Subject: Some comments on the "textual theories" discussion

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 12:46:20 -0400

(1) Many of the points (the value of the versions;  the danger of theorizing
before collecting all the relevant data;  etc.) were discussed earlier this
year on this site, in July, as my memory serves me.  I do not know if those
posts are archived (Jimmy Adair can perhaps answer that), but those who are
interested in this discussion may wish to go back and download that discussion.

(2) The value of some of the languages discussed (e.g. Middle Dutch, etc.)
is that these languages contain readings which agree with the Old Syriac
(Sinaiticus, Curetonianus), with the Vetus Latina, with early Patristic
testimony (e.g., Justin Martyr, who died c. 165 CE), and with Diatessaronic
witnesses (the Arabic Diatessaron, Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron,
etc.--and the Diatessaron was composed, probably in Syriac, about 172 CE).
It is indisputable on chronological grounds, therefore, that this
text--whatever its original language (Syriac, Greek, Latin)--is older than
any preserved Greek witness.  Indeed, at many points, Justin's text is the
oldest preserved text of the gospels.  Therefore, there is every reason for
the alert textual scholar to examine the Medieval Dutch gospel harmonies,
the Venetian and Tuscan gospel harmonies, etc.--as Burkitt, Plooij, Vogels,
Baumstark, etc., did, and as Quispel, Baarda, Metzger, and others still do.

(3) When speaking of Westcott and Hort, as several participants have, I must
point out once again that Westcott (Hort was dead by then), in the second
edition of the "Introduction to the NT in the original Greek" (1896), in
some cases REPUDIATED the use of the "primary Greek texts" to reconstruct
the earliest text of the NT.  The quotation (p. 328) is as follows:

"The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. of the Old Syriac raises the question
whether the combination of the oldest types of the Syriac and Latin texts
can outweigh the combination of the primary Greek texts.  A careful
examination of the passages in which Syr.sin and *k* [Vetus Latina, codex
Bobiensis] are arrayed against alaph [= Greek codex Sinaiticus] B would
point to the conclusion"

Therefore, when we hear people talking about "Westcott and Hort," one must
be careful to distinguish between the "early" Westcott of the alaph-B
edition of 1881, and the "late" Westcott, who--in what I consider a mark of
true scholarship--reversed himself.  (There is a full discussion of this
whole problem in my "Tatian's Diatessaron" [Brill, 1994], pp. 9-26,
including examples and original quotations.)

Incidentally, Westcott was not the victim of Alzheimers or senility:
Burkitt, Souter, Vogels, Turner and others subscribed to the same precedence
of the combination of the oldest Syriac + oldest Latin as being the best
text against the oldest Greek (the papyri, alaph, B, etc.).  I would suggest
that one reason this has been better undersood on the Continent is the
better language training there, and the proximity to these regions.  The odd
(from a European perspective) American fixation on the Byzantine Text or TR
is a product of our very conservative and generally "unlettered" theological
history.

(4) In closing, I would observe that while the list has been quite quiet for
some time, as soon as textual theories come up, it comes alive.  This is an
interesting phenomenon, for there is little (if any) discussion of concrete
readings or textual evidence in all of this.  Rather, it is the defense of
this or that position, largely on rhetorical grounds, or by citing scholars
who agree with your position.  In July we looked at some examples;  I'd
recommend that again, for then one is dealing with THE TEXT, and hard
EVIDENCE, rather than rhetoric.  At that time, one list correspondent
pronounced himself as "astounded" (if I recall correctly) by some of the
agreements adduced between the Old Latin, Old Syriac, Diatessaronic
witnesses, and Justin.  Indeed, indeed...and that leads to a very important
point:  Building theories is easiest if one has minimal information.  The
more information one possess, the more difficult it becomes to construct a
valid theory.  I know of only one NT textual critic who reads all the
requisite (at least what I consider requisite!) languages (Greek, Latin,
Hebrew, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Arabic, Middle Dutch, Georgian, and Middle
Italian), and that is Tjitze Baarda.  But he belongs to no theoretical
"school," for, as he often puts it, "It is so difficult to know..."

As I said in a post in July, quoting Arthur Conan Doyle (in the voice of
Sherlock Holmes):  "It is a capital mistake to theorize before possessing
all the evidence."

--Petersen, Penn State Univ.

---

From: Nichael Cramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 14:22:40 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, William L. Petersen wrote:
>           [....] (in the voice of

A relative of Michael's perhaps?

N

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:39:31 -0400 (EDT)

> Bobiensis] are arrayed against alaph [= Greek codex Sinaiticus] B would

Correct me if I am wrong, but is that comment not in the additional
appendix by Burkitt, rather than coming from Westcott himself?  As regards
the main (1881) theory, Hort was clearly the master there rather than
Westcott in any case.  But even if Westcott and not Burkitt wrote the
above quote, I hardly would see it as a "reversal" of his position, since
the quotation only "raises the question" but does not necessarily override
the matter of favoring the "primary Greek texts." 

> The odd

Granted that in the US we probably have a weaker training in the versional
languages.  However, I still fail to see the point in statements to the
effect of blaming the Byzantine-priority hypothesis on some "conservative"
theological viewpoints when it remains the fact that the vast majority of
"conservative" and even "fundamentalist" NT scholars continue to favor the
modern eclectic text over against the Byzantine Textform. 

In general, there really is very little "fixation" in the US on the
Byzantine Textform (though there is far more "fixation" from within ultra-
fundamentalist circles on the KJV and TR). It seems to me that this type
of statement becomes more of an _ad hominem_ argument intended to
discredit the Byzantine-priority position rather than a serious
consideration of the theory and/or explanation of its merits or demerits. 

> some time, as soon as textual theories come up, it comes alive.  

And interestingly, this usually only occurs when the issue of the
Byzantine text is raised and I happen to post. *;-)

> This is an
> readings or textual evidence in all of this.  

Theory does precede praxis, regardless of one's textual position, and one
of my contentions has been that the modern eclectic position is strong on
praxis but weak on theory, and I choose to call that matter to account.
However, I think that a good number of concrete instances have been
previously discussed on this list and certainly more will occur. 

> Building theories is easiest if one has minimal information.  The
> valid theory.  

This is true, and comprises the heart of my critique of modern eclecticism
-- it is a very simplistic theory which sets up hypothetical canons of
criticism and then proceeds to apply them haphazardly without any real
guidelines for their application and with no concept of transmissional
history.  No wonder Metzger tries to excuse the current situation by
claiming the task is an "art" rather than a "science"!

However, it is _not_ essential to "read all the requisite languages", nor
to be an expert in virtually every theological or historical field before
one can postulate theories of textual criticism or reconstruct the
original text.  Otherwise, virtually all textual critics of the past and
present would be excluded. Considering and incorporating the specialized
work of scholars in the related disciplines is certainly of much value,
and textual criticism can proceed on the basis of shared knowledge, even
if none of us will ever become a Baarda. 

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