Subject: Re: Multiple Replies (Was: Re: Textual Criticism Theories)

From: Mike Arcieri <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 Oct 96 00:46:03 EDT

>I suppose I should have been clearer: There is a legitimate textual scholar
>(Hills) who supports the TR -- but his defense of the TR does not make use of
>any sort of textual methodology.

Exactly.

>Hills defends the TR in much the same way that I would defend the belief that
>humans have free will: I can't offer any proof, but I just *know* it. :-)

Which simply translates into no proof whatsoever.. ;-)  ;-)

>Sturz is, as far as I know, alone among moderns. However, his view of
>text-types is actually quite similar to von Soden's, except that they differ in
how
>positively they view the Byzantine text. Sturz is, in fact, half-way between
>the Majority Text view and a Westcott-Hort view.

>It seems to me (and realize that I am getting this second-hand, via Wallace)
>that van Bruggen and Wisselink also fall into this camp.

If this is what Wallace said, he's wrong (again! What paper from Wallace are you
reading?? ;-))  ). Van Bruggen wrote a little book entitled "The Ancient Text of
the New Testament" where he presents his case in favour of the Byz text.  As for
Wisselink, his thesis re. Assimilation gives good support for the Byz text. I
don't remember if he comes out and says that he considers this text-type to be
_the_ best, but he certainly presents a case against Fee et al as to the alleged
inferiority of the Byz tradition

>I would also argue that Scrivener came close to this view. Obviously Scrivener
>was not a follower of Hort. But neither did he agree with Burgon. Scrivener
>conceded the value of all text-types, and the various critical methods; he just
>concluded that the Byzantine text was best. 

Actually, here is a good quote from Scrivener's letter (dated Nov. 18, 1889) re.
his own position.:

"I think Burgon's wholesale disparagement of Codex Vaticanus as 'the most
corrupt of all copies' quite unreasonable. On this head we have held many a
conflict, without either of us yeilding an inch. You will see that I stand
midway between the two schools, inclining much more to Burgon than to Hort."

This quote is from Burgon's biography by Edward M. Goulburn (which I may add was
_not_ quoted by Wallace in his paper "Historical Revisionism and the Majority
Text Theory: The Cases of F.H.A. Scrivener and H. C. Hoskier" in NTS 1995).

I see now that Robinson has himself posted on the TC-LIST, so I will let him
answer for his GNT.

MIke A.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 09:07:40 -0700

On 24 Oct 96, Mike  Arcieri <[email-masked]> wrote:

[ ... ]

>inferiority of the Byz tradition

The article I read was in Ehrman and Holmes, and I will admit that I did not
re-read it when I wrote my reply. The relevant statement (p. 307) is

   Third, the Dutch schollars, van Bruggen and Wisselink, would hold to
   Majority text priority but not Majority text exclusivity. Theirs is the most
   nuanced Majority text position. Although they do not explicitly argue
   against particular majority readings, they allow, at least in theory,
   for Byzantine harmonizations and corruptions.

This sounds like Sturz's position to me, at least in outline.

This also shows that there are continental scholars who have not entirely
written off the Majority text.

>Text Theory: The Cases of F.H.A. Scrivener and H. C. Hoskier" in NTS 1995).

I read somewhere -- and this time I really can't recall where -- that Scrivener
at the end of his life inclined somewhat more toward W&H than he had earlier.
But, since I can't recall the source, I can't say how reliable it was. :-)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:12:12 -0400 (EDT)

> Text Theory: The Cases of F.H.A. Scrivener and H. C. Hoskier" in NTS 1995).

Mike, thank you for this quote from Scrivener; I had not seen it
previously, since I do not have access to a copy of Goulburn's Life of
Burgon.  

In view of this letter as contrasted with what Scrivener does in praxis,
even in the posthumous 4th edition of his "Plain Introduction", it seems
Scrivener felt in theory far more connected with Burgon's position than
his actual text-critical praxis tended to indicate. 

In any case, this does serve as a significant corrective to Wallace's
"Revisionism" article on this point.  Thank you for your research.

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

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:47:43 -0400 (EDT)

> This sounds like Sturz's position to me, at least in outline.

No, this is definitely a very far cry from Sturz.  Sturz clearly did not
hold to any Byzantine priority, let alone exclusivity, but only held the
Byzantine texttype to be co-equal with the Alexandrian or Western types. 
Certainly in practice (as I have pointed out), most of the time Sturz'
"second-century" resultant text ends up Byzantine, but this is by strict
application of his 2 out of 3 theory and not by intent of Byzantine-
priority any more than the Textus Receptus ends up 98% Byzantine because
of any supposed text-critical theory underlying its construction.

As for the Dutch scholars, I know Van Bruggen personally and have
corresponded and talked on the phone with Wisselink, and I find them both
very much in close accord with my own position; closer in fact than Hodges
and Farstad. 

I suspect that the quoted statement above about their "at least in theory" 
allowing for non-Byzantine readings possibly to be correct must be taken
in the same light as the matter of conjectural emendation, where some want
it in theory to remain a "possibility", but in practice never really
applying conjecture to the NT text. I believe these Dutch scholars simply
state matters in a typical scholarly manner; in practice, from what I have
seen, they depart from the Byzantine Textform about as much do I.
Contrary to the Ehrman and Holmes volume, Scrivener has a far more
"nuanced" majority text position than either Van Bruggen or Wisselink.

> written off the Majority text.

Though they are probably written off by most other European scholars. *;-)

[re: the Scrivener quote,]

> >"...inclining much more to Burgon than to Hort."

> But, since I can't recall the source, I can't say how reliable it was. :-)

Seems that such would be wrong, if this letter were in fact written in
1889, as Arcieri stated, since Scrivener was clearly deceased before the
4th edition of his "Plain Introduction" came out in 1894.  I think
Scrivener died in 1892, but memory fails me here.  In any case, Scrivener
in 1889 was near the end of his life, and from this quote seemed to tend
far more closely to Burgon than to WH.