Subject: Re: Syriac + it-k

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 11:51:30 -0400

On April 6, 1996, Maurice Robinson responded to my post of 5 April by stating:

>In regard to assuming that sy-s + it-k or any other combination of
>versions presents a superior text -- whatever happened to the principle
>that the _Greek_ MSS are or should be the primary witnesses to the _Greek_
>NT text?  
>
>Versional and patristic evidence certainly can be of significance, and
>appeal can be made to their testimony, but such should never become
>primary evidence or even suggested to be such, in view of the quantity and
>quality of the Greek MS evidence we possess. 
>

It appears that Robinson has a preset view of how things are ("should never
become primary evidence or even suggested to be such");  I never say never,
for I am far too ignorant.  In passing I would note that, against Robinson,
one finds arrayed the names I listed in the 5 April post:  Westcott, Eb.
Nestle, Souter, Burkitt, C.H. Turner, A. Voeoebus.  Such a list is not
exactly bad company....  But of course, one should be concerned with
evidence, not who supports what position....

Robinson also gives his reason as to why one should not turn to the
versions;  it is because of the "quantity and quality of the Greek MS
evidence we possess."  But numbers mean little, as we all know:  two copies
are made from an archetype, one with an error, and the other without the
error.  From the copy with the error, a thousand copies are made;  from the
copy without the error, no copies are made.  Of what use are numbers?  See
Paul Maas on the issue.  As to "quality," that, of course, is a judgement
call, upon which few will agree.  I agree that there is "quality" in the
Greek tradition:  look at Justin, Clement of Al., etc., if you want early
Greek citations....

Robinson asks "whatever happened to the principle that the _Greek_ MSS are
or should be the primary witnesses to the _Greek_ NT text?"  Answer:
Nothing--except in those cases, here and there, where the versions may
preserve an ancient reading.  Souter put it thus in an article on Hebrews
10.29 in _The Expositor_ 23 (1922), p. 135:  "...there is a salutary lesson
for all those who neglect the early versions.  _A reading may be right, even
if no single extant Greek MS. contains it_" (Souter's italics).  Whether
Souter is correct in this instance from Heb. 10.29 or not is not the issue;
the issue is whether, as a principle, he _could_ be right.  I would always
like to consider the evidence--_all_ the evidence--before making up my
mind....  Of course, if one _begins_ with the _a priori_ assumption that the
versions "never" (to quote Robinson) can preserve a reading anterior to the
extant Greek witnesses, then all this is irrelevant.

The logic behind paying attention to the versions (and the Fathers...) turns
not only on issues of weighing individual readings, but also on the _dates_
of their origin.  If our oldest full Greek MS of the NT is alaph, dating
from about 350, it must be pointed out (as I already have...) that UBS4
dates the two Vetus Syra MSS to the "third/fourth century" (p. 26*).  That
means they ANTEDATE alaph.  Even if one takes the traditional dating of
Syr-s as fourth cent., then it is co-equal with alaph in date.  In the Vetus
Latina, Codex Vercellinsis (_a_) is dated to the fourth cent., also a date
co-equal with alaph.  Then the question arises:  from what Greek base were
these versions translated?  Only one answer can be admitted:  from a Greek
exemplar OLDER than they are, i.e., from the early fourth or late third cent.

I close with three examples:

(1) at Jn. 4.27, the Greek reads "kai epi toutwi";  the 4th cent.+ Syr-c[s]p
reads instead "and while they were speaking", as does Vetus Latina MS _r1_
(7th cent.): "et in hoc sermone".  I pass no judgement on originality, but
note that this reading must have existed in a Greek MS before the 4th cent.,
although none preserves it now.

(2) at Jn. 13.9, Vetus Latina MS _a_ (4th cent.) interpolates post "caput"
"+ et totum corpus".  The same interpolation is found in both Oriental as
well as Western witnesses to the Diatessaron of Tatian (composed c. 170).
Now, while I have no position on baptism by immersion or by affusion
(sprinkling), there is evidence here in the non-Greek MS tradition that, at
one time, "and the whole body" (= immersion?) was in a Greek MS before the
fourth cent., and possibily as early as the middle of the second century (=
Tatian's source).

(3) at Mk. 12.14, the Greek reads "kenson" ("tribute/tax").  This is the
usual Greek word.  However, Greek Bezae (05, D;  5th cent.), Koridethi (038,
theta;  9th cent.), and MS 565 (9th cent.) read, in Greek
"epikephalaion"--"on [the] head", another word for "tax", given in BAG as
"poll tax", only in the NT here, and in these MSS.  Hmmm.  Then there is MS
_k_ in the Vetus Latina (4th [!!] or 5th cent.) which reads--against all the
other Latins (which read "tributum")-- "capitularium" ("caput" is
"head"...).  And then there is the Old Syriac Syr-s[c]p which read (in
Syriac) "kespha de-resha", or, literally, "money of the head".  Gee.  This
is a Semitism...  And we know it is from the 4th cent., at the _latest_,
because of Syr-s.  And it has survived in _later_ Greek MSS, but is _also_
present in a 4th cent. _Latin_ (!!) MS as well.  So the Greek exemplar from
which it came must have been from the 3rd cent.  And here, in this instance,
I _would_ argue that the main Greek tradition has been "cleaned up," with
the idiomatic Greek word ("kenson") being substituted for the more ancient
Semitism ("epikephalaion").  But this only becomes apparent when one looks
at the versions--and beyond the abbreviated and inconsistently-cited
apparatus of NA/UBS.

The text of the NT becomes significantly more complex if one takes seriously
the evidence of the Fathers and the versions.  Note the rhetoric against
them ("never", etc.).  Because I know so little, and am so ignorant, I
perfer to be guided by the evidence, not by rhetoric.  Collect the evidence
first, THEN come to conclusions.

Petersen--Penn State University

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 14:37:09 -0400 (EDT)

On April 8, 1996, William L. Petersen wrote:

[quoting Robinson]

>> whatever happened to the principle that the _Greek_ MSS are or should
>> be the primary witnesses to the _Greek_ NT text?

>> Versional and patristic evidence certainly can be of significance,
>> and appeal can be made to their testimony, but such should never
>> become primary evidence or even suggested to be such, in view of the
>> quantity and quality of the Greek MS evidence we possess.

>It appears that Robinson has a preset view of how things are

Robinson's view may be "definite" and even "rigid," but it did not come
about as a mere _a priori_ notion.  His view as quoted above reflects a
definite conclusion consistent with what most textual critics long have
held when considering the relationship between versional and patristic
testimony as opposed to that of the Greek MSS, even though others may
freely disagree.

I certainly utilize(and would be expected to utilize) my own principles
in a definite sense when applying my own praxis to textual criticism.
Every other textual critic does this when following his or her own
principles.  My previous exclusion of conjectural emendation also
reflects such an application of my own principles.

> In passing I would note that, against Robinson,
> one finds arrayed the names I listed in the 5 April post:  Westcott,
> Eb. Nestle, Souter, Burkitt, C.H. Turner, A. Voeoebus.  Such a list
> is not exactly bad company....  But of course, one should be
> concerned with evidence, not who supports what position....

I would also note in passing that to quote or cite those who reflect a 
view of textual criticism which basically favors an Alexandrian text 
(Voobus slightly to the contrary) is not germane to the position of 
those who might favor a Byzantine-priority position.  This is a 
text-critical substitution of apples for oranges, and I could just as 
easily add in Scholz, Birks, Scrivener, Burgon, Miller, Hoskier, Hugh
Pope, Bover, Hodges, Farstad, Pickering, etc.  All these names,
however, are irrelevant to the issue of how any single person chooses
to practice or theorize about NT textual criticism.

>Paul Maas on the issue.

This is purely a red herring. The quantity issue regarding Greek MSS is 
cited only to demonstrate that in view of the wealth of Greek MS 
evidence there is no need to make versions primary; the mentioned issue 
of quantity is not brought up with a view toward determining the 
original text by genealogical methods but only to draw a parallel with 
the resources available to classical scholars who _are_ highly 
dependent on versional sources as well as conjectural emendation.  See 
Paul Maas again.

Further, the scenario mentioned becomes absurd in the extreme, and is 
like the arguments which favor conjecture: the assumption is that all
or nearly all Greek MSS at a given point have "lost" the original
reading, but somehow a single version or perhaps two (e.g., sy + it-k)
mysteriously escaped the otherwise universal corruption which affected
almost the entire Greek text as well as every other version and father.

The genealogical hypothesis Petersen states is the same as was claimed 
by Westcott and Hort when discrediting the Byzantine text -- but as 
Colwell long ago noted, _no one_ has ever stemmatically demonstrated 
that such "errors" ever occurred so as to permeate the thousands of 
Greek MS copies while only a very few Greek or versional or patristic
sources preserve the "original" text.

I prefer to stick with _normal_ probabilities, based upon _normal_
patterns of transmission, rather than extreme cases of supposition.
In this light, the quantity of Greek MS evidence we possess remains
eminently suitable for establishing the text of the NT.  Versional and
patristic data remain important, but their role is subsidiary and
confirmatory, and is not intended to overthrow Greek testimony.  This
position is basically that of most textual critics, so I do not stand
alone on this matter.

>preserve an ancient reading.

Since Colwell seems to be quite correct that virtually all sensible 
readings were created before AD 200, then _all_ readings are "ancient,"
and I would not disparage the versions or fathers in this regard.
Whether a given "ancient" reading is original, on the other hand,
remains an open matter.

>Souter put it thus in an article on Hebrews 10.29 in _The Expositor_ 23
>(1922), p. 135:  "...there is a salutary lesson for all those who
>neglect the early versions.  _A reading may be right, even if no single
>extant Greek MS. contains it_" (Souter's italics).

Since Souter can be dogmatic in his stance without being faulted, then 
I too should be allowed to be just as dogmatic, declaring Souter to be 
dead wrong in light of the converse: "A reading _cannot_ be right if it
is not contained in any single extant Greek MS."  Dogmatism cuts both
ways, and is entirely dependent upon the theory being espoused.

>I would always

On the contrary, I _do_ consult the versions regularly in order to seek 
out their degree of support for one reading over another.  They have a 
significant usefulness in supplementing the Greek MS data.  I only 
contend that, when the versions read something apart from the Greek MS 
data, the presumption is that they are unlikely to be correct, and 
thus that their influence becomes virtually nil at such points.

>UBS4 dates the two Vetus Syra MSS to the "third/fourth century"
>(p. 26*).  That means they ANTEDATE alaph.

The date of the MSS is not as significant as the date of the text they
contain.  I believe all will agree that the text of sy-s and sy-c stems
from at least the mid-second-century.  A text similar to that of Aleph
also probably goes back that far; and the text of B is basically
second-century as reflected in P75.  That the material on which the old
Syriac MSS themselves were written may antedate the material on which
Aleph or B was written does not in itself grant them any higher textual
antiquity or authority.

>Then the question arises:  from what Greek base were these versions
>translated?  Only one answer can be admitted:  from a Greek exemplar
>OLDER than they are, i.e., from the early fourth or late third cent.

This is fully granted, but the same question has to be asked regarding 
the old uncials -- Aleph did not miraculously spring into existence in 
the mid-4th century, but itself was copied from an earlier exemplar.  
The same can be said for B or A or D (which with its 5th-century date 
but a second-century text exemplifies the principle well).  I thus see 
no need why the old Syriac or it-a or it-k should be granted any 
text-critical preeminence over Greek MSS of identical or nearly 
identical date, or even over later Greek MSS which demonstrably reflect 
an earlier text, such as Theta and 565 to which Petersen appeals below.

>although none preserves it now.

(Not in N27, so don't bother looking; this well illustrates the point
of moving beyond UBS and Nestle when serious text-critical work needs
to be done).

The Latin reading _could_ have been rendered from a possible genitive 
absolute in a now non-extant Greek MS, and I would be the first to 
allow this possibility, though I would declare against originality 
since it is not found in extant Greek MS data, and also since the 
genitive absolute form is not common in John.  

However, the Syriac and Latin rendering could also reflect a smoother
_interpretation_ of "kai epi toutw" as they rendered the more abrupt
Greek into their own language -- this is another key reason why I would
not give much credence to versional readings otherwise unsupported by
Greek evidence.

>well as Western witnesses to the Diatessaron of Tatian (composed c. 170).

(Also not in N27).  This addition I see as an obvious gloss which
merely expands on Peter's already-exaggerated wish.  I see no reference
or allusion to either immersion or baptism by any mode intimated by
this addition, but merely hyberbole to emphasize the apostle's wish.
This gloss, though interesting, is obviously very early, but it enjoys
no Greek MS support, and therefore would not be regarded as authentic
by most textual critics.

>"poll tax", only in the NT here, and in these MSS.  Hmmm.

Is "kenson" (Mt/Mk) the usual Greek word, or is "foron" (Lk)?  Or are
both interchangeable?  It is interesting that scribes did not attempt 
to harmonize Lk with Mt or Mk regarding this word.

I have no problem in seeing D, which is tied to the Western Latinized
text having a Latin-based interpretation of "kenson" attached for
smoothness. It-d reads "tributum" with most other OL witnesses, but the
Greek D is not always tied to its parallel companion, even though both
appear in the same document.  Theta and 565, though late, are leading
representatives of the Caesarean text in Mark, and their reading is
presumed to be early, stemming from a common exemplar which
nevertheless seems to be different from either D, it-k, or sy.

It-k does offer a direct interpretation with "capitulum," as noted, but
even this may not reflect anything genealogical or stemmatic; rather,
both it-k and D may reflect the action of a scribe substituting a
synonymous (though more precise) term for the more general term.  Note
also that in context, Roman taxes in general were the referent, and not
one specific type of tax which might parallel the Jewish temple tax.

>And then there is the Old Syriac Syr-s[c]p which read (in Syriac)
>"kespha de-resha", or, literally, "money of the head".  Gee.  This is a
>Semitism...

Since Syriac is a Semitic language, I am not surprised that the 
translators of that tradition may have rendered it semitically.  But
the Syriac tradition similarly may reflect merely a reasonable
interpretation of "khnson" rather than any genealogical connection to D
or it-k, just as the Caesarean witnesses may independently have arisen
from an archetypical interpretative rendering in a common exemplar.

>And here, in this instance,

Although these examples are interesting, I doubt whether anyone will
see a reason in any of the preceding instances to abandon the common
text preferred by _all_ schools of NT textual criticism.  The final
case of course, does have some Greek authority behind it, which
differentiates it in my opinion from the preceding two cases, but I
nevertheless find the case far less than compelling, since I simply do
not imbue even D or the Caesarean text with that great a degree of
authority when arrayed against the complete Alexandrian and Byzantine
traditions.  Since no other Greek NT editions follow in this regard
either, I can only that good reasons were held by other editors as well
to stay with the general consensus text rather than swiftly to adopt
seeming Semitisms in the manner of Matthew Black and C.C.Torrey.

>Because I know so little, and am so ignorant, I prefer to be guided by
>the evidence, not by rhetoric.  Collect the evidence first, THEN come
>to conclusions.

Since I consider myself even _more_ ignorant, I prefer in my simplicity 
to follow most textual critics on this point and to allow myself to be 
guided by the _Greek_ evidence first, with the versional and patristic
data as secondary resources.

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

---

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 15:45:52 -0400

In response to Maurice Robinson's post of yesterday (8 Apr, at 14:37):

Since it is so long, I shall not reproduce his text (or my text to which he
was responding), save in quotations for reference.  This response addresses
only what I see as our main points of disagreement.

(1) As to whether Robinson begins with an _a priori_ assumption, that I
leave to the readers of the list.  His assertion, to which I took exception,
was that "versional and patristic evidence certainly can be of
significance,...but such should never become primary evidence or even
suggested to be such, in view of the quantity and quality of the Greek MS
evidence we possess."

There are ONLY two ways I can see of arriving at a conclusion that one
"should never" use certain evidence as primary.  One is by having examined
every version at every variant, and having found NO single instance where
they might preserve a text superior to extant Greek witnesses.  Has this
been done?  If not, then the assertion is an _a priori_.  The second way in
which one might arrive at this conclusion is by doing a sampling, and then,
finding none, conclude that NOWEHRE in these traditions is there a reading
superior to the Greek.  This second way is obvious fallible, and is, to my
way of thinking, still an _a priori_.  The equivalent would be to say that
the Byzantine text should _never_ be used to reconstruct the most ancient
version of a text;  I would call that an _a priori_ as well--and one with
which I would disagree--for here and there it _might_.

Quite frankly, since Robinson has several other _a prioris_ later in his
post ("My previous exclusion of conjectural emendation also reflects such an
application of my own principles", and at #3 below), I don't see why he
should claim his absolute rejection of the evidence of the versions
("never") should not also be read as an _a priori_.

(2) Robinson states that the idea of a single MS preserving the original is
"absurd in the extreme."  He holds up for ridicule the idea that "all or
nearly all Greek MSS at a given point have 'lost' the original reading, but
somehow a single version or perhaps two (e.g., sy + it-k) mysteriously
escaped the otherwise universal corruption."  The problem is that textual
criticism is full of examples where one MS has preserved the "original"
reading, while the many have erred.  While this cannot be demonstrated on
the basis of the Biblical text (for no one knows what the original text
was--_pace_ those who think they do...), it can be observed in Classical and
other texts by looking at any apparatus.  I offer a single example, from the
Diatessaron.  At Lk. 24.37, the canonical text reads "pneuma".  We can,
however, reconstruct the reading of Tatian's Diatessaron through the
conjunction of Eastern and Western witnesses.  In the East, Romanos the
Melodist and the Persian Harmony read the equivalent of "fantasma", as does
MS R of the Venetian Harmony (in Middle Italian).  What is striking,
however, is that MS R is the ONLY MS of the 26 extant MSS of the Venetian
Harmony which reads "fantasima".  The other 25 read the canonical "spirito".
Only MS R--that is 1 MS out of 26--has preserved the Diatessron's reading.
The empirical evidence shows that the phenomenon of a single MS offering the
original text DOES occur.

(3) Robinson's logic appears faulty--and appears to err in a manner which is
self-serving--in the following, which I reproduce directly.  My original

>ways, and is entirely dependent upon the theory being espoused.

The parallel Robinson seeks to create, and the charge of "dogmatism" he
levels against Souter, do not withstand examination.  Note:  Souter said, "A
reading MAY be right, even if no single extant Greek MS. contains it."  He
does not claim exclusivity (that ONLY readings in the versions, or SUPPORTED
by the versions, are "right").  Yet this is what Robinson would attribute to
him when he attempts to offer the "converse" of Souter:  "A reading _cannot_
be right..."   But, dear readers, that is NOT the "converse" of what Souter
said!  If one WERE to posit the converse of what Souter said, then one would
have to write, "A reading MAY NOT be right if it is not contained in any
single extant Greek MS."  That statement--like Souter's original
statement--is one to which I can assent.  (Souter is NOT dogmatic or
exclusivist;  whence comes this dogmatism in the inversion of his
statement???  It certainly doesn't come from Souter--or myself...  "Cannot"
and "never" are not found in my or Souter's statements...)

(3) Robinson continues with another _a priori_:  "...the quantity of Greek
MS evidence we possess remains eminently suitable for establishing the text
of the NT."  In general, I tend to agree, but would not exclude either the
Fathers or the versions, as Robinson would.  Note--lest I be treated as
Souter--I do not claim that the original text IS ALWAYS in the Fathers or
versions, much less ONLY in the Fathers or versions.  I say only that one
errs if one _commences_ by saying that they can "never" provide evidence
anterior to the extant Greek MSS.

(4) Later, Robinson makes a statement with which I, in general,
agree--although it contradicts his own "never" assertion.  He states "I only
contend that, when the versions read something apart from the Greek MS data,
the presumption is that they are UNLIKELY to be correct, and thus that their
influence becomes virtually nil at such points."  His word "unlikely" shows
what I consider appropriate caution:  "unlikely" does not mean "never" or
"cannot", and, indeed, allows that possibility that they MAY.  Thank you for
the concession!

(5) As to the examples I gave, of course Robinson must disagree that any one
of them  might preserve the most ancient form of the text.  (If one
subscribes to Byzantine priority, then it is all q.e.d.).  Of the three, as
I indicated, I would be inclined to argue only one as having greater
antiquity and "authenticity" than our present text, and that is the third
reading (re: Mk. 12.14, over "kenson" ["tribute/tax"] versus
"epikephalaion"/"kespha de-resha").  There are two points which--and here I
am not at all dogmatic--commend the reading _to me_.  First is its obvious
"roughness", harkening back to a Semitism.  This, then, is later replaced
with the "standard" Greek expression.  It seems to me (but perhaps not to
others...) that the rough, non-standard, Semitic diction precedes the
normal, standard expression.  The inverse seems highly unlikely.  Second is
that I cannot imagine how this IDENTICAL variant should show up in Greek,
Latin, and Syriac sources of the 4th cent. UNLESS it were part of a
primitive Greek tradition.  Because of the large numbers of "tri-lateral"
agreements (Greek, Syriac, Latin), the theory that the IDENTICAL variant
should have popped up "spontaneously" and "independently" in each, seems
very unlikely--at least to me.  This suggests to me that _in this instance_
the Syriac and Latin (and three Greek MSS) have preserved the most ancient
version of this passage, and that it has been lost in the vast majority of
Greek MSS.

I would also be inclined to view _sympathetically_ the second of the
readings I presented (re: Jn. 13.9, "+ and the whole body").  Here I am not
quite as inclined to write it off simply as an "obvious gloss," as Robinson
would (indeed, as he must, for otherwise Greek and Byzantine priority goes
out the window).  The reasons I am "sympathetic" to this variant are not
tied up in any grand scheme of NT textual priority, but are based on the
history of the early church and the variants offered in this single
variation unit.  Those who know me, know that I have a general preference
for the shorter reading.  That is one thing which hobbles me from embracing
this variant.  Nevertheless, two reasons give me pause, and leave me
uncertain:  First, the reading occurs in diverse, early sources.  The
likelihood that the identical variant arose "spontaneously" and
"independently" in the Diatessaronic tradition and MS _a_ seems unlikely.
If it stood in the Diatessaron, as the evidence of Romanos, the Pepysian
Harmony, and the _Vita Rhythmica_ suggests, then we can date the variant to
c. 170.  Its presence in MS _a_ shows that it circulated in the canonical
text, and that it must have been known before the 4th cent.  Second, it was
precisely during this period that immerson was the standard form of baptism
(see, e.g., the _Didache_ 7).  (N.B.:  Incidentlaly, this passage is
frequently cited in association with baptism by the early Fathers...THEY
understood it as being linked with baptism;  I am not concerned with what we
might think of such a link today....)  Now, while I am most certainly not a
Baptist, and while immerson was NOT the standard for the main Christian
tradition after this early period (until the Reformation, when it reasserted
itself in certain circles), I am not surprised to read in an early Christian
text that someone would have "no part in" Jesus, unless their "whole body"
were washed.  This fits with the historical practices of primitive
Christianity, NOT later Christianity;  the excision of this phrase, however,
agrees with later Christian practice.  Texts are always being "massaged"
(read, "corrupted") by well-intentioned people often seek to bring them into
conformity with the theology/practices of their own time (I think it is the
so-called "Living Bible" which translates John 1.1 as "In the beginning was
Christ, and Christ was God...").  Might the same have happened here?  I
think it is possible--but, because of the fragile nature of the evidence, I
would not give this reading the same weight I would the
"kenson"/"epikephalaion" reading.

The text of the NT is a mysterious, complex beast which, in my experience
(but perhaps not in that of others...) defies quick, dogmatic solutions.
And certainty is the rarest of commodities in this endeavor.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:06:16 -0400 (EDT)

[long -- part 1 of 2]

William L. Petersen wrote on Tue, 09 Apr 1996:

>This response addresses only what I see as our main points of
>disagreement.

>leave to the readers of the list.  His assertion, to which I took
>exception, was that "versional and patristic evidence certainly can be
>of significance,...but such should never become primary evidence or
>even suggested to be such, in view of the quantity and quality of the
>Greek MS evidence we possess."

Since other scholars follow this methodological principle, though 
differing in text-critical theory and practice, I fail to see that the 
supposition of _a priori_ is even addressed.  One need not "examine 
every version at every variant" before determining a basic working 
methodology. I doubt that most eclectic scholars have examined even all 
known _Greek_ MS variants at every point before proclaiming originality 
or at least a strong probability of originality for a text within a 
given variant unit or for their overall NT text as a whole.  One does 
not make _a priori_ assumptions in either case, but merely draws
conclusions based upon a sufficiently adequate examination of a
reasonable database of evidence.

It is as much of an _a priori_ claim to presume that in some unknown 
and as-yet uncited case there is a likelihood that versional testimony 
will be original over the vastness of Greek MS data we possess, even 
though the evidence continually points in the opposite direction.  What 
benefit therefore comes from working within a framework like that as 
opposed simply to maintaining its converse?

>The equivalent would be to say that the Byzantine text should _never_
>be used to reconstruct the most ancient version of a text;  I would
>call that an _a priori_ as well--and one with which I would
>disagree--for here and there it _might_.

Westcott and Hort basically held to that very position, and were rigid 
in their application of it.  Further, their theory was based upon a 
tightly reasoned argument regarding the age of MSS, the development of 
early texttypes, and the issues of conflation and harmonization as 
indications of the secondary nature of the Byzantine texttype.  Their 
theory as stated did not proceed from an _a priori_ basis (though their 
initial motives may have been a distrust of and opposition to the TR, 
as Colwell pointed out), and such a claim should NOT be alleged against 
their theory any more than against my own (note that I continue to 
regard their theory as superior to that of modern eclecticism, even if 
I do not accept their premises or conclusion, since they followed what 
I consider a proper methodology and strenuously worked out a history of 
transmission of the text before proceeding).

>Quite frankly, since Robinson has several other _a prioris_ later in
>his post ("My previous exclusion of conjectural emendation also
>reflects such an application of my own principles", and at #3 below), I 
>don't see why he should claim his absolute rejection of the evidence of 
>the versions ("never") should not also be read as an _a priori_.

By definition,  arguments made _a priori_ are axioms made in the 
absence of evidence, with no need of proof, and without taking data or
probabilities into account.  Were I merely to declare "MS B is the best
MS in the Gospels, and should be followed implicitly except in cases of
obvious scribal error," that would be a true _a priori_ statement.  

If I give _reasons_ for making such a claim, based upon a reasonable 
amount of examination of the data and drawing conclusions therefrom, 
the case is no longer _a priori_, but reflects the normal application 
of a hypothetical theory and implementation procedure.  On the specific 
issue at hand, from my own perspective, after looking long and hard at 
as much of the evidence I have been able to examine for over 25 years, 
I still see nothing therein which would move me to claim versional
superiority over the Greek data, especially when the versions stand
wholly apart from the Greek data.  Why this is somehow _a priori_, I do
not know, since no claim is made without having fairly examined the
extant evidence.

>(2) Robinson states that the idea of a single MS preserving the
>original is "absurd in the extreme."  He holds up for ridicule the idea
>that "all or nearly all Greek MSS at a given point have 'lost' the
>original reading, but somehow a single version or perhaps two (e.g., sy
>+ it-k) mysteriously escaped the otherwise universal corruption."

My statement of course is based upon a presumption regarding basic
transmissional history within which, apart from an extremely radical
dislocation (of which no record exists), the expected survival of the
autograph reading among the MS copies in the original language would
under all "normal" circumstances be expected.  For any piece of
literature, the probability that this is true statistically increases
as the original language database increases.  Since the quantity of
original language MSS is exceedingly large, there would be little
opportunity for _all_ such original-language witnesses to mysteriously
"lose" such an original reading, and this simply need not be postulated
or expected as part of a working hypothesis for textual restoration.
There is nothing illogical in maintaining such a presumption when
compelling evidence to the contrary does not exist.

>The problem is that textual criticism is full of examples where one MS
>has preserved the "original" reading, while the many have erred.  While
>this cannot be demonstrated on the basis of the Biblical text...it can
>be observed in Classical and other texts by looking at any apparatus.

Which makes my point precisely.  Those other traditions in secular, 
classical or other theological works are beset with innumerable 
text-critical problems, not merely reflected in a paucity of MSS in the 
original language, but in some cases restricted to works known only in 
versional translation.  Even Homer in Greek, with its approximately 600 
or so MSS, reflects problems unknown within NT text-critical circles,
including multiple recensions, a continuing "uncontrolled popular
text", and more text-types and sub-types than ever graced the MSS of
the Greek NT.  

In order for the principle to even begin to approach validity in the NT 
situation, compelling examples of versional or patristic originality 
when unsupported by the Greek MSS must be put forth and argued 
favorably in a manner more sufficient and convincing than can the 
reading(s) of the extant Greek MSS.  (Kilpatrick and Elliott on 
occasion have argued _contra mundi_ in favor of readings in even a 
13th-century Old Latin MS, but few if any have accepted their
conclusions in such cases).

>I offer a single example, from the Diatessaron....[discussion
>omitted]...  Only MS R--that is 1 MS out of 26--has preserved the 
>Diatessron's reading.  The empirical evidence shows that the phenomenon 
>of a single MS offering the original text DOES occur.

But once more, this does not apply to the NT MSS, but is related to the 
reconstruction of the Diatessaron -- a totally different work with its 
own transmissional history (aggravated by the declaration of Tatian to 
be a heretic and the forced suppression of his works).  Tatian's text 
basically has to be reconstructed almost entirely from versional 
evidence due to its history. (And I willingly defer to Petersen's
expertise in Diatessaron-related matters).

>(3) Robinson's logic appears faulty--and appears to err in a manner
>which is self-serving--in the following, which I reproduce directly.
>My original text is first, followed by Robinson's reply:

>>ways, and is entirely dependent upon the theory being espoused.

I admittedly _was_ self-serving in that statement, merely to take the 
point to a _reductio ad absurdum_.  Not much is altered even if my
statement should be more cautiously rephrased as Petersen suggests,
i.e., "A reading is _not likely_ to be right if it is not contained in
any single extant Greek MS."  The only item missing in the "cautionary" 
form of the statement is a probability claim.  Since I have argued that
probability to be basically nil, then the stronger statement is no 
different from the more guarded statement, and that is all I intended.

>He [Souter] does not claim exclusivity (that ONLY readings in the
>versions, or SUPPORTED by the versions, are "right").

>Souter is NOT dogmatic or exclusivist;  whence comes this dogmatism in
>the inversion of his statement???  It certainly doesn't come from
>Souter--or myself...  "Cannot" and "never" are not found in my or
>Souter's statements...

Souter nevertheless remains dogmatic, even though "may" appears in his
original statement: when a hypothesis is expressed which is based upon
an uncertainty principle, the word "may" utterly and dogmatically
opposes any opposite notion that such could _not_ be the case.  To
express uncertainty in any given situation is to dogmatically claim
that statements to the contrary are to be considered erroneous.  E.g.,
"Scholars who agree with my views _may_ be right, even if no other
scholar should agree."

Neither I nor most of the "reasoned eclectic" scholars would argue 
against the weight proffered by strong or united versional testimony 
_in addition to_ their Greek support.  I know of no scholars who would 
ever claim in a blanket manner that versional testimony standing 
utterly alone should be the norm for determining the NT Greek text, 
and even Petersen would not claim such.

>(3) Robinson continues with another _a priori_:  "...the quantity of
>Greek MS evidence we possess remains eminently suitable for
>establishing the text of the NT."  In general, I tend to agree, but
>would not exclude either the Fathers or the versions, as Robinson
>would.

Please take note that I do _not_ exclude either versional or patristic 
testimony, and such is often quite useful in determining the original 
text where the Greek witnesses are divided.  My objection is _only_ to 
a claim that -- just as with conjectural emendation -- in light of the 
amount of data we possess, _all_ Greek witnesses should be suspected of 
"primitive error" to such a degree as to render either conjecture or 
the testimony of versional or patristic data standing alone as superior
to the Greek MS evidence we possess. There is nothing implausible or
unreasonable in holding to that type of objection, and it is not a 
mere _a priori_ declaration.

>I do not claim that the original text IS ALWAYS in the Fathers or
>versions, much less ONLY in the Fathers or versions.  I say only that
>one errs if one _commences_ by saying that they can "never" provide
>evidence anterior to the extant Greek MSS.

This is completely granted on your part, and I too will agree that a 
very large number of readings "anterior to the extant Greek MSS" can be 
provided by versional and patristic testimony.  This is _not_ the same 
as claiming that there are cases where versional and/or patristic 
testimony standing alone against the Greek MSS must be right and that 
all the Greek MSS must of necessity be wrong.  I say only that one errs 
in a different direction when he or she commences with a presumption of 
possible unreliability regarding the Greek MS data we possess, despite 
the quantity of available Greek MS evidence.  Two different theories,
two different perspectives.

[continued in part 2]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:08:04 -0400 (EDT)

[long -- continued from part 1]

William L. Petersen continued writing on 9 Apr 1996:

>agree--although it contradicts his own "never" assertion.  He states "I
>only contend that, when the versions read something apart from the
>Greek MS data, the presumption is that they are UNLIKELY to be correct,
>and thus that their influence becomes virtually nil at such points."
>His word "unlikely" shows what I consider appropriate caution:
>"unlikely" does not mean "never" or "cannot", and, indeed, allows that
>possibility that they MAY.  Thank you for the concession!

I do not consider it a concession at all.  If one for the sake of 
argument begins with that presumption, but after examining the 
versional and patristic evidence and finding it wanting in regard to 
any significant examples of such, the matter of "becoming nil" takes 
precedence, and from then on functions as the working principle.  
A dogmatic opposition to the likelihood of versional or patristic
testimony being original when opposed entirely to the Greek evidence is
merely a logical conclusion which follows from testing the original
hypothesis.

I am still waiting to see the _first_ versional or patristic readings 
which _must_ be considered original in opposition to the united 
testimony of the Greek MSS, just as I am waiting to see the first 
conjecture which _must_ be original in a similar situation.  In every 
case yet proposed, I still see a more reasonable explanation in support 
of readings found in Greek MSS as opposed to the isolated versional, 
patristic, or conjectural testimonies.  The "uncertainty principle" 
might appear nice in theory, but it is severely wanting in practice.

>(5) As to the examples I gave, of course Robinson must disagree that
>any one of them  might preserve the most ancient form of the text.

I did disagree, but so do all other Greek text editions; therefore it 
is NOT a matter of merely "subscribing to Byzantine priority" and 
having all else follow "Q.E.D."  Rather, at each of those points my own 
position merely falls into line with what most modern eclectics 
themselves would state in the given situation.  The particular reading 
of the Byzantine Textform is not the issue in such places, but the 
reading of virtually _all_ Greek NT MSS of all texttypes at a given 
point versus some isolated versional, patristic or conjectural
readings.

>Of the three, as I indicated, I would be inclined to argue only one as
>having greater antiquity and "authenticity" than our present text, and
>that is the third reading (re: Mk. 12.14, over "kenson" ["tribute/tax"]
>versus "epikephalaion"/"kespha de-resha").

That reading also is the only one which possesses Greek support (D 
Theta 565 besides it-k sy) and therefore is not properly illustrative 
of the point under debate, viz., instances where versional and 
patristic testimony have NO Greek MS support. I still reject there the 
minority reading (as do the UBS/Nestle editors), but on grounds other 
than my "dogmatic" rejection of versional or patristic testimony when
standing alone.

>There are two points which...commend the reading _to me_.  First is its
>obvious "roughness", harkening back to a Semitism.

The seeming semitism of course may have been _created_ within the
Syriac version.  EPIKEFALAION is a common Greek term for poll-tax or
head-tax, seen in the Oxyrynchus papyri and elsewhere (cf. Liddell and
Scott or Moulton/Milligan), and no necessary suggestion of a semitism
should be made for the reading of the Greek witnesses (D Theta 565) in
such a case.  

That the Syriac could render the phrase as it did _may_ indicate that 
EPIKEFALAION was the reading in the Greek MS used as the basis of that 
version, but this is not necessarily the case, since, as I mentioned 
before, the Syriac phrasing may simply reflect a translator's
interpretation of KHNSON, just as I suspect occurred independently in
the case of D on the one hand and Theta 565 on the other hand.

>Second is that I cannot imagine how this IDENTICAL variant should show
>up in Greek, Latin, and Syriac sources of the 4th cent. UNLESS it were
>part of a primitive Greek tradition.

Were the reading EPIKEFALAION widespread among the Greek MSS and
versions, I would acknowledge some genealogical connection.  For it to
appear so infrequently among our extant data and among witnesses which
cannot otherwise be demonstrated to have true genealogical connections,
I cannot help but suspect independent creation of such a variant rather
than any intimate link.  

I obviously do not think there is a sufficient quantity of tri-lateral 
agreements between Greek, Syriac, and Latin, beyond what normally 
appears within the bulk of the text itself.  The Greek-Syriac-Latin 
principle of course somewhat reflects Hoskier's thesis, viz. that the 
autographs (or initial "canonical forms" of such) were originally 
tri-lingual: this according to Hoskier would then explain what I and 
others may see as "coincidences" as due to cross-contamination rather
than genealogy or descent; I don't buy Hoskier's hypothesis either.

>readings I presented (re: Jn. 13.9, "+ and the whole body").  Here I am
>not quite as inclined to write it off simply as an "obvious gloss," as
>Robinson would (indeed, as he must, for otherwise Greek and Byzantine
>priority goes out the window).

Once more I object that in this case also my view merely accords with 
that of the UBS/Nestle editors and most modern eclectics.  There is no 
need to object that a conclusion here is biased merely due to a
Byzantine-priority viewpoint.  Only in those cases where there is a
distinct difference between the Byzantine and Alexandrian texttypes
will my particular transmissional views and theoretical application
differ from that of most modern eclectics.

>The reasons I am "sympathetic" to this variant are not tied up in any
>grand scheme of NT textual priority, but are based on the history of
>the early church and the variants offered in this single variation
>unit.

And I and most eclectics oppose the reading on the same historical 
basis as being what appears to be an obvious gloss, typical of orthodox
pious expansion.

>The likelihood that the identical variant arose "spontaneously" and

I do not doubt that the reading had its origin in some Old Latin 
"western" MSS like it-a; nor do I doubt that the Diatessaron was 
strongly influenced by "western" readings (its text had to come from 
somewhere!).  I would not argue independent development in the 
Diatessaron in this particular case, though I perhaps suspect that the 
added words might merely have been floating around in oral or sporadic
liturgical tradition.

>we can date the variant to c. 170.  Its presence in MS _a_ shows that
>it circulated in the canonical text, and that it must have been known
>before the 4th cent.

No problem with the dating, nor with a supposition that it was likely 
present and circulating apart from the Diatessaron during the second 
century, just as Colwell claimed for most all sensible readings, being 
created before AD 200.

>Second, it was precisely during this period that immersion was the
>standard form of baptism (see, e.g., the _Didache_ 7).

We Baptists have no problem agreeing with that *;-)

>(N.B.:  Incidentally, this passage is frequently cited in association
>with baptism by the early Fathers...THEY understood it as being linked
>with baptism;  I am not concerned with what we might think of such a
>link today....)

Tertullian appears to be the only ante-Nicene father who cites Jn.13:9, 
where it does make up part of a baptismal discussion (_De Bapt_.11).  
Peter desires to be "thoroughly bathed," and Tertullian makes the point 
that John the Baptist's original baptism of Peter was sufficient.

However, 13:9 with its Greek text mention of washing the hands and head 
in addition to the feet is specifically contrasted to the following 
verse (13:10) which speaks of those who have been _thoroughly_ bathed 
not needing to wash again. I suspect that the wording of Jesus' 
response in 13:10 may itself readily account for why a scribe or two 
might think it necessary for Peter himself to request a washing of his 
_complete_ body rather than stopping only with the head.  In other 
words, I see this as a very "logical" gloss, as well as an obviously 
secondary reading, regardless of whether baptism in any form might here 
be in view by any interpreters (and I note also the distinction in
13:10 between LOUW and the preceding uses of NIPTW, which might open 
the door for such interpretation).

>I am most certainly not a Baptist, and while immersion was NOT the
>standard for the main Christian tradition after this early period
>(until the Reformation, when it reasserted itself in certain circles),

And some of us got hung out in cages in Munster (how ironically fitting
within the context of this discussion!) for asserting such.

>the excision of this phrase, however, agrees with later Christian
>practice.  Texts are always being "massaged" (read, "corrupted") by
>well-intentioned people often seek to bring them into conformity with
>the theology/practices of their own time

In view of the more likely situation of the statement being thought
necessary by one or two scribes as a logical consequence of Jesus'
remarks concerning the "whole body" in 13:10, I totally fail to see the
plausibility of this reconstruction.  What the various modern eclectics
saw as they constructed the UBS/Nestle or other critical texts, I do
not know, but certainly they and I are on the same side in regard to
the rejection of this variant.

>(I think it is the so-called "Living Bible" which translates John 1.1
>as "In the beginning was Christ, and Christ was God...").

The infamous "Living Bible" which is not fit for either the church or 
the refuse heap as a decent paraphrase or representation of the word of
God (IMHO), renders John.1.1-2 as a unit, and far _worse_ than what you
quoted:

   "Before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God. He has
    always been alive and is himself God." [Ouch! to the rendering]

>The text of the NT is a mysterious, complex beast which, in my
>experience (but perhaps not in that of others...) defies quick,
>dogmatic solutions.  And certainty is the rarest of commodities in this
>endeavor.

Believe it or not, I completely agree with that statement.