Subject: Re: the "Alexandrian text" debate

From: Michael Holmes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:31:42 -0500 (CDT)

Colleagues,
        Some aspects of the interesting dialogue re the "Alexandrian
text"--especially the consistent manner in which some of the participants
position themselves over against "the eclectic approach" or "the eclectic
method," which is alleged or implied to be to some degree a failure or
bankrupt--prompt me to offer for consideration the following comments or
observations (most of which are condensed from my discussion of "Reasoned
Eclecticism in New Testament Textual Criticism" in _The Text of the NT in
Contemporary Research_, etc., ed. Ehrman and Holmes [Eerdmans, 1995] 336-360).

1) I think it is important to distinguish between textual *methodology* and
textual *history* (pp. 349-50).  There is a synergistic relationship between
the two, but they are not the same thing. (Cf., e.g., M. Robinson [4:57
p.m., 6/4/96]: "Since textual criticism cannot be done in a vacuum, I do not
think it unreasonable to begin with theories regarding transmissional
history"--a statement which appears to acknowledge the point.) Eclecticism
has to do with methodology--what one considers to be evidence and how one
goes about evaluating it.  The circumstance that one is "eclectic" with
regard to method does *not* carry with it any assumptions about one's view
of textual history.  Neglect of this distinction leads, one may suggest, to
misleading or inaccurate generalizations.

2) Virtually all of us, I would argue, are "reasoned eclectics" with regard
to method (for definitions, see pp. 336-338)--i.e., we utilize some
combination of internal and external considerations in reaching decisions
about textual variants.  In contrast to a "rigorous eclecticism" which
essentially eschews external evidence (e.g., Keith Elliott) or a "historical
documentary" approach which attempts to avoid internal considerations (e.g.,
Dearing), the rest of us appear to utilize a combination of both kinds of
evidence--e.g., Robinson again (4:57 p.m., 6/4/96): "in light of both
internal and external evidence."  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.  The central locus of our differences is not with regard to
method, but with regard to the history of transmission.  The *method*
outlined by, e.g., the Alands, Metzger, Colwell, Amphoux, Fee, Holmes, etc.
(see p. 344)--and, I would suggest, Robinson and Waltz--is very, very
similar.  The differences in the view of the history of the text among this
same group, however, are tremendous; a comparison of Kurt Aland and Amphoux
is esp. instructive in this regard (cf. p. 350).  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.

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).

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.  At the present time there are a number of
proposals "on the table" for discussion; these include (see pp. 351-352) the
theories of the Alands, Amphoux, Birdsall, Kilpatrick & Elliott (yes,
"rigorous eclectics" do have a theory of transmission; see Elliott's essay
in the above volume, pp. 330-331), Zuntz (though it is limited to the
Paulines), Klaus Wachtel for the Catholic Epistles (but notice his subtitle:
_Der Byzantinische Text der Katholischen Briefe: Eine Untersuchung zur
Entstehung der Koine des Neuen Testaments_ [ANTF 24; De Gruyter, 1995]--**a
very important contribution**), and now M. Robinson (comprehensive and, it
appears, fully developed), and B. Waltz (at least tentatively?).  The rest
of us, I presume, have thought about it enough to come to some basic
conclusions--enough to enable us to employ our method in something other
than a vacuum--but we generally have not yet put forth, at least publicly
and/or for discussion, comprehensive or fully fleshed out proposals.
        In this respect I have appreciated the current dialogue--it is
raising some of the key questions we need to address as a discipline, like
such basics as just what is a "text-type," and just how do we understand the
transmission history of the NT?  As the discussion continues, however,
perhaps there might be more reference to (or at least acknowledgement of)
the variety and range of alternative proposals? (For a good recent survey
see J. Petzer, "The History of the New Testament Text--Its Reconstruction,
Significance and Use in New Testament Textual Criticism," in _NT Textual
Criticism, Exegesis and Chruch History_, ed. B. Aland and J. Delobel
[Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994] 11-36.)  In particular, 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.)

5) The role of scribes in the transmission of the NT text has come up in the
last few days.  In light of what can be learned about how books were made
and read in the ancient world, t may be that the traditional focus in NT
textual criticism on scribes as "shapers" of the text is misplaced.  In a
lecture given in 1994 (due out any time now in a volume from Brill edited by
David Parker and C.-B. Amphoux) 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?

Mike Holmes
Bethel College