Subject: Re: Some comments on the "textual theories" discussion

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 16:47:03 -0400

In answer to Dr. Robinson's post of 26 Oct (the 11:39 AM one...), in which
he raised the following points:

(1) Q:  Isn't the statement I attribute to Wextcott actually from Burkitt's
appendix to the second edition?

      A:  No.  Look at the volume.  Burkitt's section is clearly identified.
(Metzger proffered the same suggestion when I drew his attention to the
statement;  I checked then to see if he was correct;  he was not).

(2) Q: >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." 

     A: Go and reread the quote, and my presentation of it.  I said:

>>> 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"

        First,  I don't see what is so difficult about it.  Westcott poses a
rhetorical question ("Can the combination of the Vetus Syra and the Vetus
Latina outweight the Greeks?"), and then answers it in the affirmative ("the
careful examination of passages does indeed point to that conclusion").
What Robinson means by "not necessarily override" is unclear.   I leave it
to the list members to read Westcott's statement for themselves and discern
Westcott's meaning.

        Second, let me distance myself from Westcott's assertion, and say
that *I* would not apply a mechanical rule like this here--or anywhere
else--in textual criticism.  Note that in my introduction, I said "in some
cases," for, indeed, *in some cases* there seems to be good reason to follow
the conjunction of the oldest of the Vetus Latina and the Vetus Syra (esp.
the older Syr.sin) against alaph + B;  in other cases, not.

(3)  Dr. Robinson goes on:

>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. 

He avoids my point (as he did on a different issue last summer) by changing
it.  I am *not* concerned with what theory the "majority" of
conservative/fundamentalist (his words) NT scholars favour.  I am concerned
with the theological "home" of those (few?) who favor Byzantine priority.
It appears to be limited--exclusively, in my (admittedly, limited)
experience--to those who are members of/associated with/studied at/adhear to
churches/schools/theologies which would be characterized as
fundamentalist/charismatic/conservative/"right"/"traditionalist".  Our
European members have commented on the oddity of the attention given TR and
Byzantine priority here in N. America, and that is correct, for Europe is
much more liberal theologically and, in fact, is undergoing a process often
referred to as "de-Christianization."  One can verify that by  looking at
the reverse:  I do not know--again, in my limited experience--of any textual
scholars who advocate Byz priority and are associated with any
"liberal"/humanist/secularist/"left wing"/"progressive"/"main-stream"
schools/churches/theologies:  it is not taught as the "default" theory in
main-line seminaries (Lutheran, Episcopal, etc.), nor at the leading
"secular" theological centers: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Chicago, Muenster,
Oxford, Cambridge, Leiden, Trondheim, Upsala, or even at  the dual
religious/secular centers such as Rome, Louvain, Georgetown, etc., etc.  I
rest my case.

Dr. Robinson continues:

> 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. 

It was Dr. Robinson who characterized one of my posts last summer as "nearly
interminable," if I recall correctly (it was long, but certainly no longer
than some of his, and the reason for its length was that it was filled with
texts).  I leave it to the list to decide who is making "ad hominem"
arguments--or even who has deposited more bytes on the list.

I must also observe that I find it odd that no one--even those defending the
Byz Text--have introduced the most significant work on the subject in recent
years into the discussion.  That work is by a Muenster student of the
Alands, Klaus Wachtel.  The title is *Der Byzantinische Text der
Katholischen Briefe*, ANTT 24 (De Gruyter, 1995).  He presented a paper on
the subject in the Textual Criticism seminar of the SNTS in Strasbourg, last
summer, which I summarize (he has occasionally be on the list, and is
invited to present his work himself).  His findings--based on extensive
analysis of the TEXT--are that the disparagement traditionally accorded the
Byzantine text is unwarranted.  It often can and does preserve very old
readings--but usually in concord with other earlier witnesses.  Muenster has
found it useful to use the Byzantine text as one of their tools when
deciding between conflicting ancient readings (e.g., where alaph divides
from B, or a few minuscules offer a reading against the uncials).  Wachtel
feels it should be valued more highly than it is--but, of couse, he stops
far short of saying it is the "best" text.  Why is this study ignored?

Another point for the Byzantine text people:  I have an article for the
Baarda Festschrift (Brill 1997) which will adduce textual evidence for the
existence and use of the *pericope adulterae* in the first half of the
second century.  This evidence increases the likelihood that the *pericope*
MAY have been part of John at that date (the earliest evidence listed in all
the commentaries is the Didascalia Apostolorum [early thrid cent.]).  Since
it is in the Byzantine text, and many Byz people feel it was part of the
earliest version of John, this is ammunition for their position, and again I
give it to them.  But of course, finding such bits of hard, textual evidence
takes time and effort--and note that I am NOT concerned with finding only
evidence which supports MY position.  Let's hear some instances where the
Byzantine text people feel that text doesn't preserve the best reading!

(4) Robinson concludes by saying that:

>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.
>...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.

If one is trying to reconstruct the text of the NT "in toto," then Dr.
Robinson is correct.  But I--and most textual critics who are NOT
enthusiastic adherents of Bezaean or Alexandrian or Byzantine priority--are
not trying to do that.  I work with one variant, one verse, one pericope at
a time, for I know that the theological pressures upon and the transmission
history of each pericope (indeed, the evidence for each pericope) have been
different.  IMHO, Robinson's complaint is that we are all not as he is:
zealous defenders of a particular text-type or manuscript.  But that is
precisely what many find so absurd.  It is rather like adhering to one
church, and having to defend all of its doctrines and practices as "the
best" in all cases.  Few would do that;  life and the history of any
religion are too complex--if you know it.  It is precisely that analogy
which leads some to make the connection between such "absolutist" positions
theologically and such absolutist positions in terms of the text (we are
back to July, folks:  look up the posts).

>No wonder Metzger tries to excuse the current situation by
>claiming the task is an "art" rather than a "science"!

Metzger is merely paraphrasing A.E. Housman, who called textual criticsm
BOTH an "art" and a "science".  I reproduce Housman's statement (from a
lecture given to the Classical Association in 1921) in *Tatian's
Diatessaron*, p. 373, n. 31.  It is interesting that Housman (like most, if
not all Classicists), went where the evidence led him, and did not argue
that a single MS or family always preserved the "best" reading.  (The entire
lecture, "The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism," Proceedings of
the Class. Assoc. 18 [1921], pp. 67-84, is, IMHO, one of the most profound
utterances on the praxis of textual criticism.  For this list, Housman's
comments on "hard and fast rules" are quite pertinent, and his insights useful.)

>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.

No it is not. But it sure helps!   We live in a free land, and anyone can do
anything they want.  But we also know the consequences of that:  a Harvard
diploma is worth more than a diploma from Podunk U.  In other words, anyone
can produce or hold to a theory, but not all theories are of equal worth or
validity.   Example:  I have many English-only pious undergrads who enter my
classes certain that the "theory" they received is correct (KJV priority is
the norm)--without even knowing in what language the NT was originally
written.  They are "unhappy campers" when they learn that there is a bit
more to the game than just the KJV...  They learn, painfully, that old
lesson that humanity constantly has to relearn:  believing something does
not make it true.  They also learn that the more one knows, the more complex
the pattern discerned, and the more difficult it is to create a
comprehensive theory.

My apoligies in advance to Dr. Robinson for the "interminably long" post.

--Petersen, Penn State University.

PS:  I'll be away for the next week.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:38:40 -0400 (EDT)

> statement;  I checked then to see if he was correct;  he was not).

I will defer to Dr. Petersen here, since I only have access to the 1881
W-H volume (though I do have a copy of Burkitt's 1896 appendix).  I had
not noticed any specific change in the main text on cursory examination,
so this probably explains why Metzger also asked the same question.

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

I still read "raises the question" as equivalent to "not decisively
answers it".  The final sentence does appear to "point to the conclusion"
which the question raises, but I am not fully convinced as to whether
Westcott here is suggesting to abandon Aleph/B in such places.  It may be
that Westcott was overwhelmed by recent discovery in this area much as was
Tischendorf upon examination of Aleph, and in fact was ready to abandon
the principles he and Hort had worked on for over 30 years, though this
still seems unlikely to me.

> careful examination of passages does indeed point to that conclusion").

Which is the correct quote? That the combination "would point to the
conclusion" or "does indeed point to that conclusion"?  The first form
seems more tentative, so I think the precise words are needed here.

>I leave it

As do I.

> >... I still fail to see the point in statements to the

Please allow my continued objection to what remains to me an _ad hominem_
argument on this point (which point I am _not_ avoiding).  

The problem here _still_ remains that, if conservative/fundamentalist or
charismatic theology were somehow inclined to support what might be
perceived as a more conservative texttype, why then have not a large
number of those conservative scholars in the US favored such?  

Certainly, unless we have a martyr complex, every one of us who knowingly
have accepted this "despised" minority position are not exactly in it for
either fame or fortune.  We have, however, basically arrived at certain
conclusions based upon a thorough examination of the evidence. 

I know of not one of the other pro-Byzantine or majority text advocates
around today who had not previously been (like myself) supportive of the
standard reasoned eclectic methodology before independently changing our
position.  As I have repeatedly mentioned regarding my own situation, blame
Kenneth W. Clark for setting me on the pro-Byzantine route; he most
certainly was not a theological conservative to any degree. 

Were I still convinced of the superiority of the reasoned eclectic
position, I certainly would not be standing outside of the mainstream of
even conservative scholarly opinion.  Therefore I continue to object to
_ad hominem_ associations which seem to imply that I hold my position
somehow because of my other conservative theological views, just as I
would not suggest that the remainder of American conservatives hold to the
modern eclectic position because they must be closet liberals.  It is the
_theory_ which must be dealt with, and not the theological views of its
advocates, unless such can be shown to drive the theory in some compelling
fashion. 

I had already mentioned Van Bruggen and Wisselink as well as the Roman
Catholic Hugh Pope and even Bover (according to O'Callaghan) as either
leaning or holding the same views, and these are not American and may or
may not be "conservative" in various senses (I really do not know), but
certainly nowhere near the fundamentalist or charismatic wings of American
Christianity.  If the discussion is limited only to American advocates of
the Byzantine or majority text position, Petersen's assessment may be
correct, but it then is quite incorrect to ignore the European contingent
which also advocates some form of pro-Byzantine originality.

> Our
> Byzantine priority here in N. America

Actually, aside from this list, the Greek NT's of Hodges/Farstad and
myself, and a few papers presented to the ETS in this country by me, what
attention is really being given to anything dealing with majority text
theory or Byzantine priority.  The negative attention given by Holmes,
Fee, and Wallace is hardly of significance for most scholars, and I am
certain that pro-Byzantine theory rarely comes up in the SBL, if at all.
Yet the European community appears to think that the US is almost
dominated by the pro-Byzantine faction.  Who knows?  Maybe we have more
impact overseas than here, but I doubt it. *;-)

> I do not know--again, in my limited experience--of any textual
> schools/churches/theologies

And should it ever be so taught, would this suddenly commend the theory?
I think not.  Still an _ad hominem_ critique.

> it is not taught as the "default" theory in

Nor is it taught as the "default" theory in any conservative school that I
know (though I do present it as one theory among equals at my own
seminary), and I am certain that Dan Wallace (who is not an advocate) 
presents it equally and fairly at his own seminary.  I certainly am not
opposed to balance in teaching, but I would question the wisdom of not
even mentioning opposing hypotheses at all, and presenting all as a single
"default" hypothesis.

> arguments--or even who has deposited more bytes on the list.

I will cheerfully admit to making my ten fingers function more frequently
on the list than Dr. Petersen......but what does length of posting have to
do with the question of _ad hominem_ argumentation?

> Katholischen Briefe*, ANTT 24 (De Gruyter, 1995).  

Wachtel has apparently made a significant contribution to the study of the
Byzantine Textform, and I find some of his arguments very helpful for
framing elements of my own case, especially in regard to stemmatic
considerations.  I too would like Dr. Wachtel to elaborate regarding his
theories on the tc-list.

[from summary of Wachtel regarding the Byzantine text:]

> It often can and does preserve very old
> readings--but usually in concord with other earlier witnesses.  

This precisely has been one of my primary claims, though my definition of
"often" probably differs from that of Wachtel.  The point I have tried to
make previously has been in regard to the combined Alexandrian-Byzantine
or combined Western-Byzantine readings, which from the modern eclectic
perspective are merely "ancient" readings of either the Alexandrian or
Western texts which later were adopted into the Byzantine Textform, but
which from a Byzantine-priority position are actually original readings
from which the Alexandrian or Western texttypes happened not to depart. 
As Wachtel points out, in almost all cases, a Byzantine reading has
support from earlier witnesses. It is only in the very few "distinctive
Byzantine readings" (Hort's term) where the Alexandrian and Western texts
_both_ depart from the Byzantine.

> Wachtel

Wachtel of course will not claim that the Byzantine is the best text, but
that it must be regarded far more highly than most modern eclectics are
willing to do.  However, the real question is not the preference for
individual Byzantine variant readings, with or without support from the
Alexandrian or Western witnesses, but with the overall _pattern_ of
readings which characterize the Byzantine Textform -- but this delves into
the history of transmission where most modern eclectics do not venture.  It
is to Wachtel's credit that he does look at the transmission issue and at
the pattern of Byzantine readings question, even though he does not come
to the same conclusion as do I.

> give it to them.  

Thank you for the help.  Of course the slim 2nd century evidence of the
"woman accused of many sins" being a possible allusion to the pericope may
have merit, but anything more substantial will naturally be welcome. My
position would not rise or fall, however, on the presence of such
evidence, but if substantial, it will be of help.

> But of course, finding such bits of hard, textual evidence

The Byzantine people might willingly help sift for evidence that will not
directly support their position, but I do think it a bit much to require
that the abandonment of their principles is requisite to prove their
scholarly neutrality.  That probably will happen as soon as an eclectic
scholar will admit that all the internal principles he relies on cannot
supersede the external evidence of the Byzantine Textform. *;-)

> different.  

Which reflects the heart of my critique against the modern eclectic method
as currently practiced: working on one variant unit at a time, within one
verse at at time, and one pericope at at time is well and good, but
without some sort of integrated theory of transmission, all the eclectic
decisions put together do not create the original text in any form which
can maintain historical validity.  

The critique of Colwell and Clark remains valid: the text is treated as if
it was dispersed to the four winds shortly after completion, and critics
try to fit all kinds of variants back into the puzzle in the hope that
some of them _might_ reflect the original; yet any normal view of
transmissional history would not and could not argue in such a manner when
attempting to determine the original text.  The best transmissional
explanation still remains that _some_ MS, _some_ version, _some_ family,
_some_ texttype _must_ reflect the original text better than anything an
eclectic method might put together.  

In this, Westcott and Hort were correct: they certainly began working from
an eclectic model, but once they had determined what to them were the
"best MSS", the readings chosen eclectically were then all revised to
concur with the hard data of those "best MSS" and not the reverse.  In the
end, _some_ form of external evidence must dominate;  otherwise everything
remains shifting sand (this all is Colwell, Clark and Epp -- no need to
blame Robinson for such comments). 

> IMHO, Robinson's complaint is that we are all not as he is:
> precisely what many find so absurd.  

As noted, I do think that the rigorous eclectic procedure is wanting, but
such also is the view of the reasoned eclectics.  I merely take the
situation one step further, and maintain that there has to be some solid
external mooring for even a reasoned eclectic approach (and I care not
whether that be in the "best MS", group of MSS, family, or texttype).
Without such, there can be no evidence that any reasoned eclectic decision
is correct in any given case, and certainly not when the text of any given
book or even pericope is taken as a whole.

> comments on "hard and fast rules" are quite pertinent, and his insights useful.)

I will concur regarding the value of Housman's comments (often quite
satirical and biting).  However, as a Classicist and not a New Testament
scholar, Housman must be taken within the proper context of dealing with
an extremely limited number of MSS of any classical work (Juvenal and
M.Manilius are among his best known editions), and having to deal with a
world in which conjectural emendation prevailed and undue favoritism
existed for "best" MSS where genealogical stemmas had been constructed for
the entire MS tradition.  Housman protested within that world to the
effect that (I paraphrase) "no MS is more important than common sense" and
that the stemmaticians were themselves for the most part corrupt.  Were
Housman thrust into the NT text-critical realm, I suspect some very
different views might arise from his pen than anything yet seen within the
present discussion.
 
> diploma is worth more than a diploma from Podunk U.  

More _ad hominem_, as many Harvard graduates I am sure will attest
regarding some of their classmates. *;-)  Yet I understand the
implication: in terms of outward reputation, the Harvard degree might
commend more respect, but this should not disparage the scholar who may
have studied under a specialist at Podunk.  I need only remind this list
that the KJV-Only defender Edward F. Hills had his Th.D. from Harvard in
hand, while D.A.Waite (another KJV-Only defender still living) has his
Ph.D. from Purdue.  

> In other words, anyone
> validity.   

Precisely.  And this is my main complaint against modern eclectic theory in
contrast to a theory based more on external evidence.  But different
theories will be held by different persons, and there is precious little
one can do to alter perceptions (I should know).

> Example:  I have many English-only pious undergrads who enter my
> written.  

You seriously have KJV-Only students entering your classes up there?
Thankfully by the time they show up at our seminary most of them have
either abandoned that view or stopped with their B.A. degree. *;-)

> My apoligies in advance to Dr. Robinson for the "interminably long" post.

My apologies to the entire list for the same. *;-)

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

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:42:48 -0700

I won't quote most of this message, but I want to defend Maurice Robinson.
We don't often agree, but I think his perspective is valuable and useful.
So I'll add my two cents in his support at various points.

>On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, William L. Petersen wrote:

[ ... ]

>answers it".

I agree with Robinson. Westcott was allowing the possibility that OL+OS
*might* be stronger than B plus Aleph -- but it need not be so, and
certainly not in all instances. Even if the possibility be conceded,
we must look at the actual readings involved, not just some theoretical
comparison of groups.

[ ... ]

>> it.

Even allowing that Robinson is not responding to the point being raised
(and that can certainly happen; he's failed to respond to what I meant and
I have failed to respond to what he meant), that does not mean he is
dodging the argument. He just views the argument in a different light.

[ ... ]
>theory or Byzantine priority.

I have to agree with this. It's hard to hear the arguments of the
Byzantine prioritists. The only works of the school that I own
are Hodges & Farstad and Pickering -- and Pickering I found at a
used bookstore. The local seminary, as best I could tell, has only H&F.
That's not much exposure....

[ ... ]
>even mentioning opposing hypotheses at all, and presenting all as a single

Just an observation: The fact that a theory is widely accepted does
*not* make it right. It doesn't make it wrong, but Robinson is right
to say that such opinions do not constitute evidence.

>do with the question of _ad hominem_ argumentation?

I think it only reasonable that Robinson post more to this list than others.
After all, he stands *alone*. (Believe me, Maurice, I sympathise. :-) If
he is to defend his position -- as he so ably does -- of *course* he must
spend more time and effort at it. It certainly doesn't mean that he
dominates the list.

[ ... ]
>_both_ depart from the Byzantine.

I think this point worth remembering by all of us: The Byzantine text
very rarely creates readings. Almost all of its readings are found in
some other text-type (what I would call an earlier text-type). In
that sense, at least, it is the most conservative of text-types.

[ ... ]

>supersede the external evidence of the Byzantine Textform. *;-)

It is one thing to ask Byzantine people to admit exceptions to their
theory. But Robinson is right -- why should *he* have to look for them?
Isn't that *our* job?

[ ... ]

>blame Robinson for such comments).

To prove the point, see the articles Robinson and I posted earlier.

[ ... ]

>> comments on "hard and fast rules" are quite pertinent, and his insights

Snide comment from one whose training is in physics and math: If textual
critics want their discipline treated as a science, why don't they use a
more scientific approach?

Internal criticism, after all, is about 80% subjective -- i.e. completely
unscientific.

[ ... ]

>> diploma is worth more than a diploma from Podunk U.

But less worthwhile than an open and intelligent mind. :-)

[ ... ]

>My apologies to the entire list for the same. *;-)

And mine for adding fuel to the fire. :-) Once again let me stress: I don't
agree with Robinson (obviously). But his work should be examined on its
merits, or lack thereof. How about some examples, folks?

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 06:35:30 -0500 (EST)

On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

}j> [ ... ]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 06:47:35 -0500 (EST)

[Lengthy Defense of Robinson omitted]

> that sense, at least, it is the most conservative of text-types.

Viewed from the other perspective, this is indeed what I have been saying.
W-H assumed that the Byzantine simply "adopted" probably about 98% of the
readings of either the Alexandrian or Western texttypes, with the other 2%
or so actually conflating the readings of the opposed texttypes.  A
Byzantine-priority perspective views the same phenomenon as merely places
where the Alexandrian or Western texttypes did not happen to depart from
the Byzantine original (remember, for 90% of the Greek NT _no_ texttype
departed from the "majority" testimony).  Therefore an
Alexandrian/Byzantine or Western/Byzantine combination is seen merely to
reflect the original text, and not a subsequent development of it as
regards the Byzantine.

> Internal criticism, after all, is about 80% subjective -- i.e. completely

Since I continue to use and maintain the validity of internal evidence, I
need to respond on this point in particular.  I do not think all internal
criticism is unscientific, but I do think that a haphazard application of
internal principles, selecting whatever principle best happens to support
the reading found in the favored MSS, and generally using those principles
in that fashion merely to discredit the Byzantine reading is invalid.  Yet
Metzger applies internal principles in this manner throughout his "Textual
Commentary."  My own use of internal principles is followed far more
strictly, and does not include some of the principles adduced by most
eclectic scholars, as well as adds in some other principles which most
eclectics do not choose to apply.  Even so, there remains a good deal of
overlap, and I do not think anyone who has seen my previous comments on
this list would conclude that I do not make use of internal principles in
a scientific manner rather than that of the "artiste".

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 09:36:59 -0700

On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]> wrote,
in part:

[ ... ]
>a scientific manner rather than that of the "artiste".

Let me stress that I do not think we can do away with internal evidence
entirely. There will always be places where the manuscripts *cannot*
settle things for us.

But I observe -- and we all know this to be true -- that different
critics can take *the same* manuscript evidence, and almost the same
list of critical criteria -- and produce editions which differ in
hundreds or thousands of places.

In other words, textual criticism is *not repeatable.* Therefore
it is not, and cannot claim to be, a science. What is more, even
the parts which are generally most susceptible to mathematical
treatment (e.g. the relationships between manuscripts) are rarely
treated in that way. Yes, Colwell did it; yes, Aland has now done
it (in a rather foolish way) -- but neither had any method to apply
their results.

All I am saying, in this particular context, is that textual criticism --
*if* it wishes to view itself as a science -- must come up with repeatable
rules, must formulate and test hypotheses (including mathematical
measures for goodness-of-fit), and must place itself on the soundest
possible mathematical basis.

This does not mean the elimination of internal criticism; it means
applying it *only where it needs to be applied*, and *only in a
rigorous manner*.

Note that TC need not regard itself as a science; I'm sure most people
who are aware of it think of it as one of the fuzzy subjects. It's
your choice, folks. (Consider the consequences: My scientific habits
have made me a "historical documentary eclectic," almost unique in
my emphasis on text-types.) Just don't claim the name "science" unless
you're ready to back it up. :-)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 20:49:33 -0500 (EST)

> hundreds or thousands of places.

What is interesting here is that Bob's comment applies equally to the
_external_ evidence of manuscripts, versions, and patristic quotations, as
well as to internal criteria.  The result is demonstrable that such
criteria, even taken as a whole and applied "normally" by eclectic critics
still will produce texts which have significant differences (though I
would be swift to point out as did Colwell, Clark, and Epp, that the
resultant texts, though differing, still reflect more of a Westcott-Hort
text than anything else).  

However, the larger question is this: why should textual criticism from a
given school of thought produce widely differing resultant texts? 
Certainly within my own perspective, my Byzantine Textform is constructed
on different principles than the Hodges/Farstad edition, yet our total
number of differences in the entire NT probably amount to only 300 of so,
220 of which are in Revelation, where H/F specifically applied their
stemmatic approach.  I am not sure that the different eclectic approaches
will come so close even within their predominantly Alexandrian final text.

> possible mathematical basis.

I would concur to an extent with Bob here, though probably not in
regard to the specific mathematical precision demanded.  I do maintain
that rules for handling external evidence as well as internal evidence
should be such that a "normal" application of such will in any given
situation lead to the same result.  This I find greatly wanting in modern
eclectic praxis.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 09:45:53 -0700

>text than anything else).

I obviously can't argue with Maurice's statements. Although I might
argue that none of the important editors since W&H have worked on
a primarily external basis.

Even if they did, it should be noted that the results will be controlled
by the theory of the text. The fair test would be to compare the results
produced by two people who shared the *same* textual theory. To the
best of my knowledge, that has only happened once (in the collaboration
of Westcott & Hort). The two *did* disagree -- as their obelized readings
show -- but they agree more often than any editors since.

>given school of thought produce widely differing resultant texts?

The obvious reason being that both "rigorous" and "reasoned" eclecticism
contain a large subjective element. Colwell observed that a sufficiently
ingenious critic can find a reason to support almost *any* reading.

>will come so close even within their predominantly Alexandrian final text.

They obviously don't (see Aland and Aland, pp. 25-28, which shows the
rates of differences among the various readings).

I might incidentally note that some of these editions are closer to
the Byzantine editions than we might think. Based on Wallace, H/F
disagrees with UBS about 6000 times. Presumably R/P and UBS disagree
at about the same rate. But von Soden differs from NA25 (perhaps the
most Alexandrian edition of all) over 2000 times, and Vogels departs
from NA25 almost as often. Since the majority of these changes are in
the direction of the Byzantine text, these editions are about a third
of the way from Alexandrian to Byzantine. I would have to call these
"mixed," not "Alexandrian" (though the Alexandrian predominates).

>situation lead to the same result.  This I find greatly wanting in modern

Allow me to clarify: Not all sciences are equally mathematical. Physics
is more mathematical than chemistry, which is more mathematical than
biology, etc. Textual criticism will always be closer to biology, not
physics; it will never be possible to reduce it entirely to formulae.

The point is not that a science must be entirely mathematical; in many
cases (e.g. geology) it is primarily descriptive. The point is just that
a science must be *as mathematical as possible.* In the case of TC, this
probably means making the greatest possible use of statistics in
assessing the relationships between manuscripts. It might mean giving
mathematical weight to criteria -- but I would oppose this. The goal
is not to apply criteria according to some formula, but to apply them
consistently. It's not the same thing.

I would also repeat that it does not automatically follow that textual
criticism *must* be treated as a science. You can treat it as art, or
as one of the other fuzzy subjects. If so, you'll be doing it without
me -- but then, I doubt if many of you would miss me. :-)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]