Subject: Re: Holmes Overview

From: Michael Holmes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:14:46 -0500 (CDT)

In his 7 June response to my post of the same date, Maurice Robinson wrote:

>... but it still seems clear (as Calvin Porter pointed out in his Duke
>dissertation over 30 years ago), that modern eclecticism still proceeds
>as if it has no theory of textual transmission, and that the search for
>the original text is more like the myth of wandering Isis trying to
>reassemble the pieces of Osiris from here there and yonder, where they
>have been scattered by forces unknown, with no regard for an
>overarching original text which had to have a basis in consistent
>continuous text MS evidence.  This is not a mere generalization, but
>applies with equal validity to the current praxis of both rigorous and
>reasoned eclecticism.
>
With all due respect (and without getting a debate about circumstances 30
years ago), the generalization "that modern eclecticism still proceeds as if
it has no theory of textual transmission ... This is not a mere
generalization, but applies with equal validity to the current praxis of
both rigorous and reasoned eclecticism" is an inadequate description of the
current situation.  E.g.,
        --Kilpatrick (and Elliott after him) worked with an explicit theory
of textual transmission (namely, following Vogels, that nearly all variants
had been created before the year 200, and since nearly all our extant
witnesses are post-200, the dates and relevance of external evidence is of
little value.  See further Elliott, in the Ehrman-Holmes volume, 330-331).
        --a reasoned eclectic like K. Aland worked with an explicit and
well-developed theory of tranmission of the text, as is clear from Aland and
Aland, _Text_.
        --Zuntz was driven to the practice of eclecticism *precisely
because* of his study of the transmission of the textual tradition (see
_Text of the Epistles_, 282-283).
        --rather than extend ad nauseam the list of exx. (Fee, Colwell,
Birdsall, Metzger, etc.) of reasoned eclectics who do work with an explicit
theory of textual transmission, a generalization may be suggested: many
current "reasoned eclectics" practice a reasoned eclecticism *because of* a
certain understanding of or conclusion about the textual transmission of the
NT, namely, that no extant textual tradition has escaped the impact of
textual corruption.
        The (often widely-differing, to be sure) theories of textual
transmission held by current reasoned eclectics certainly may be critiqued
as inadequate, and may in the opinion of some be employed inconsistently.
But in view of the data it appears that one must demur from the
generalization quoted above.

Mike Holmes
Bethel College

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 22:15:22 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Michael Holmes wrote:

> it has no theory of textual transmission ... "

I only cited Porter to reflect that the same complaint was made then as
Epp has been making since 1980 in his "Interlude" and "Requiem for a
Discipline" articles.  K.W.Clark similarly pointed out the same in his
essays during the 1960s.  I will maintain that this still is the case,
even allowing for the data cited below, since as I read it, all of it
still presents a non-theory regarding transmissional history. 

> little value.  See further Elliott, in the Ehrman-Holmes volume, 330-331).

Kilpatrick and Elliot and Vogels (not to mention Colwell) are correct on
this point, and I also hold the same position.  However, the
acknowledgement that all or most significant variants were in existence
before AD 200 is NOT "an explicit theory of textual transmission" -- it
merely recognizes what the data presented in the papyri basically have
forced everyone to acknowledge. 
 
Ask Elliott (Kilpatrick being deceased) precisely WHAT theory of
transmission he could possibly hold which allows the autograph reading to
end up preserved in a single Old Latin MS copied in the 13th century as
opposed to all other Greek, versional, and patristic evidence (this is a
real example, by the way).  My wager is that he will admit to having NO
theory of transmission, but only his theory that ANY reading, so long as
it is attested SOMEWHERE, might be the autograph.  No regard for HOW it
got to the place where it did is a concern; hence, no real theory of
transmission. 

> well-developed theory of tranmission of the text, as is clear from Aland and

Is there really an "explicit and well-developed theory of transmission" 
in that volume?  If so, I must have missed it.  All I see therein is a 
notion that the papyri are a key to the original text and that the 
Byzantine is the late "Imperial text" (whatever is really meant by that, 
since no recension or imposed authority seems to be suggested).  No 
explanation really exists therein to explain how the utterly mixed text 
of the competing papyri actually came to be that way, nor how the 
existing texttypes derived from the mixed papyri, let alone from the 
autograph.  A theory of transmission simply does not exist by citing 
sporadic data without being comprehensive in explaining the whole process 
of transmission.

> _Text of the Epistles_, 282-283).

Zuntz at least did attempt a theory regarding the collection of the
Pauline Epistles.  The Byzantine readings within P46 (especially) forced
him into eclecticism, because as a previous Hortian theorist, those
readings should not have been there.  His move to eclecticism was in fact
an _abandonment_ of a transmissional history and theory in favor of a
theory which looked only at individual readings and speculated primarily
upon which reading was most likely to have given rise to all the others
(which in reality is Aland's primary position -- the "genealogy of
readings" principle -- regardless of what else he wrote). 

> theory of textual transmission,

I would be especially interested to learn of either Fee's or Metzger's
theory of transmission, since I have never seen such attempted by either
scholar.  Do you have some privy information in this regard?  Birdsall is
primarily a historian of textual theory and praxis; I have not seen
anything original regarding transmissional history from his hand. 

Colwell I know did _not_ have a theory of transmission, once he abandoned
his quest to establish the Alexandrian texttype as the autograph (which
came as he and K.W.Clark attempted to reconstruct that supposed
Alexandrian autograph and gave the project up as hopeless).  Most of
Colwell's later writings clearly show his discontent with modern
eclecticism, but also his frustration with not being able to come up with
much of anything better, even though he knew and admitted that "textual
criticism without a history of the text is impossible." 

I still maintain, therefore, and unapologetically, that "modern eclecticism 
still proceeds as if it has no theory of textual transmission ... "  
I suggest you ask Epp and see whether he does not agree with me on this 
point.

> a generalization may be suggested: many

I will concur on this point, and allow that mixture or corruption has
affected all textual traditions (though I would not claim irretrievably in
any way).  But then in what way are the modern eclectics any different
from myself or anyone else who come to a contrary conclusion regarding the
original text?  Merely noting that no textual tradition is unmixed
(regardless of what "unmixed" really means), this still is _not_ a history
of transmission, nor does it reflect any assumptions regarding such a
history (if so, why is the explanation for the "mixture" not forthcoming?)
but a mere recognition of a fact which is adequately evidenced in the MS,
versional, and patristic data preserved to us. Recognition of this fact
most certainly does _not_ cause me to practice either rigorous or reasoned
eclecticism. 

The modern eclectics practice rigorous or reasoned eclecticism precisely
because they do NOT have a transmissional history, and the internal
criteria within a variant unit are either allowed to predominate over any
externally-based principles (rigorous eclecticism) or they are allowed to
have a significant influence in conjunction with MSS which are considered
"best" on either grounds of age or subjective opinion regarding the
quality of readings contained within such MSS (the latter form of
reasoning being circular).  There simply is _no_ transmissional history
present which seriously affects or controls any principle of modern
eclecticism.  If you think otherwise, tell me which eclectic principle is
directly based upon a transmissional/historical view rather than merely
upon subjectively-determined internal criteria and/or a claim that the
oldest MSS are assumed to be the best, for no other reason save their age. 

> generalization quoted above.

Which as an eclectic, you certainly are free to do *;-)

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