, our edition provides a distinct Byzantine text which is
not abandoned at any point for extraneous reasons such as in that of
Hodges/Farstad. 

It is true that most if not all advocates of the true "Majority Text" or 
"Byzantine-priority" hypotheses (groups 4 and 5 above) reflect a 
theological conservatism, including a belief in biblical inerrancy.  This 
position does not, however, dictate our choice of variant readings, nor 
does it imply any desire to make the resultant text match the TR or KJV 
or any other translation.  

I have presented a number of papers to the Evangelical Theological Society
on aspects of Byzantine priority, and have not made any conclusions which
were imposed by inerrantist or "preservationist" beliefs (I originally
held to a "reasoned eclectic"  position, and only changed that view after
a careful consideration of all the evidence and questioning the theories
currently in vogue, thanks to the help and guidance received from my
text-critical mentor, Kenneth W.  Clark). 

> >is suspect (of liberalism... humanistic feminism.... and any other

This reflects most of those in categories 1-3 above.  Categories 4 and 5 
make no ad hominem assertions of that type.

I will continue a reply on Rachel's other questions in the next post, 
since this one is already quite long.

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

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:07:17 -0500 (EST)

> the dust cover of [Hodges and Farstads's] The Greek NT
> has never before been printed."  

>From what I understand, that blurb was not from Hodges or Farstad, and no 
mention of the KJV appears within their own introduction (so far as I can 
determine from a quick re-read). Credit that to a Thomas Nelson marketing 
executive who figured it would increase sales to the KJV-only crowd.

> I've had several people call me and ask

I simply tell them "of course" and let it go at that *:-)  Should they 
question further, I carefully explain that ANY Greek edition reflects 
about 90-95% of the text of the KJV and that NO single Textus Receptus 
edition available in 1611 contained ALL the readings found in the KJV.  
They usually don't pursue it farther than that.

> are used in theology.  There are Byzantine readings that seem to do more in

I will here agree wholeheartedly with Carlton.  The KJV-Only propagandists
continually allege that the Alexandrian text is "Gnostic", "Arian",
"heretical" or part of a "Luciferian Conspiracy" -- and that is simply
because they refuse to see anything except the KJV-Only position.  

There simply is NO evidence whatsoever that the Alexandrian texttype was
influenced in any significant manner from the various theological 
viewpoints which affected orthodox Christianity.  Here and there there 
are isolated readings in some few MSS which might have stemmed from or 
were utilized by non-orthodox, but insofar as a texttype-as-a-whole would 
be affected by heretical doctrines would imply that the fathers, pastors, 
and other theologians of the early church were not keen watchdogs against 
the intrusion of such heresy in their sacred texts.  I do not think this 
is the case, nor do I consider Ehrman's case (The Orthodox Corruption 
of Scripture) to be valid once one gets to the texttype level (Bart will 
differ on this, of course).

Most of the Alexandrian variants I consider to be stylistic and
grammatical in nature, along with Carlton.  I would not concur with his
view of Byzantine readings in his statement above, of course, since I will
maintain their autograph originality rather than later corruption. 

> All texts have about 90% agreement

Here we agree.  For the Gospels, 90% is about right, regardless of which 
manuscripts are compared with each other.  In the Epistles the amount of 
agreement rises to around 95-96%.  

, but the vast majority of NT mss are
> from other texts or mss that cannot be text-typed.  

The Byzantine MSS clearly differ further from the early papyri and also from 
the uncials; this however is primarily a texttype-specific division 
between Byzantine on the one hand and Alexandrian or Western on the other.

> The refinements of
> Aland in typing mss as level 1, level 2, etc. is long needed.  

Although I am not sure Aland's method works without utilizing the 
Claremont Profile Method or something like it as a standard of 
comparison.  All I seem to see in Aland's method is a summary declaration 
based upon percentage of agreement in his scattered 1000 test passages, 
which is not exactly what the  more closely-refined Claremont method 
would recommend. 

> There are

Absolutely correct on both counts.  Daniel Wallace has estimated the 
Hodges/Farstad text to differ from the TR in over 1800 places.  I have 
never collated my edition against a TR, but it would be about the same.  
Both the H/F and my edition will differ from the Nestle26-27/UBS3-4 texts 
in around 5000-6000 places, most of these inconsequential and untranslatable.

> >but I just need a brief comment from you or another.

In order to be informed regarding all sides, I would suggest at a minimum
reading Gordon Fee's critique of the Majority Text position in conjunction
with my own response to Gordon Fee on the two "test passages" he 
mentioned (Mk.1:2 and Mk.13:14) which I presented at ETS Chicago 1994.

> just beginning.  

Absolutely true.  Examine all sides and be absolutely fair in evaluating 
the evidence.

> You still have to study Pauline style, etc., current Greek

Don't make the task too hard, Carlton!  None of us are total experts in
ALL those fields, but I hardly think that such precludes one from becoming
quite skilled in textual criticism merely from an intensive study of all
the primary sources and working directly with the MSS themselves. (I
certainly would like to encourage and not discourage my own students! *:-)

---

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:44:27 -0500 (EST)

Thanks to Maurice Robinson's explanation of the five differnet kinds 
of "Majority Text" advocates.  It's a very useful taxonomy.  I have a 
question, Maurice, about one of your statements:

> or any other translation.  
    My question (actually, questions):  Do you know of *anybody* who 
subscribes to such a theory who does not "reflect a theological 
conservatism, including a belief in biblical inerrancy"?  If not, how do 
you explain this phenomenon, that scholars who have nothing at stake in 
the matter (I'm excluding the scholars who *do* have something at stake, 
i.e., those whose agenda include the desire to overthrow conservative 
views of the Bible) uniformly take the other side of this "debate"?

   As you probably know, I don't mean for these to sound like rhetorical 
questions; I'm genuinely interested in knowing what you make of this.

-- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

---

From: [email-masked] (Vincent Broman)
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 10:50:10 PST

B Ehrman asked M Robinson:
> Do you know of *anybody* who 
> conservatism, including a belief in biblical inerrancy"?

If projected on a spectrum, I might fall somewhere between Sturz
and Robinson, but my theory of Biblical authority is very distant
from inerrancy.  In fact, the desperate pleading of many Burgonites
has been a turn-off to me; their need for an inerrant KJV really shows.
Of course, my 20+ years of hobbyist study of these issues never
involved an accredited religion degree, but that does permit me
certain degrees of freedom others may not have.

Vincent Broman             Email: [email-masked]                    =   o     
2224 33d St.               Phone: +1 619 284 3775                  =  _ /- _   
San Diego, CA  92104-5605  Starship: 32d43m45s N 117d07m30s W     =  (_)> (_)

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 16:23:24 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Bart Ehrman wrote:

> > theological conservatism, including a belief in biblical inerrancy.  

> conservatism, including a belief in biblical inerrancy"?  

Probably it depends upon the time frame we are speaking of.  At the
present time I am not aware of any outside of a conservative theological
framework who hold to a Byzantine-priority or "majority text" position,
though there is no _a priori_ reason why non-conservative scholars could
not hold to a Byzantine-priority hypothesis. 
 
Earlier in this century (ca. 1950) the Roman Catholic scholar Hugh Pope
openly acknowledged his text-critical position to be that of Burgon, and
(from what Jose O'Callaghan reported to me in private correspondence) the
Spanish Catholic scholar M.-J. Bover was strongly moving to the position
before his death, and the Greek-Latin-Spanish "edition trilingual" which 
O'Callaghan completed in Bover's behalf supposedly bears some indication 
of the change in Bover's views (though admittedly I have not collated the 
text of that edition to see if these things be so). 

In the 19th century, the Roman Catholic scholar J.P.P.Martin published a
five-volume work in lithograph from his handwritten manuscript taking the
same position; and of course the Anglicans J. W. Burgon, Edward Miller and
F.H.A. Scrivener (Daniel Wallace's inaccurate claims regarding "historical
revisionism" notwithstanding) all held to a basically pro-Byzantine
position, though (except for Burgon) I would not exactly categorize those
Anglicans as "conservative" in the inerrantist sense. 

Keith Elliott of course is quite interested in the pro-Byzantine position,
not so much because of the transmissional theory, but because the internal
defense of various Byzantine readings is right up his alley, and helps him
in his continual quest to refute any reading favored by the UBS/Nestle
tradition which he chooses not to accept. 

> If not, how do 

The problem is not at all conservative versus liberal in the matter of 
accepting or rejecting the various text-critical hypotheses.  Most (90%+)
conservatives within the ETS would currently not hold to a majority text 
type of position, and even at my own school, there are only two faculty 
members who hold this view (even our president, concerning whom you are 
well aware would be considered ultra-conservative, does not hold to a 
majority text type of view).  

The issue is muddied, as I see it, by the slew of pretenders who claim to
appropriate the "majority text" label when they in reality have no
interest in that theory nor in textual criticism at all, but are solely
concerned with the ultra-fundamentalist defense of the KJV-Only position
(i.e. my categories 1, 2, and 3).  This KJV-Only guilt-by-association
keeps a large number, even of conservatives, from seriously considering
the Byzantine-priority hypothesis on its own merits.  (Just for the
record, I don't even use or read the KJV; the language is too archaic and
its NT text is simply too inaccurate from a Byzantine-priority
perspective).  *:-)

Further muddying is done by some within category 4 who opt by various
means to follow principles which are ultimately destructive of the theory
they espouse.  Example: Hodges and Farstad's text of Revelation was
accurately referred to by Wallace as the "Intra-Byzantine Stemmatic Text"
in that book rather than anything approaching a "majority text" as the
title of their edition claims, solely due to their decision to abandon
their own principles once full collation data becomes available.  Another 
example: the tendency of the Category 4 crowd to make everything 
ultimately revolve around a providential preservation and (ultimately) an 
inerrantist agenda -- if that won't keep non-conservatives away, nothing 
will. *:-)

My own position (to reiterate) is neither tied to a KJV or TR position, 
nor is there any theological agenda regarding providential preservation 
or inerrancy which characterizes my approach.  I prefer to keep the 
discipline of NT textual criticism theologically neutral if possible.

> questions; I'm genuinely interested in knowing what you make of this.

And I definitely believe you.  Of course, unless a second-century MS of
unquestioned Byzantine character should be discovered in the sands of
Egypt (which I hardly think possible), I do not doubt that the "majority
text" or Byzantine-priority hypothesis will ever see much play in the
SBL.  Were such an discovery ever to occur, I would be quite interested in 
seeing the scurrying which would transpire to preserve the current eclectic 
method (I can hear it now: "just because the Byzantine text is now seen 
to be quite early does not make it authentic"). *:-)

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 16:53:53 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Vincent Broman wrote:

> from inerrancy.  

At least to a degree, here is one non-inerrantist who leans in this 
direction. *:-)

> In fact, the desperate pleading of many Burgonites

I cite the above quote as a perfect illustration of what I was getting 
at: the KJV-Only crowd indeed has muddied the waters on this issue so 
much that the guilt-by-association is almost automatic.  

Additionally, the term "Burgonite" is symptomatic.  Wallace called me a
"true Burgonite" (which term I accept, so long as it applies to
text-critical theory!) in his critique of majority text theory.  But I
accept the term only in its correct meaning, i.e. the detailed application
of text-critical principles in the manner Burgon advocated.  If 
"Burgonite" is taken to mean KJV-Onlyists, or those whose pen drips blood 
and brimstone, then I certainly do not accept the term.

Burgon was NOT a KJV-Only defender, nor even a TR defender.  Burgon's own
text-critical notes (published only for Matthew 1-14, though his
unpublished papers in the Bodleian in Oxford cover the entire NT) show
where he would have corrected the TR, and it was not insignificant.

In the section covering Matthew 1-14, Burgon would have altered the TR in
around 160 places, and his resultant text would very closely approximate
either the Hodges/Farstad edition or the Robinson/Pierpont edition (this I
have checked). Wherever the changes were translatable, Burgon also urged
changes in the KJV text, and he even notes a dozen or so such places
within his published works. 

Burgon was opposed to the English Revision of the KJV for various reasons,
and his vituperation spilled over far too much in his writings. He openly
admitted he was not opposed to revision, but was opposed to one which was
as radical as the ERV 1881.  Certain items he opposed were theological
(e.g. having a Unitarian on the revision committee); others textual (the
committee's instructions were charged not to alter the text underlying the
KJV apart from exceptional evidence; Burgon did not consider Aleph/B or
the draft copies of the Westcott-Hort text privately circulated to the
committee as "exceptional" in itself). 

Burgon was not a KJV-Only type person.  The problem today is that the
KJV-Only crowd basically have canonized Burgon as one of their own, and
who can utter nothing false.  Yet in many instances Burgon is now known to
have been wrong due to subsequent discoveries. Example: Burgon thought
Origen responsible for creating the Alexandrian text; P75 alone squashes
that nonsense.  But the KJV-Only crowd (especially Ruckman, Riplinger, and
Waite) continues to quote Burgon on that point as if he has "never been
answered").  Rubbish.  Burgon is not infallible, and never was.  

As a text critical scholar and collator of MSS, however, Burgon was
considered one of the experts of that day, and even Scrivener acknowledges
his expertise in that area. Too bad his rhetoric was so harsh, or others 
might have listened more carefully to him.

Edward Miller's little "Guide to Textual Criticism" (1886) clearly 
reflects a solid Byzantine-priority method based upon Burgon's seven 
"notes of truth" without all the bombast and rhetoric.  Those interested 
in the "majority text" theory should consult that before reading Burgon 
in order to see such a position calmly presented.  Miller himself even 
had a formal debate in 1897 with Wm. Sanday (among others) at Oxford over 
the differing theories of textual criticism.  Had Burgon been yet alive, 
he likely would not have been invited to participate, due to his virulent 
nature.  

I do hope this little excursion helps somewhat.  As a "true Burgonite," I 
felt I had to write something to explain my position. *:-)

---

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:31:46 -0500 (EST)

> differ on this, of course).

   I'm not sure what it would *mean* to talk about the corruption of a 
text-type, since scribes (not text-types) are the ones who create textual 
variation; if it simply means that mss of the Alexandrian text-type 
uniformly attest some forms of variation, though, then I do indeed 
disagree with Maurice's point.  The argument would have to be carried out 
in the details of course, but I should point out that I made as strong a 
case as I could (none too strong, you might say!) that in a number of 
significant places Alexandrian witnesses preserve orthodox corruptions of 
the text.  These include such important passages as:
   -- Luke 3:22 (the voice at Jesus' baptism)
   -- John 1:18 (the monogenhs theos)
   -- All of the so-called Western non=interpolations (which are actually 
non-Western interpolations; all of them anti-docetic) (I saw this as one 
of the most important "realizations" I had when making my study)
   -- Numerous others.

   Maurice suggests that this kind of variation, if conceded, would imply 
that the church leaders were not "keen watchdogs" over their texts.  *Of 
course* they weren't.  How, exactly could they be?  One wonders what kind 
of historical scenario would be required.  The fact is that there are 
numerous corruptions of the text all over the map, many of them affecting 
the exegesis of entire books and the theology of their interpreters.

   I'm happy to say, by the way, that my book (The Orthodox Corruption of 
Scripture) has just come out in paperback, priced at something under $20 
(the hardback, of course, costs something like $3 more to produce, and so 
costs $25 more to buy...)

---

From: [email-masked] (David Washburn)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 14:26:26 -0700 (MST)

Maurice Robinson wrote: 
[snip]
> to be quite early does not make it authentic"). *:-)

Actually, as I recall, this is almost exactly what Harry Sturz concluded 
after he showed that Byzantine readings were present in early papyri.  He 
wasn't trying to argue that the Byzantine text should be primary, merely 
put on an equal footing with other text-types for the application of 
internal criteria.  That being the case, I doubt that such a discovery 
would put much of a dent in eclectic methodology, because virtually all 
internal criteria of the eclectic method leave Byzantine readings lacking 
anyway.

-- 
Dave
			http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html
Seen in a classified ad: "Parachute for sale.  Used once.  Never opened."

---

From: [email-masked] (Vincent Broman)
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 96 08:29:48 PST

[email-masked] said:
>                          ...I doubt that such a discovery 

This claim is often heard, but aside from the unsatisfying summaries
given in Hort's intro, I haven't seen this claim documented.
Any references?  (to evidence, that is, not to repetitions of the claim).

Vincent Broman             Email: [email-masked]                    =   o     
2224 33d St.               Phone: +1 619 284 3775                  =  _ /- _   
San Diego, CA  92104-5605  Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W     =  (_)> (_)

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 18:54:34 -0500 (EST)

> variation; 

This is true, unless a text-type reflects either a true "recension" 
(edited by an ancient single scholar or "committee" of scholars) or an
accumulation of individual scribal variation which in its cumulative
effect shows a "tendency" (e.g., as in the "Theological Tendency of Codex
Bezae in Acts" volume, which might extend to other "Western" MSS and
Fathers). 

> if it simply means that mss of the Alexandrian text-type 

Unless I read Nestle27 wrongly, Lk.3:22 has an adoptionist variant in D it, 
with virtually all other witnesses reading the non-adoptionist variant.  
I would not therefore localize the "orthodox" reading merely to the 
Alexandrian witnesses in this variant.  (I will have to re-read your 
discussion on this point).

>    -- John 1:18 (the monogenhs theos)

Your discussion of this passage I do recall quite well.  However, even 
though you defend the Byzantine reading as original here and suggest the 
Alexandrian reading is a "strengthening" by the orthodox, you might be 
surprised to find that I differ on the latter point (not on favoring the 
Byzantine reading, however!).  

I think that the archetype of the Alexandrian text here (likely a single
scribe's reading which became the root of the Egyptian "local text")
simply made a blunder with the nomen sacrum 0C (imagine a Theta for 0 *:-)
rather than YC, a blunder which probably reflects attraction to the
occurrence of Theon (0N) in what would have been the preceding line of the
exemplar.  

(You will find that I do have a tendency to suspect accidental error
rather than deliberate corruption as the explanation for a very large
number of minority readings, especially those minority readings prevalent
in a texttype situation; the archetype MS of the minority texttype can
usually be suspected). 

> of the most important "realizations" I had when making my study)

I could agree that the Western omissions (why call them by Hort's peculiar
term?) would combine with the other tendencies in Bezae and Western
witnesses to maintain a consistent theological thematic emphasis. 

> the exegesis of entire books and the theology of their interpreters.

On the contrary, I do think the theologians, leaders, priests,
monk-copyists etc. WERE such "watchdogs" against blatant heresy creeping
into the text.  J. Ernesti wrote long ago in his "Institutio Interpretis"
(trans. Charles Terrot, 1848, p.9) to the same effect (Ernesti also is not
a pro-Byzantine partisan): 

   Nor was it possible that books which were in the hands of so many 
   persons, which were reckoned so sacred, of which there existed so many 
   copies, and so many versions in different and distant countries, by a 
   comparison of which errors might so easily have been detected, and 
   whose integrity was watched over by so many doctors of the church, 
   could still be so corrupted by heretics, as that their corruptions 
   should extend to all the copies.

Tatian's Diatessaron was immensely popular before his condemnation as a 
heretic.  Since then, almost all MSS of that work have been destroyed 
(only one small fragment in Greek exists today).  Not one MS of a 
canonical book reflecting Marcion's altered text exists today, nor any 
MSS which stem from the various other corruptors mentioned by the 
Fathers.  

Certainly there are variations in individual MSS which might have 
originated from one or another non-orthodox MS or source, being 
introduced by a scribe on his or her own initiative.  But to imagine that 
a non-orthodox reading would grown and dominate the tradition as a whole 
or even a single texttype (such as the Alexandrian) seems to me beyond 
historical and transmissional probability.

> costs $25 more to buy...)

Everyone should read Bart's book, even if they end up differing with his 
conclusions (as I do more frequently than not).  I do find it amusing 
from my perspective to see Bart defending the Byzantine text from time to 
time (as in Jn.1:18) in opposition to the entire Nestle/UBS committee.  
Such are the ways of eclecticism *:-)

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 00:41:23 -0500 (EST)

> internal criteria of the eclectic method leave Byzantine readings lacking 

Sturz' case was indeed that the Byzantine Textform should be treated as 
equally early with the Alexandrian and Western Texttypes.  Even though 
some have questioned his data in proof of this point, the problem with 
their criticisms lies in a redefinition of "distinctive Byzantine 
readings" from that which Hort originally stated. I think most of Sturz' 
data is applicable, but only with the proper definition of terms and not 
with what revisions to such definitions might occur.  

Sturz did have a method of approach however, and he applied his method in
a privately-printed booklet containing "The Second-Century Text of
Matthew".   His method was NOT a model of how to do textual criticism: it 
was entirely externally-based, with no use of internal evidence.  
Further, it was not based upon the MSS, but upon the texttypes (under the 
assumption that the texttype reading equalled the lost archetype MS of 
that interrelated group).  Then he simply "counted noses" among the 
texttypes, and let any 2 out of 3 decide the "second century" reading (at 
least he made no claims that this method would restore the autograph).

The problem with Sturz' method is obvious: once you let two out of three 
decide the case, you end up with a heavily Byzantine text automatically, 
but without a pro-Byzantine theory to undergird and support the conclusions.
I.e., any Alexandrian + Byz combination or Western + Byz combination will 
rule the day.  Using a little algebra, one can see that the common term 
to A+B and W+B is B, and A and W are basically dispensed with.

The only time that Sturz would abandon the Byzantine text would be when 
both Alex+West united in opposition to Byz -- and anyone knowing the 
characteristics of those two texttypes know how rarely these two agree 
against Byz.  However, even in the Alex+West union, Sturz' method is 
flawed, since he in such places ultimately makes the Western text the 
deciding factor, which no living scholar today would maintain.

It all goes back to the original dictum: "Textual criticism without a 
history of the text is impossible" (Colwell; H.H.Oliver).  Sturz' 
contribution regarding the antiquity of the Byzantine Textform can be 
appreciated, but his methodology in constructing a text certainly leaves 
much to be desired.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 01:01:12 -0500 (EST)

> > virtually all internal criteria of the eclectic method leave Byzantine 
> > readings lacking anyway.

> Any references?  (to evidence, that is, not to repetitions of the claim).

I would dispute this claim, since my own practice in defending Byzantine 
readings on internal ground makes use of almost all the same internal 
criteria as the eclectics themselves use.  I merely redirect their 
application in favor of the Byzantine text.  I have no problem with the 
judicious application of the "harder reading" or "reading which explains 
the rise of all the others" concept.  I do question the "shorter" reading 
criterion -- as many eclectics themselves have done, e.g. Royce -- since 
it almost becomes a case of begging the question to prejudice the 
internal criteria in favor of the Alexandrian witnesses.

There are certain criteria which presume too much about what scribes
"regularly" or "generally" did or what their overall "tendency" might be
(e.g. expand divine names and titles, harmonize parallels etc.).  Most of
these claims (again going back to Hort) are often incorrect when taken to
the texttype level.  If the scribes were indeed so "regular" in these 
cases we should always find "the Lord Jesus Christ" and never "Jesus" or 
"Christ" alone on the texttype level; also parallel passages would be in 
FAR greater harmony than actually exists, etc.  The evidence is plainly 
that scribes of any era did NOT have these tendencies en masse.

Certainly, individual scribes may have had their own tendencies, but all
scribes certainly were not alike, nor did they possess common tendencies. 

Metzger's Textual Commentary volume continually berates Byzantine readings
for being "typical" of what scribes would do in a given situation, but he
almost never applies the same criteria to the Alexandrian scribes.  Like
Hort, Metzger seems to think all the early scribes were angels (Colwell
said that about Hort -- not me. *:-)