Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories

From: Jeremy Duff <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 16:47:39 +0100 (BST)

Kevin,

I am in no sense at all an expert on textual criticism: hence, perhaps, why
I enjoyed your summary.

One point, however,

At 19:44 21/10/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Part of the difficulty of the task is that we do not understand with
>certainty how we ended up with the texts that we have. Most agree that the
>majority of variants probably occurred prior to 325 CE., certainly before 500
>(?) CE. During this time, people did not understand the writings as scripture
>and there was little opportunity for comparison of MSS. 

I find this a little hard to believe. Church writers from the end of the
second century onwards at least see to have a definite conception of certain
texts being scripture. I would have thought it natural, given no evidence to
the contrary, that scribes would have also thought this. OK, there may not
be a fixed definitive canon, but that does not mean that the scribe who
copied say p46 did not think this was scripture. Indeed, various features
might point to the conclusion that he did - e.g. use of the codex form
(which seems more common for Christian scriptures than for the writings of
the church fathers, I think) and the use of the nomina sacra (can anyone
tell me if these are used in copies of the writings of church fathers? I
guess they probably are). Anyway, even without definite evidence that the
scribes did see the texts as scripture, I would have thought that their
status generally as evidenced by other writers would be enough to suggest
that scribes from the second century onwards did understand the writings as
scripture.

Yours,

Jeremy Duff

=========================================

Jeremy Duff
D. Phil. Student
Jesus College, Oxford

---

From: Hubert Arthur Bahr III <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 18:59:07 -0500

I wonder how these theories can be restated to include the HB/LXX 
instead of just the NT.  What are the benefits to be derived from each 
theory? What are the shortcomings of each? how can we best overcome
those shortcomings?

I am also confused as to why those who prefer the Byzantine text type 
should be a seperate group from those who prefer a particular text type.

perhaps we could group scholars into 3 groups
	1. Textually uncritical. 
        2. Champions of a particular text type.
        3. Eclectics.
coments anyone?

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 19:54:11 -0700

>theory? What are the shortcomings of each? how can we best overcome

I would say that the MT/LXX debate is much like a truncated version
of the NT debate. The MT and LXX correspond roughly to the *text-types*
of NT criticism. It's like scholars choosing whether they prefer the
Alexandrian or "Western" text. They make the decisions on some
idiosyncratic basis.

This means, obviously, that any critical rule that applies to number
or provenance of manuscripts has little application to OT criticism.
Those which have to do with the nature of variation units still apply.

>should be a seperate group from those who prefer a particular text type.

There is a similarity between the two classes, but there is also a
difference. Two differences, in fact.

First, the majority of those who prefer the Byzantine text prefer
it on theological grounds ("God must consider the Byzantine text
right, of (s)he would not have made so many copies") or on numerical
grounds ("it's the majority; it must be right"). There are, of
course, exceptions (so don't say it, Maurice), but this is how
most Byzantine prioritists feel. The proponents of the other text,
by contrast, make their choice based on some perceived "inner
excellence" (obviously a subjective matter).

Second, the fact that Byzantine texts are so numerous forces a change
in approach. Unlike the other text-types, it is possible to do stemmatic
work, and certainly historical work, on the Byzantine text. This
inevitably will affect the final text (note the differences between
Hodges & Farstad and Robinson on this very point).

>        2. Champions of a particular text type.

Does group 1 really qualify as "scholarly"? :-)

Seriously, I don't think this division is fair. Eclecticism *must*
be categorized. My approach, based strongly on text-types, is very
distinct from Kilpatrick and Elliot, whose approach is based on
internal evidence. I'm willing to lump it as 3a (internal
eclecticism), 3b (external eclecticism), and 3c (mixed) -- but if my
choices are to be an internal eclectic or to choose to always follow
the text of family 1739, I'll take 1739 any day.

[email-masked] (Jean Valentin) wrote:

>Another way of classifying, probably complementary, is:
>1. Those who have something to say about a global history of the text.
>2. Those who have no hypothesis about the relation of text-types to one
>another.

This strikes me as a much more important way of doing things. (My opinion,
obviously.) It strikes me that I could much more easily work with a
person whose theory of the text disagreed with mine than with someone
who had no theory of the text. As witness the fact that I have learned
from Maurice Robinson, whereas that person -- whoever it was -- who
preferred the TR was beyond my comprehension. By my standards, Robinson's
text and the TR are almost equally bad -- but Robinson himself is a
knowledgeable and insightful scholar.

My two cents. Now back to our regularly scheduled lives.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Hubert Arthur Bahr III <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 23:18:24 -0500

> > Hubert Bahr
> Bob WaltzHubert Bahr

> Does group 1 really qualify as "scholarly"? :-)

I think I could name a handful of competent Biblical scholars who have
never ventured into textual criticism but simply accepted the verdict
of others.  Scholarly yes, text-critical no.  
> 
> Seriously, I don't think this division is fair. 

It wasn't.

> Eclecticism *must*
> internal evidence. 

So there is a full spectrum of approaches instead of three primary 
colors.  Discarding group 1 which would represent scholars in other 
fields. Groups two and three appear to blended in varying degrees to 
make the field we know as textual criticism.  Am I getting it or getting 
way off?

Red     exclusive use of a particular text 
Orange  strong preference for a particular text 
Yellow  external eclecticism
Green   mixed, mostly external
Blue    Mixed, about evenly
Indigo  Mixed, mostly Internal
Violet  Internal Eclecticism

Is it possible for a version to preserve a better reading than the
original language?  Why is it that we seem to concentrate so heavily on 
the Greek New Testament and virtually ignore the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, 
Georgian, Slavonic . . . Is it that we feel the versions have little to 
offer, or is it simply the difficulty of mastering all the 
languages? 

> -- but if my

What are the weaknesses you see to internal eclecticism?

---

From: Johannes van der Tak <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:09:14 +0200 (MET DST)

Yes, Hubert Bahr, that is a correct suggestion about versions. I have 
been working on the text of the Slavonic version, of which by the way up 
to now no critical or other edition exists, and I noticed that the 
Slavonic version may in some minor cases contribute something to the 
correct choice in establishing the Greek text. 
My publications on this have appeared in Paleobulgarica (1995) and Polata 
Knigopisnaya (1996). I showed, however, that it concerns only minor 
points, not "main issues" in belief or that sort of Christian topics.

Interesting. I follow most discussions attently.

Johannes van der Tak
University of Amsterdam, Slavic department
e-mail [email-masked]

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 10:06:10 -0400 (EDT)

> points, not "main issues" in belief or that sort of Christian topics.

The question of how (or even whether!) to use the versions in textual
criticism illustrates a significant difference in approaches among OT and
NT textual critics.  While most NT people would probably agree in theory
with Metzger that the versions are important for determining the "original
text" (Aland disputes this, however--and the whole question of "original
text" deserves another thread), the fact is that there is probably not a
single reading in NA27 based primarily, let alone exclusively, on
versional evidence.  Although Bill Petersen and a few others have issued a
call for more attention to be paid to the early versions (and fathers), it
seems that few are heeding it.  The reason for setting aside the versions
is easy to see:  there are so many early Greek witnesses that many people
find it hard to believe that the versions can really add anything of
substance to the conversation.  Of course, the difficulty in dealing with
other languages (especially languages like Slavonic!) also comes into
play. 

OT textual critics, on the other hand, are forced to look more closely at 
the versions, because most Hebrew witnesses (i.e., the MT) are medieval in 
date, and so many readings throughout the OT are obviously corrupt in 
Hebrew.  Of course, some OT text-critics make every effort to support the 
MT whenever possible (by resorting to linguistic criticism, for example), 
but few, if any, would say that the LXX especially never provides a 
superior reading.  Of course, many OT scholars frequently prefer readings 
of the LXX (or occasionally one of the other versions) to that of the MT 
or of other Hebrew witnesses.

OT textual critics' need to deal with the versions has led them to begin 
to develop methodologies for using the versions.  The best-known example 
is Tov's book _The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint_, but there are 
several other studies dealing with one version or another.  The practice 
of pulling a reading from a Syriac witness more or less haphazardly is 
surely unjustifiable from a methodological perspective, and I think that 
text-critics of the OT, and especially of the NT, need to focus more on 
the question of methodology.  Here are some questions that must be 
addressed.  

(1) Which text of a version should I use (i.e., is there a critical
text?)? 

(2) What are the characteristics of the target language that reflect
aspects of the source language? 

(3) What grammatical or stylistic features of the target language make it
difficult or impossible to represent the source language? 

(4) What grammatical or stylistic features of the _version_ make it
unlikely that the _Vorlage_ can be reconstructed at a given point in the
text? 

(5) What procedures should be followed to retrovert a versional text into
the source language? 

(6) Where does a particular version fit within the textual stemma that
includes all the witnesses (as nearly as can be determined)? 

These, it seems to me, are some of the questions that ought to be 
addressed by anyone who wants to use versional evidence in textual 
criticism.  No wonder the versions are so neglected!

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:36:21 -0700

I'm replying to three different posts here, so forgive me if I can't keep all
the threads straight. I'll try to produce a coherent whole.

>Violet  Internal Eclecticism

In a way, I like this, since it very nearly -- er -- covers the entire
spectrum. But I worry a little about trying to classify ourselves this
way. I can just see people trying to classify themselves exactly: "Hi,
I'm a magenta textual critic." "I tend more toward mauve myself...." :-)

>offer, or is it simply the difficulty of mastering all the

In some cases, e.g. Georgian, it is lack of knowledge and critical
editions. (Georgian is neither Indo-European nor Semitic. Combine this
with the region's physical and political inaccessibility, and it's not
surprising that the language is not well known.)

There is a lot to be said for the use of the versions. The Old Latin is
our primary witness to the "Western" text of the Gospels and Acts (since
Codex Bezae is at least partly edited.) The Sahidic Coptic is one of
only three witnesses to its text-type in Paul. The Harklean Syriac is
the earliest representative of its text-type (family 2138) in the Catholics.
The Armenian and Georgian versions are leading witnesses to the "Caesarean"
text of the Gospels, and are also unique and interesting elsewhere.

The caution, of course, is that one must be *absolutely* sure what the
underlying Greek of the version was. If a version has a reading which
is not found in any Greek witness, the concern must always arise that
this is a paraphrase or a mistake in the transmission of the version.

>What are the weaknesses you see to internal eclecticism?

Subjectivity. As a person trained in physics and math, I find it hard to
accept a system that is not rigorous. There are a dozen or so "basic"
canons of internal criticism floating around (although they are all,
in fact, corollaries of the rule "That reading is best which best explains
the others"). How do you decide when to apply "prefer the harder reading"
as opposed to "prefer the reading which matches the author's style"?

Note that I sometimes use internal criteria. Since I find four early
text-types in Paul, there are often instances where the text-types
split in two, with two on each side. Here I must turn to internal
criteria. But internal criteria are my *last* refuge, whereas for
others they are the first.

*******************

Mike  Arcieri <[email-masked]>:

>Pardon this late rejoinder regarding a point raised early on. :-)
>
>>1. KJV only - the TR was shepherded by God to us through the centuries and we
>>should not deviate from it based on what passes for "human wisdom."
>
>>This isn't really a theory of textual criticism, just a theory about the
>>text. As Daniel B. Wallace points out, there has never been a legitimate
>>textual scholar who has held *this* point of view.
>
>Actually Wallace is not entirely accurate. There was in fact a legit
>scholar who
>advocated a TR/KJV only position, namely Edward F. Hills. His Th.D diss (at
>Harvard) was on the "Caesarean Family of NT MSS" and 3 articles of his were
>published by JBL. There is no doubt as to his academics, but Hills' arguments
>regarding the superiority of the TR over against even the Byzantine tradition
>itself pretty much go against all that he learned in New Testament Textual
>Criticism. His _entire_ position is theological and full of holes (MSS
>evidence
>is secondary). I consider Hills to be the father of modern KJV onlyism
>(esp. in
>light of comments from modern KJV worshippers - like Ruckman - who said he
>owes
>"a great deal to Hills for his own view re. the transmission of the text" ).
>Hills' defense for the TR/JKJV is still the most "scholarly" in print.

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.

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. :-)

>>2. Byzantine priority [ ... ]
>
>>This is actually a complicated area, with at least three major sub-groups.
>>1. The followers of Dean Burgon.  Maurice Robinson is a modern example.
> >  They believe that the majority text is always "original."
>
>This is correct. Robinson is a legit "Burgonite" ;-) as compared to Donald
>Waite, president of the "Dean Burgon Society". Waite merely uses Burgon's name
>as a smokescreen to pass on his TR/KJV agenda.
>
>>2. The followers of Hodges & Farstad, e.g. Pickering. They believe that
>>  the Byzantine text is original, but use more complex methods (at times
>>   smacking of internal criticism) to determine the "original" text.
>
>External/internal evidence is legit and was used by Robinson/Pierpont in their
>edition of the GNT. The primary diff between Hodges/Farstad and
>Robinson/Pierpont is the use of stemmatics, which in a number of cases allows
>Hodges/Farstad and Pickering to prefer "minority" readings over "majority".

As I understand what Robinson has said (on this very list), he uses internal
evidence only where the Byzantine text is so divided that there is no true
majority reading (e.g. 2 Cor. 2:17). As you note, he does not use stemmatics.
Hodges and Farstad use stemmatics at only two places (the Pericope and the
Apocalypse), but their introduction appeals to internal evidence in places
where a simple majority may perhaps be found.

Of course, in both cases the differences arise only where there is *some*
division in the majority text.

>>There is also a third group exemplified by Harry Sturz. This group does not
>>claim Byzantine priority, but rather Byzantine *equality* -- that is, they
>>deny Hort's claim that the Byzantine text is secondary. They consider it one
>>of the original text-types, and reconstruct the text on this basis.
>
>>This is actually close to the views of Von Soden, although Sturz values
>>the Byuzantine text above all others while Soden considered it the least
>>of the text-types.
>
>I'm not sure of how many Byzantine supporters actually accept this view. I
>suspect Sturz may be alone on this.

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.

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. Witness the quotation already cited
(in a different post):

>That mere numbers should decide a question of sacred criticism never
>ought to have been asserted by any one....
>
>If you shew us all, or nearly all, the uncials which you prize so
>deservedly, maintaining a variation from the common text which is
>recommended by
>all the best versions and the most ancient Fathers, depend upon it we will not
>urge against such overwhelming testimony the mere number of the cursive
>copies,
>be they ever so numerous on the other side.
>
>That where there is real agreement between all the documents prior to the
>tenth century, the testimony of later MSS., though not to be rejected unheard,
>is to be regarded with much suspicion, and, unless supported by strong
>internal
>evidence, can hardly be adopted.

Again from this post:

>>most Byzantine prioritists feel.
>
>I think this is a slight confusion here re. Byzantine defenders. The
>"theological" argument is _primary_ among TR/KJV onlyism, followed with little
>or no text-critical argumentation. Byzantine supporters make their case
>_primarily_ from the MSS evidence. Hodges/Farstad and Robinson?pierpont
>did NOT
>use theological arguments to produce their GNT, but canons of criticism.
>Secondly, it is not entirely true that "most Byzantine prioritists" hold to
>"it's the majority; it must be right".

This is the danger of summarizing; I did not give the full picture. It is true
that Hodges & Farstad argue for the Byzantine text on the basis of the majority
(and resort to stemmatics in some cases). Robinson prefers the Byzantine
text on
internal grounds. Pickering, on the other hand, while he tries to argue
from the
evidence, finally admits in his Appendix A that he believes in divine
preservation.

One cannot help but feel that this applies to many of the other Byzantine
prioritists. Most belong to conservative denominations (Burgon is an
exception). I can't help but feel that the belief in verbal inspiration
also leads implicitly to a belief in divine preservation.

But no matter how one views the above points, one thing is clear: Both
Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont resorted to internal evidence (stemmatics,
evidence of readings, whatever) only when there is *some* division in the
Byzantine text. So, ultimately, in both cases the majority rules.

Please note: I do not say this to denigrate their editions. I think both
must be
regarded as "rough drafts" (Hodges/Farstad openly admit to this). But they are
rough drafts of two things we need desperately: HF is a rough draft of the
original Byzantine text, and RP is a rough draft of a true edition of the
Majority
Text. We (at least, I) desperately need both.

> [ Burgon ]

Burgon, in fact, offered seven "Notes of Truth":

1. Antiquity
2. Consent of witnesses, or number
3. Variety of evidence, or Catholicity (witnesses from many different areas)
4. Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition
5. Respectability of witnesses, or weight.
6. Evidence of the Entire Passage, or Context
7. Internal considerations, or reasonableness

Most of these would, on their face, be accepted by other textual critics.
Note, however, how they are applied. To be "ancient," a reading must occur by
the twelfth century! Continuity, therefore, means that a reading attested
only in the twelfth through fifteenth centuries is preferable to one found
only in the third through fifth. And the only "respectable" witnesses are
the Byzantine witnesses (Burgon called Aleph, B, and D "scandalously
corrupt" and "liars" -- a charge that surely should not be leveled at any
manuscript that is not a forgery). And "internal considerations" applies
only to "impossible" readings.

In other words, Burgon had good criteria, but he used them in such a way
that only a Byzantine reading need apply.

I concede, as Arcieri's quotations show, that none of these scholars *claim*
that numbers are decisive. But I would challenge you to show me a single
instance
where their preferred reading does not have the support of at least 25% of
the manuscript tradition.

It should be noted that I actually agree with this position in part. I believe
that, if a reading is not supported by at least one text-type, it cannot be
considered original. But I really don't care which text-type it's found in.

>>work, and certainly historical work, on the Byzantine text.
>
>Stemmatic work on the Byz _text_, or merely on some small _family_ within the
>Byz tradition?

It is obviously possible to establish families within the Byzantine text.
(See Wisse.) From there it should be possible (though I don't think
anyone but von Soden has attempted it) to find relationships among
these families. Whether this is called "stemmatic" is, of course, a
matter of definition. But it *does* allow a historical view of the
Byzantine text. And, in theory, this is the approach Hodges & Farstad
advocate.

This is hardly possible for other text-types. For example, Zuntz's
so called "proto-Alexandrian" text-type in Paul has no more than
five witnesses (p46, B, 1739, sa, bo). I believe that both 1739 and bo
should be excluded, leaving only p46 B sa. It's awfully hard to do
historical or stemmatic work with only three witnesses!

***********

All right, that's all for today, folks. Next time I think I'll reply to the
various
postings separately. Maybe we won't wind up feeling so exhausted. :-)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 12:44:35 -0400 (EDT)

> excellence" (obviously a subjective matter).

Do what you will with "majority text" people, but please do not claim that
Byzantine-prioritists defend the Byzantine text primarily or even at all
on theological grounds.  Leave that to Pickering and his crowd.  Neither
myself nor Hodges/Farstad would argue from either statement in quotes
above.

> Hodges & Farstad and Robinson on this very point).

Again, note that I have no objection to stemmatics as applied to the
Byzantine Textform.  My objection is to the stemmatic method of
Hodges/Farstad, and noted previously. A proper stemmatic approach,
focussed on shared error as stemmatically significant is indeed a valid
methodology.  However, aside from family relationships which have already
been established, most MSS of the Byzantine Textform do _not_ show any
stemmatic links which would help in genealogical analysis.  

> knowledgeable and insightful scholar.

At least good scholars can prefer bad texts, is that what you are saying?
I myself have thought precisely the same about most rigorous or reasoned
eclectics.  *;-)

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

---

From: Hubert Arthur Bahr III <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 19:42:23 -0500

> (1) Which text of a version should I use (i.e., is there a critical

Could you put together a "bibliography of critical texts" page on the 
TC website? I have a hard time getting books, but is next to impossible
when I don't know what to ask the bookseller for. 

> ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

It looks like a huge job.  What has been done to this point? And where
could I go to prepare for such an undertaking?

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 14:53:10 -0400 (EDT)

> when I don't know what to ask the bookseller for. 

I'll be glad to start such a page.  I'll just get some bibliography from 
books I have at home, and I will welcome any input.

> could I go to prepare for such an undertaking?

I'll try to put together another short bibliography of works that deal with 
translation technique, retroversion, and similar topics.

Jimmy Adair

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:33:35 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

[quoting Bahr]

> >offer, or is it simply the difficulty of mastering all the

Speaking from my perspective only, the versional testimony is certainly
important, and tends to confirm the weight of existing Greek readings.
When a number of versions read in concert, their testimony obviously has
more weight than when a single version stands alone.  However, I would be
extremely suspicious of any versional testimony which does not possess any
Greek support whatsoever, and would not claim such to possibly reflect the
original text (much the same as my strong opposition to conjectural
readings which was discussed previously).

[Waltz]
 
> majority reading (e.g. 2 Cor. 2:17). 

This is not precisely correct.  I believe in my previous post I spoke to
the matter of internal evidence and its use, and in fact advocate using
internal criteria in regard to _every_ variant unit studied, even if 99%
of the manuscripts read in a single direction.  Internal evidence alone
will not be decisive in cases where (basically) 70% or more of the MSS (=
the Byzantine Textform) are in agreement, but still must be employed to
show that there _is_ an internal evidence support for the Byzantine
reading, and that mere number alone is not the only point of
consideration.  In places where the Byzantine MS support drops below 70%,
then internal evidence plays a more decisive role; but in no case should
internal evidence be altogether dismissed.

> As you note, he does not use stemmatics.

Another clarification: I do not use stemmatics in the manner of Hodges and
Farstad, which means the assumption that identity of reading implies a
stemmatic/genealogical relationship.  I strongly support a stemmatic
approach which is based upon agreement in plain and clear error among MSS;
however, I suggest that there is little evidence among our minuscules to
support close genealogical connections beyond the family groups hitherto
identified (this also was the position of Lake, Blake, and New mentioned
some time ago [HTR 1928]).  Where legitimate stemmatic connections can be
shown to exist, I have no problem in utilizing such.

> that van Bruggen and Wisselink also fall into this camp.

Van Bruggen and Wisselink, from my own contact with them, appear to be
more on the Byzantine-priority side than on the Hodges/Farstad side, since
neither appeal to the H/F brand of stemmatics in regard to the NT text.

> concluded that the Byzantine text was best. 

I would not consider Scrivener an advocate of the Byzantine Textform.  His
own stated preferences make it clear that he was more or less eclectic,
with a lean somewhat toward the Byzantine, but hardly in an overwhelming
manner.  Wallace has pointed this out in his brief article on revisionist
history as applied for the most part by the KJV-Only advocates in regard
to both Scrivener and Hoskier.  While I think that Wallace did overkill in
the opposite direction and tried to hard to make these two both
anti-Byzantine, his point is still valid that neither Scrivener nor
Hoskier really favored the Byzantine Textform en bloc.

> >ought to have been asserted by any one....

With which I would agree.  However, the following quote would not reflect
my methodology, and likely not Burgon's, since Scrivener seemingly
elevates the principle of "variety of evidence" above all else:

> >recommended by all the best versions and the most ancient Fathers,
> >depend upon it we will not urge against such overwhelming testimony the
> >mere number of the cursive copies, be they ever so numerous on the
> >other side.

I would not so swiftly dismiss the mass of the minuscules without
carefully considering the internal evidence of the passage and seeking to
establish clearly which reading was more likely to give rise to all the
others, etc. Patristic testimony can be highly corrupt (e.g. Jn.1:13), and
versional testimony can only go back to the MS or MSS which were utilized
in the formation of that version.  I do not consider each by themselves or
in combination to be automatically as overwhelming as did Scrivener, and
certainly Burgon held an opinion similar to my own on this point.

> >internal evidence, can hardly be adopted.

I would concur more with Scrivener on this point, though I still would be
extremely cautious in its application.  I find only two places in the
entire NT where this principle really has justification (1Jn.2.23 and
3.1), but even there the question remains as to (especially) the 9th
and 10th century minuscules which differ from the earlier data and which
therefore seems to exclude such variant units from Scrivener's principle,
assuming it was strictly to be applied.  The other remaining question is
whether the earliest minuscules can be assumed to reflect independent
testimony from lost uncials from which they presumably were copied, or
whether there is some demonstrable genealogical connection which obviates
their testimony here.

> also leads implicitly to a belief in divine preservation.

Burgon is no exception, since he was an ultra-conservative within the
Anglican church who also held to verbal plenary inspiration and consequent
inerrancy.  I do note that those who favor the Byzantine Textform or
"majority text" position do tend to be within the more conservative camp,
including myself.  However, I would argue for divine preservation of ALL
NT manuscripts of ALL texttypes, in all versions, as manifested by their
sheer quantity as opposed to all other secular or theological works.  

Such an affirmation does _not_ limit or restrict my search for the
original text one iota. As mentioned, I previously held to a reasoned
eclectic position, and had no theological difficulties there; in fact
almost all verbal plenary inerrantist conservatives hold that the modern
eclectic text is closest to the originals -- and these certainly are not
compartmentalizing their inerrantist views in order to accept a text which
they believe not to be "preserved."  

The error lies with those who claim that divine preservation _must_ of
necessity lead to a specific single text as equal to the autograph, and
these tend to be of the KJV-Only variety rather than among those who
actually deal with NT textual criticism. 

> Byzantine text. So, ultimately, in both cases the majority rules.

Still an oversimplification: internal evidence was _regularly_ utilized; 
however, the case of a strong Byzantine majority forced the question as to
whether internal evidence principles tend to _support_ such a
strongly-supported reading, and not the reverse process of first
determining the best reading on internal principles and then opposing such
to the external evidence when they differ, and automatically assuming the
internal criteria to be superior in virtually all cases of such
disagreement.  Were such to be done, there obviously would be _no_
"Byzantine priority" case or position.

> must be regarded as "rough drafts" (Hodges/Farstad openly admit to
> this). But they are rough drafts of two things we need desperately: HF
> is a rough draft of the original Byzantine text, and RP is a rough draft
> of a true edition of the Majority Text. We (at least, I) desperately
> need both.

I would suggest you have the items reversed: R/P is the "rough draft" of
the Byzantine Textform ("original Byzantine text"), while H/F is the
"rough draft" of the "majority text".  While it is true that both editions
are "tentative" to some degree, I believe that H/F claims to be far more
tentative than it is, since they have made _no_ changes to their text
since it was originally published, save for correction of typo errors. 
The R/P text on the other hand, has made at least six (minor) alterations
to its base text since it first appeared in electronic form, and probably
30 or so changes since it originally appeared as typescript notes in the
1970s.  Three alterations were made just within the past few months as a
result of considering evidence found in the _Text und Textwert_ volumes. 

I would suggest, however, that "rough draft" is really an inappropriate
term.  Basically (as stated in the Introduction to my edition) the main
items of the Byzantine Textform are known and are secure. The only items
which remain tentative are some minutiae, which will be corrected from
time to time, as evidence becomes available.  I do not expect to see any
changes whatsoever in the H/F edition, so far as I can perceive from my
correspondence and contact with the editors tends to show.

> the twelfth century! 

Are we certainly quoting Burgon here, or is he being misread?  Burgon is
VERY strong on the point of "antiquity" being within the first 6 centuries
of the Christian era.  He might not consider readings which appear later
than the 12th century, but any reading attested only from the 12th century
onward he would certainly _not_ consider to be "ancient". 

> Continuity, therefore, means that a reading attested
> only in the third through fifth. 

This too is a gross distortion.  Burgon made it absolutely clear that
"continuity" indicated that a reading _had_ to show some line stretching
back to at least the period of antiquity.  Burgon would _never_ consider
that a reading transmitted _only_ from century XII-XV would be more
original than one found in earlier centuries.  He _would_, however,
consider that a reading found _only_ in centuries III-V with no _further_
continuity would be suspect as non-original.

> And the only "respectable" witnesses are
> manuscript that is not a forgery). 

Agreed that Burgon was greatly in error in calling MSS by such names, but
anyone who has read Burgon knows his abrasive style and should be able to
go beyond that to the main point.

"Respectability of witnesses" remains a valid point, which is itself
exemplified by the MSS cited when compared against each other. At any
given point of difference (which are many) all three MSS cannot be correct
as reflecting the autograph, so one or two of them at any variant unit
must present a false reading.  

As the number of such false readings increases, certainly the character of
those witnesses can be increasingly called into question, though in a more
civil atmosphere we would do much as did Colwell when describing the three
early papyri in his "Scribal Habits" article: i.e., do not trust a certain
MS in regard to additions;  do not trust another in regard to omissions;
do not trust another in regard to transpositions, etc.  The scribal
character of ALL manuscripts should be ascertained (which is a very slow
process), and those peculiarities noted and applied in any given variant
unit to include or exclude witnesses based upon their know proclivities.

My own study of scribal habits in MSS of the Apocalypse showed a wide
variety of skill and care in the copying habits of scribes, whether uncial
or minuscule-based.  Even in the Apocalypse, Sinaiticus ended up as one of
the most "editorial" and scribally corrupt MSS, followed closely by MS C,
and some other MSS, some also early.  There certainly is no question in my
mind as to the proper application of the "respectability" canon as Burgon
intended it (though without his invective).

> And "internal considerations" applies

This point was not intended to reflect what we today term "internal
evidence", but rather what Burgon would term "internal consistency and
reasonableness" of readings, on the assumption that a scribe would not
knowingly create an illogical or contradictory reading which would be
perpetuated in great quantity without further correction.  Any reading
which seems "unreasonable" (e.g. "Jeremiah" in Mt.27.9) yet which _was_
perpetuated in great quantity would more likely be original than the
creation of a scribe at a point subsequent to the autograph.

It should be noted also that Burgon never ruled out internal evidence -- 
indeed, his (posthumous) "Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional
Text" volume is a virtual catalog of scribal corruptions and their causes
as well as their resolution based upon internal criteria.

> that only a Byzantine reading need apply.

Once more I think this is an oversimplification.  There are places where
Burgon himself did _not_ favor a numerically superior reading (where I
might identify such as "Byzantine") due to his other criteria.  I probably
am more tied to the Byzantine Textform based upon an integrated theory of
transmission than was Burgon.  All readings can apply; however only
Byzantine readings will be hired (noting of course that numerical majority
does _not_ always equal "Byzantine"). 

> instance where their preferred reading does not have the support of at
> least 25% of the manuscript tradition.

Scrivener did not accept the Pericope Adultera. The omission certainly
does _not_ have at least 25% of the MS tradition.  There probably are
more, but this is one case I know of for certain.  

Yet what would you expect from scholars like Burgon or Scrivener or even
myself?  That we can "prove" we are somehow independent and not
pro-Byzantine automatons merely by selecting 10 readings with 5% support
or the like?  This would be tantamount to asking Metzger to prove he is an
open minded scholar by preferring Byzantine readings at least 50% of the
time.  One cannot be expected to abandon the leading principles of his or
her theory merely to prove some nebulous point.  Rather, we should be
pleased to find these various scholars acting in accordance with and not
contrary to the principles of their respective theories.

> considered original. But I really don't care which text-type it's found in.

My Byzantine preference and A.C.Clark's unilateral preference for the
Western text are also so _easy_ also for a textual critic to follow.  You
almost don't even have to _think_!  Why get bogged down in eclectic
decision making all the time, and frustrate the brain. *;-) 
 
(I _am_ being sarcastic, but if one doesn't really care _which_ texttype 
a reading comes from, the task seems irrelevant).

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 12:27:45 -0700

On Date: Fri, 25 Oct 199, Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
wrote:

[I'll omit much of this, as I either concede Robinson's expertise or
think our differences more a matter of terminology than of substance.
BTW -- I should concede that some of my statements, e.g. concerning
Burgon, may be in error; I have not seen most of his works, and own
none of them. Perforce I looked up his "Notes of Truth" from
Pickering; obviously Pickering commentary on the notes was more
Pickering than Burgon -- but that was not evident from the book....]

[ ... ]

>manner.

I thought that was what I said. :-)

[ ... ]

>inerrancy.

I meant simply that Burgon belonged to a denomination not inherently
fundamentalist. I suppose it could be argued that Anglican was as
conservative as you could get in nineteenth century Britain. :-)

[ ... ]

>original text one iota.

Nor did I intend to imply such.

[ ... ]

>actually deal with NT textual criticism.

Agreed.

>"Byzantine priority" case or position.

Perhaps I should clarify what I said: Hort's approach, and mine -- and,
I believe, Maurice Robinson's -- *starts* by finding text-types, then
uses internal evidence to evaluate them, then is based primarily on
the text-types. Of course internal evidence is used -- but it is used
more at the early stage, and less at the late stage, than is usually
the case with the "reasoned eclectic" school.

>correspondence and contact with the editors tends to show.

By "rough draft" I did not mean that there is a "final draft" impending;
I meant that our knowledge is inadequate to produce a final draft. H/F
admit that their volume is constructed based largely on von Soden. Ultimately
a majority text edition should be constructed from the manuscripts.

I would agree that we generally know the readings of the Majority text form.
But -- as our friend 2 Cor. 2:17 shows -- there are cases where we need to
make an adjustment. Certainly we *cannot* treat the TR as "the Byzantine
text." This is disasterous -- no matter *which* textual school you belong to.

>onward he would certainly _not_ consider to be "ancient".

My fault. This is Pickering's version of The Gospel According to Burgon.

>continuity would be suspect as non-original.

Believe it or not, I'm open to this point, too. At least in Paul and the
Catholics, where there is so little early material, and so much good late
material. :-)

Again, I was following Pickering's version of Burgon.

Having read this and Robinson's following post, I promise never again
to use Pickering as an example of a Majority Text advocate.

>intended it (though without his invective).

Again, I agree. I think it very important to *know* the witnesses.Most
manuscripts have some sort of peculiar errors, which make them more or
less "respectable" for different variants -- e.g. the article by Colwell
(which is a masterpiece of its type) shows that p45 is very susceptible
to add/omit. Aleph is particularly subject to loss (note that I agree
with Robinson on this). My own oft-quoted 1739 seems to have a certain
habit of changing (often deleting) particles at the beginning of a
sentence. (Though I beg you, folks, *do not* consider that an assured
result. Since I don't have complete collations for most of the other
members of family 1739, I can't tell if this is characteristic of 1739
itself or of its text-type.)

>creation of a scribe at a point subsequent to the autograph.

To add point to this (note that I again agree with Robinson), note that
Pickering [p. 137] offered five examples of this phenomenon -- and in only
one of them could I feel really certain as to what variant he was arguing for!

[ ... ]

>more, but this is one case I know of for certain.

But Scrivener, as noted, is not a Burgonian.

>contrary to the principles of their respective theories.

I am not trying to argue. I have the strange feeling that Maurice thinks
I am "out to get him." Even if I were out to get somebody (and I hope that
I am not), I would be going after Hills or Pickering or one of the real
nuts. (As, in fact, it turned out I was doing. :-) I *don't* believe in
Byzantine priority -- but the position needs to be examined and ably debated.

Nor do I expect you to depart from your criteria. As they say of generals
in wartime, better to be wrong and decisive than to be right and indecisive.
My point was not an attack on your method; it was a description of the
general thrust of your method. If that is *not* the general thrust, then
you can hardly be a Byzantine prioritist. :-)

>decision making all the time, and frustrate the brain. *;-)

I'm not sure how to react to that one, except to say that, yes, a preference
for one text-type *does* make things easier. I've been stewing all morning over
Mark 1:28, for instance. I could make a good case for any of the four readings
there.

Let's look at it another way. In the text of 1 Thessalonians, my methods gave
me 16 readings (1:4, 5b, 5c, 2:16, 3:1, 13b, 13c, 4:1a, 8a, 14, 5:9a, 9b, 10,
13b, 13c, 21) where I really am not sure of the text, and another 32 (1:5a, 7,
8, 9, 10, 2:4, 5, 7, 12, 13a, 13b, 3:2, 4, 5, 13a, 4:1b, 2, 8b, 9, 10, 11, 13a,
13b, 5:3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 13a, 15a, 15b, 25, 27) where I have some doubts.
Frustrating? Assuredly. But is it better to deny my uncertainty?

>a reading comes from, the task seems irrelevant).

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the point. Why does a willingness to
follow multiple text-types make the task irrelevant?

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:20:10 -0400 (EDT)

[quoting Jimmy Adair]

> > criticism.  No wonder the versions are so neglected!

I think Jimmy has well summarized the situation with versional evidence,
and these questions are all of great significance when working with
versional testimony.  Thank you Jimmy for this summary!

> could I go to prepare for such an undertaking?

There what been much work done on individual versions, but I think the
beginning point for anyone should be Metzger's "Early Versions of the NT"
book, with special attention given to the "Limitations" section regarding
the use of each version when attempting to determine its significance for
the restoration of the original text.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:20:23 -0400 (EDT)

> Pickering than Burgon -- but that was not evident from the book....]

I can assure you that Pickering's summary of Burgon does not do justice to
what Burgon originally wrote, since Burgon devoted a separate chapter to
each of his "notes of truth" and Pickering was overly-brief and not
entirely accurate in his handling of Burgon.

> conservative as you could get in nineteenth century Britain. :-)

Not in light of the Oxford Movement, the Newman situation, and other
occurrences during the 19th century.  Burgon reflected the older, more
conservative Anglicanism which was by then departing.

> the case with the "reasoned eclectic" school.

With Hort the process was first to use internal criteria to select the
"best" readings, then to determine which MSS were the "best MSS" by
possession of the greater quantity of those "best" readings.  Once the
"best MSS" were established, then the readings were once more examined to
revise the previous opinions as to "best" in light of the testimony of the
"best" MSS. (Complicated process, that).

With my process the primary issue is determining what reading reflects or
best reflects the Byzantine Textform, based upon a number of external
criteria.  Once a clear Byzantine reading is determined, it is then
examined from an internal evidence perspective.  

If the Byzantine reading has less than 70% external support among MSS of
its texttype, then the internal evidence becomes extremely significant for
the determination of the text; otherwise, the question is raised as to
which reading appears to be most strongly supported by the internal
evidence, but such is not in itself decisive should such conflict with the
larger quantity of external evidence (and yes, there have been a very few
places where it appears to me that the internal evidence supports the
quantitatively-superior non-Byzantine reading -- but these are in a small
minority.  In most cases I find the internal criteria do tend to support
the Byzantine reading.

> a majority text edition should be constructed from the manuscripts.

This is correct.  However, it would not take more than a significant
representative sample (say 10% or about 500 MSS) in order to establish a
highly accurate Byzantine Textform edition.  For the most part, Von
Soden's K-groups are substantiated and hold up well as shown in the "M"
readings of Nestle-Aland and also in the _Text und Textwert_ variant
units, so the text as currently published is considered quite secure as a
reflection of the Byzantine Textform.

There still is the terminology matter which needs correction, to avoid
confusion: As I noted, <<I would suggest you have the items reversed: R/P
is the "rough draft" of the Byzantine Textform ("original Byzantine
text"), while H/F is the "rough draft" of the "majority text".>>

> text." This is disasterous -- no matter *which* textual school you belong to.

Certainly not.  But of course none of the "majority text" or pro-Byzantine
supporters would identify the TR with the Byzantine text, although it is
clearly more Byzantine than anything else.

> My fault. This is Pickering's version of The Gospel According to Burgon.

Obviously a corruption made by heretics. *;-)

> to use Pickering as an example of a Majority Text advocate.

But not to throw out the entire baby with the bathwater: when Pickering
wrote his book, he was considered to be within the "majority text" camp,
even though there were even at that time serious disagreements with
Pickering from the remainder of us who fall into that category.  From the
beginning, for example, Pickering's view of transmissional history was
called into question by the rest of us. 

> But Scrivener, as noted, is not a Burgonian.

Fully agreed, but he was lumped into the discussion by Arcieri.  For the
remaining "Burgonian" types, I suspect few readings favored by them (or
myself) would ever have less than 25% support, though in theory there is
no cutoff line of demarcation.  I know that I myself have argued at least
once for the possible authenticity of a reading as Byzantine which had
around 40% support (though there the evidence was divided in three or more
ways).  

> I am "out to get him." 

No, not at all.  I merely am reacting to what seems to be an impossible
challenge within the integrity of a consistently applied theory.

> follow multiple text-types make the task irrelevant?

The point was to be taken only if it _really_ did not matter, and if
textual criticism were merely to be performed on a whim or by flipping a
coin.  An eclectic methodology certainly can construct a text on what it
sincerely believes to be solid grounds; I merely call that method into
question, suggesting that the ground is somewhat less solid than presumed.