Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 11:31:57 -0400 (EDT)

At 10:53 AM 10/24/96 +0000, you wrote:
>Colleagues,
>
>I have been a "silent observer" on the tc-list since its inception. 
>But two posts today have forced me to come out of my seclusion.  
>

>Who says that the only goal of textual criticism is to "reconstruct 
>the Greek/Hebrew text" or to get "closer to the Greek text?"

Those of us who try to comprehend the preservation and transmission of the
writings produced by the Biblical authors.  Though other fields are
"interesting"- they are not quite as significant.

.>  I do not think
>that the scholars who have devoted the time, discipline, and effort
>necessary to study  versional (or lectionary or patristic) evidence
>have "wasted years of study."  The rest of us should be thankful for
>their contributions.  We should also try to incorporate their 
>discoveries into our own textual theories.
>

Why?  What can the versions add to a knowledge of the Greek text?  The
versions spring from the Greek text and not the other way around.  And using
versional evidence to reconstruct a hypothetical greek text is pointless.
It is a pure scholarly construction and of no value in determining an
original reading. (or were there no originals?  Did multiple copies of
Romans spring simultaneously from Pauls hands and thus no one of them is
"the" original?

>This leads me to a larger criticism of our guild.  The preoccupation
>that some NT "text critics" display for the Greek mss alone is a
>prime example of what I consider to be the "naval-gazing" attitude of
>our field. 

Yet when one is a "navel-ologist" one studies navels.  If one desires to be
a scholar of coptic, cool.  But that does not mean that the scholar of
coptic can intrude into TC and tell its practitioneres that the coptic text
represents a more faithful rendering of the words of Paul than the Greek
text does.

> As we stare into our cloistered little greek
>belly-buttons to analyze the naval lint we find there, scholars in
>other disciplines roll their eyes and wonder what textual criticism
>has to offer to the broader scholarly world. 

Pray tell why should we care what we offer this great and broad world of
scholarship?  Our task is to reconstruct the Biblical text- not seek the
acclaim of the podiatrists of the world.

> I suppose that it
>"behooves us" more to "spend our time" rehashing ad nauseum textual
>variants that occur in the greek mss tradition!!??
>

Until the issue is settled- yes.  It is only nauseating to those who have no
nose for it.

>Please do not misunderstand me.  I realize the immense amount of work
>that still needs to be done on the Greek mss evidence.  But in order
>to develop a satisfactory theory of the transmission of the NT 
>text, more work needs to be done than merely comparing Greek mss. 

True- but the versions offer so very little.  Its like one who wishes to
study the sun but only looks at the light reflected off the moon; one sees
light, but only derived light.

>In order to develop a theory of the text, we need to understand how
>that text was viewed and used by the early church. 

Now this is the field of church history, not TC

> For this,
>versional and patristic evidence is not only helpful, but absolutely 
>necessary.  

Yes, for church history alone.

>Thus, to disparage the study of versions because they 
>represent "translations of translations" is not only imprudent, but 
>also myopic and arrogant.
> 

Guilty as charged.  Mea culpa.  But as Don Giovanni said when asked to
repent by the Commendatore or suffer the fate of being dragged into hell-
Commendatore- Pentite!
Don- NO!!!!

>John Brogan

Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Professor of Biblical Languages
Petros TN

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:09:46 -0400 (EDT)

> versional evidence to reconstruct a hypothetical greek text is pointless.

I will differ sharply from Jim West on the point of the versional
testimony.  Indeed, I consider the versions an essential part and an
important step toward establishing the original text (though I do not
permit their evidence to supersede that of the Greek MSS, just as I do not
permit patristic testimony to overrride the Greek MS evidence).

Contrary to West ("it is a pure scholarly construction and of no value in
determining an original reading"), the underlying Greek text of a version
often _can_ be reconstructed with virtual certainty, and to that extent
the versional testimony ranks equal with that of a given MS within the
Greek tradition. 

Certainly where linguistic peculiarities may exist, versional testimony
may be of little or no help in reconstructing the original text, but this
does not negate the use of the versions in other particulars.  

Further, there does remain a valid use of versional testimony in the
attempt to understand the use and meaning of the scriptural text in the
history of the early and medieval church, and I would not deprecate those
whose particular field of interest lies in that direction, even though
such does not bear directly upon the establishment of the original text
itself.

> >prime example of what I consider to be the "navel-gazing" attitude of
> >our field. 

> represents a more faithful rendering of the words of Paul than the Greek

Here, on the other hand, I would agree more with West, since the
establishment of the original Greek vorlage would be primarily dependent
upon Greek witnesses (MSS and patristic citations) rather than versions.
On the other hand, were there little or no Greek data available (cf. the
Diatessaron), then certainly the versional testimony would assume a much
higher rank; but in the case of the Greek NT and the establishment of the
original text of that corpus, the abundance of Greek evidence seems to
force most textual critics to contemplate that particular navel rather
than to seek elsewhere.

> Our task is to reconstruct the Biblical text- not seek the

I fear that scribal confusion has occurred which has switched the metaphor
from belly to foot. Should this be considered a substitution of a synonym
or harmonization to a parallel?

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