Subject: Re: Holmes Overview

From: [email-masked] (Ulrich Schmid)
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 96 15:18:23 +0100

On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote (inter alia):

[first quoting Holmes:]

>>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 can understand from Maurice's viewpoint the differentiation he puts forth. 
Therefore, I think we should focus more on transmissional history as Mike Holmes 
has pointed out (7 Jun 1996): 

>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. 

In addressing the history of the text I think our task is twofold, (1) we have 
to reason on the archetype of NT textual transmission;
(2) we have to compare textual transmissions of other highly frequent copied 
texts.

ad (1) I have argued elsewhere (Re: NT Interpolations, 8 Jun 1996): "The least 
one can say is that NT textual transmission goes back to the well known 
collections, and only through the collections back to the autographs. One may 
differ on various points, but the collections seem to be the decisive 
bottlenecks one simply cannot ignore." My question is: Can we reach some 
agreements on the archetype(s) of NT textual transmission?

ad (2) Since we somehow agree that we are not doing our job in a vacuum, it may 
be worthwhile looking at other highly frequent copied textual transmissions. I 
would suggest at least two: The Latin Vulgate and the Platonic dialogues.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 16:08:30 -0400 (EDT)

On Sun, 9 Jun 1996, Ulrich Schmid wrote:

> Since we somehow agree that we are not doing our job in a vacuum, it may 
> be worthwhile looking at other highly frequent copied textual transmissions. 
> I would suggest at least two: The Latin Vulgate and the Platonic dialogues.

I would like to add to this the Homeric works, since they have the 
greatest number of extant MSS within the classical tradition, and as 
poetry were probably more memorized than the Platonic dialogues, which 
would then parallel certain memorized familiarity with Scripture in 
either Greek or Latin.

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