Subject: Holmes Overview

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:16:59 -0400 (EDT)

Michael Holmes wrote on Fri, 7 Jun 1996:

Let it be known that I agree with much of what Michael Holmes has
stated.  However, I do have some points of difference. which are noted
below:

>1) I think it is important to distinguish between textual
>*methodology* and textual *history* ....  There is a
>synergistic relationship between the two, but they are not the same
>thing....Eclecticism has to do with methodology--what one considers to
>be evidence and how one goes about evaluating it.

This is why I stated that textual criticism cannot be done in a vacuum,
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.

>2) Virtually all of us, I would argue, are "reasoned eclectics" with
>regard to method ... --i.e., we utilize some combination of internal
>and external considerations in reaching decisions about textual
>variants....In terms of method, we are all "eclectics," and for some to
>position themselves over against "the eclectic school" (or some such
>term)--as if they were not part of it--creates confusion.

I do not think this to be the case.  There is a clear differentiation 
between the modern eclectic mindset and its methodology which is based 
upon taking variants as isolated cases and making evaluation on a case 
by case basis as opposed to the matter of developing a consistent 
comprehensive theory of transmission and -then- evaluating individual 
readings within the framework of that particular theory.  I certainly 
do NOT consider my position to be "eclecticism" in any form; if it were 
so, then I could not hold to a "Byzantine priority" position, which 
would tend to override subjective eclectic decisions in cases where the 
reading of the Byzantine Textform is clearly dominant.  Wallace makes 
this clear regarding my position in the same Ehrman/Holmes volume).  My 
position is clearly a non-eclectic modus operandi, but "non-eclectic" 
does not in any way preclude examining readings on the basis of 
internal evidence.

I will concede a form of "eclecticism" on one point: where the
Byzantine Textform is seriously divided among two or three primary
readings, then internal criteria do come into play.  HOWEVER, even this
is clearly distinguished from modern eclecticism where readings found
in one or two highly favored MSS (or even less favored MSS, following
Kilpatrick and Elliott) might be considered original in any given
variant unit.  My methodology in divided readings would still require
work with only those readings which show a significant degree of
support within the transmissional history of the readings, and this
clearly is NOT what modern eclecticism would claim; so I still remain a
"non-eclectic" in this regard.

>The *method* outlined by, e.g., the Alands, Metzger, Colwell, Amphoux,
>Fee, Holmes, etc....-- and, I would suggest, Robinson and Waltz--is
>very, very similar.

As regards myself, I really think not, in light of what I have stated
above.  Wallace similarly thinks not, and (I suspect) Ehrman would
concur with me on this point.  I will cheerfully place all others in
the same bucket if that is where they want to be *;-)  Waltz of course
seems to be in neither category.

>There is no such thing as "*the* eclectic hypothesis" (M. Robinson,
>9:47 p.m., 6/6/96; emphasis added)--i.e., a single view of transmission
>history held by all those who utilize a "reasoned eclectic"
>methodology.

I will agree in regard to the view of transmissional history held by 
various eclectic partisans; but there most clearly IS a distinction 
between "the" modern eclectic view which is primarily based upon the
subjective evaluation of internal criteria (supplemented by external
evidence) as differentiated from the non-eclectic view which is
primarily based upon external evidence (supplemented by internal
criteria).  I shall continue to maintain this distinction when I 
contrast the eclectic versus non-eclectic methodologies.

>3) Reasoned eclecticism is not bankrupt, or a makeshift expedient; it
>is, in view of how the NT text has been transmitted, our only option--a
>point that Zuntz made quite clearly, building on Hort (see pp.346-349).

A point with which I obviously wholly disagree, else I would be within
the eclectic fold once more.

>4) The critical question for textual criticism today--and here the
>discussion started by Robinson and Waltz is right on target--is
>precisely the history of the text.

Which has been one of my main points all along.

>and now M. Robinson (comprehensive and, it appears, fully developed),

I appreciate the comment, but I more than anyone else realize how
undeveloped and unexplored is the territory within my theory.  Just so
long as it clearly gets differentiated from the KJV/TR crowd, as well
as from that of Pickering or Hodges/Farstad, I will be content.

>I would interested to hear what some of the discussants have to say
>about Wachtel's recent and wide-ranging treatment of the Byzantine
>tradition. (Thumbnail sketch of Wachtel: the Byz text of the Cath
>Epistles is the result of a long process [traces of which are evident
>already in the earliest period] of smoothing and standardization, and
>reached its definitive form in the ninth c.  It is very unlikely that
>its origin is the result of a formal recension of the fourth century;
>instead, one must reckon with a series of editorial revisions [i.e.,
>_diorthosis_] in every epoch.  His findings substantially relativize
>the idea of "text types," to the extent that they are associated with
>recensional theories, and highlight the importance of the minuscules.)

Except for the fact that Wachtel would differ dramatically from my own
position, with only a few small changes I find his data remarkably
favorable to my hypothesis, since I claim a process of textual
restoration of the autograph which begins in the fourth century
following the legitimization of Christianity under Constantine.
Wachtel merely makes the creation of the Byzantine Text at that time
the main issue rather than its restoration.  Wachtel also later makes a
claim regarding increased internal consistency within the developing
Byzantine Textform which, if taken backward consistently through the
centuries (which he does not), points to precisely what I claim 
regarding the restoration of the Byzantine Textform as the closest
approximation to the autograph.  Wachtel's essay deserves to be read by
all, and (perhaps someone will do it) be translated into English.

>5) The role of scribes in the transmission of the NT text has come up
>in the last few days. ...  it was suggested that active reader/users,
>practicing the customary and expected activity of _diorthosis_, may
>have been responsible for many of the distinctive variant readings
>associated with the "western" textual tradition.  Now Wachtel makes a
>similar point, as has Harry Gamble (_Books and Readers in the Early
>Church_ [Yale, 1995]).  This reminds us that not only scribes and the
>scriptorium but also readers and the church were important factors in
>the tranmission of the NT.  How might this consideration reshape how we
>envision the transmission history of the NT?

Certainly scribes were the primary cause of textual variation, and 
texttypes and sub-texttypes developed from their efforts.  Correction 
of the text, however, by the diorthotes or the original scribe, 
especially when based upon lectionary usage within the liturgy, would
still tend to maintain a preservative effect upon the text rather than 
its wide differentiation.  This is still a reason why I think local 
text deviations are reasonable and can serve to explain much of the 
diversity found in the extant MSS, versions, and fathers, while the 
bulk of the text remains highly Byzantine in character.

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 96 12:08:30

In
<[email-masked]>,
on 06/07/96 
   Once again I change from my lurking mode:
    I wrestle with how I can make my input more useful to 
   the others on this list.... Since I am not a TC active member
   I basically read the posts and then together with outside 
    reading form my base of opinion.  Thus to many this current
   post will only appear to be a "Amen!"  or "I agree"
   thus robbing it of its voice in the crowded arena.   If anyone
   can give me some better suggestion as to how to make 
   my "vote" heard more clearly please do so.....
    Thus I have snipped out large portions to basically state
     my *reasoned out* opinion.....

---->1) I think it is important to distinguish between textual
--->*methodology* and textual *history* ....  
--- 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.

        This is a very significant point that Robinson has made
         and in my reasoning it justifies why I support and
accept
        his methodology.....!!

                        There is the matter of developing a
consistent  comprehensive theory of transmission and -then-
evaluating individual  readings within the framework of that
particular theory.  

-My methodology in divided readings would still require ---work
with only those readings which show a significant degree ---of
support within the transmissional history of the readings,

                   At least Robinson is very consistent in using
                   his methodology which is more than I can
attest
                   concerning other so-called Byzantine
promoters... <g>

--->The *method* outlined by, e.g., the Alands, Metzger, Colwell,
---Amphoux, >Fee, Holmes, etc....-- and, I would suggest,
---Robinson and Waltz--is >very, very similar.
                             Since I know Fee and Robinson
                      For *me* the best scenario would be a
                      an email exchange between these two 
                      incredibly gifted Scholars..... This is due
                      to personal exchange with each one in
                      which I have the highest esteem for both
                     Scholars for different reasons.
                     Unforunately there is already too much
rhetoric
                      in this field for this too take place..... 
<groan>

---I appreciate the comment, but I more than anyone else realize
---how undeveloped and unexplored is the territory within my
---theory.  Just so long as it clearly gets differentiated from
---the KJV/TR crowd, as well as from that of Pickering or
---Hodges/Farstad, I will be content.
              This was my point and observation above with the
smiley!!!
               I am not too favorably impressed with that of
Pickering
               or Hodges/Farstad and esp. I grow weary with the 
              rhetoric of the KJV/TR crowd.  I also do not
appreciate
             being squeezed by most of the TC teaching aids to
              follow the Alands, Fee, et al. route.......
             Again this is why I have so much esteem for M.
Robinson
             in that he has taken a lot of time explaining his
position
              and helping me to more clearly understand Textual 
              Criticism as a field of study rather than being a
salesman
              for his position....!   Which is something I do
*not* find
              readily available else where.....
--- 
         Thanks for taking the time to view this...........

Respond to Jim at the following address
----------------------------------------------------
[email-masked]

-----------------------------------------------------------