Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories

From: [email-masked] (Jean Valentin)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 04:03:51 GMT

Hello all! Just a remark in passing, I don't know how you will react about
it, but I would find it interesting to have your comments...

Seen from here (Europe) it's quite strange to see all these (often
passionnate) discussions about the Byzantine text / Received text /
Majority text that are going on in the US. How do you explain this
difference?

Here in Europe, most of the discussion goes between the german school
(Aland and his text) and the French school (arguing for the Western text,
even more specially, as with C. Amphoux, for Codex Bezae). For Europeans,
the question of the Byzantine text is settled for a century.

Why is it so, why are our approaches so exotic to one another? Is
theological background the only reason?

As I see that some of you argue in favor of the Byzantine text, I would
specially appreciate to have their comments. Also all your comments about
European NT textual criticism will be appreciated.

shlomo w-shayno !

Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium

Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable.
What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable.
Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd. Wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar.

---

From: Nichael Cramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 23:12:46 -0400 (EDT)

Jean Valentin wrote:
> [...] 

Jean

I don't think a theologicial (or perhaps more correctly a faith) stance is
the _only_ reason behind the MT position, but I think it is safe to say
that it is the primary reason motivating the overwhelming majority of its
advocates. 

Now it is certainly true that there are a few scholars who argue for the
MT/TR on genuinely scholarly grounds.  But it is also true that you can 
count those scholars on one hand (with plenty of fingers left over). 

Your point is well taken that there is lots of noise on this topic.  But
viewed more appropriately --i.e. in terms of a scholarly debate-- given
that there are only (at most) two or three scholars supporting the
minority position, the sound and fury tends to overwhelm the substance of
the debate. And certainly makes it sound bigger/more important than would 
otherwise appear. 

N

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 08:36:04 -0700

>theological background the only reason?

[ ... ]

Being theologically liberal, I am perhaps not the one to answer this,
but I'm going to try anyway. :-)

I don't think it is exclusively a matter of theology, but it has an
influence. The U.S. has a very large "fundamentalist" (extremely
conservative) theological movement. Since this movement believes
in "verbal inerrancy," many of its members (not all!) are
committed to a particular text -- frequently the King James translation,
and hence the Textus Receptus.

Those who argue for Byzantine priority but not for the TR are more
diverse. They correctly observe that some of Hort's arguments about
the Byzantine text (e.g. the "conflations"). Then they go off on
their own. This group, while still conservative, is much less
rigid than the TR-only group.

>From there I'll let Maurice Robinson or someone else explain things.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:36:42 -0400 (EDT)

> Majority text that are going on in the US. How do you explain this

Kurt Aland asked me precisely that question in 1989 when I visited
Muenster.  Probably the primary reason is simply that there are in the US
those who advocate each of those positions (though they certainly are
quite different in comparison with each other), while in Europe the
discussion does not exist due to lack of advocates (I will be perfectly
happy to present such in a European setting during my sabbatical, should I
end up there next year). 

The TR position even in the US is held by only a very few, and usually
those with a KJV-Only agenda to push.  I would not group this category
along with the others, and would agree with the European view that a
defense of the TR is not a priority nor even possible on a scholarly basis
(though it does have historical significance, to be sure). 

The majority text and Byzantine-priority positions stem from other
considerations, sometimes theological, as has been mentioned with
Pickering, other times methodological, as with myself and Hodges/Farstad.
The only reason such positions are advocated is because the advocates
sense certain weaknesses in the modern eclectic methodology (reasoned or
rigorous), and also have a concern with a comprehensive integrated theory
of textual transmission.  The European solutions, whether from the Aland
quarter or from Amphoux, are seen to suffer from similar weaknesses.  

> the question of the Byzantine text is settled for a century.

The Aland solution, whether from the Byzantine Imperial Text standpoint or
the "genealogy of readings" standpoint appears to be seriously flawed in
many of its particulars; and this is not only the view from the
pro-Byzantine quarter, but also from the perspective of many eclectic
scholars in the US and Britain.  The French school probably stands quite
alone in defending a primarily Western text as original, and I do not know
any US scholars who would follow Amphoux in this regard.

> theological background the only reason? 

Certainly not theological background, since most US scholars regardless of
denominational background or conservative/liberal/neo-orthodox theology
would still probably hold to a reasoned eclectic methodology.  Here it is
the pro-Byzantine side and Bob Waltz' MS 1739 positions which are
primarily documentary.

> European NT textual criticism will be appreciated.

I would suggest that you obtain back segments of the tc-list wherein many
of these items regarding the pro-Byzantine position were previously
discussed in great detail. European textual criticism has not played a
large part in those discussions, however. 

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

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 16:46:54 -0400 (EDT)

> that it is the primary reason motivating the overwhelming majority of its

Since there are so few advocates, I'm not sure how broad a brush is
painting this picture.  I would not include myself, Hodges, or Van Bruggen
within that group, though Pickering and Farstad might qualify.  There
still remains the problem that, even with nearly the same theological
views I previously (pre-1972) advocated the Nestle25/UBS3 type of text as
superior, and never once felt theological concern about the matter, nor do
I feel any compulsion in this direction currently. I know Hodges himself
has mentioned that he sees no reason why a functional atheist could not
hold to either theory of textual criticism, since the matter is a question
of evidence and its interpretation rather than a matter of theological
perspective.  

> count those scholars on one hand (with plenty of fingers left over). 

Please place the TR defenders in a separate category.  They are clearly
not within the loop of the MT/Byz defenders (and we would not want them in
the loop merely so we could use the remaining fingers of our hand to
count).

> minority position.

On the tc-list I suspect there is only one (myself) who really defends
that position.  Other advocates of the theory do exist, but most of them
are apparently not on the list or even on the internet.  The only noise
created therefore stems from myself, and I will be pleased if anyone can
argue convincingly to the contrary position.

> the sound and fury tends to overwhelm the substance of

Actually, I am not certain that the real substance of the debate has ever
been considered on this list.  By this I mean the failure of the eclectic
method convincingly to establish or maintain a text of the NT which can be
supported in any form on secure historical grounds within an integrated
theory of transmission.  It is much easier to take pot shots at the
Byzantine advocates for holding to what is supposedly a "secondary" form
of the text than it is to supply a comprehensive theory of eclecticism
which will provide some hope of correctness in establishing a dominant
text of the NT which can reasonably be considered to be equivalent to the
autograph.  (And don't blame me on this point: Epp, Colwell and Clark
started the critique in this area).

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 16:42:15 -0700

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]> wrote:

[ most of message omitted ]

[ ... regarding eclecticism... ]
>started the critique in this area).

I want to second Maurice on this. Epp and Colwell are often viewed as
"modern" and as "eclectics," but in fact both argue against
eclecticism. In Epp's case, see especially "The Twentieth Century
Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism," "A Continuing Interlude
in New Testament Textual Criticism?," and "The Eclectic Method in New
Testament Textual Criticism: Symptom or Solution?" (all reprinted in
Epp & Fee, "Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual
Criticism"). For Colwell, perhaps the best essay is "Hort Redivivus:
A Plea and a Program" (in "Studies in Methodology in Textual
Criticism of the New Testament"). Both authors attempt to show
that, at this time, we do not have an established theory of the
text, and so engage in rather mixed methods.

BTW -- For once I get to correct Maurice Robinson on another point
(although I'll admit I left myself open to this). I don't *really*
consider 1739 the most important manuscript. I consider it *one of
the most.* It's right up there with p46, B, Aleph, and D.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:29:12 -0400 (EDT)

> Being theologically liberal, I am perhaps not the one to answer this,

Perhaps not, but why should it matter in trying to explain the situation?

> and hence the Textus Receptus.

Excluding the ultra-fundamentalist KJV-Only position, this still fails to
account for the 95% of all other "conservative" NT scholars who also hold
to verbal plenary inspiration and the consequent inerrancy of scripture
yet who are in no way tied to any particular English translation and who
also fully accept an Alexandrian-based eclectic text.  

Certainly the current pro-Byzantine or pro-majority text advocates happen
to be from within the conservative wing (I would not necessarily say
"fundamentalist", since I am certain that Europeans such as Jakob Van
Bruggen or Peter Johnston would strenuously object), but this does not
seem to stem from any cause/effect principle; indeed, as I have mentioned
previously, the only reason I moved in this direction was due to the
strong suggestions of Kenneth W. Clark, who himself would be categorized
as theologically liberal.  

I would also mention the Roman Catholic scholar, Hugh Pope, who similarly
took a pro-Byzantine position in the late 1940s; whether he is from a more
conservative wing of the Roman Catholic church, I do not know.  I do know
that Jose O'Callaghan mentioned to me in personal correspondence that in
the last years of his life Bover himself was moving toward a pro-Byzantine
position, so I think that the theological inclination of the advocates is
generally irrelevant.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:50:53 -0400 (EDT)

Re: the topic of this message: "Oh no... I agree with Maurice Robinson"
It seems that textual criticism probably has degenerated beyond recovery
if topics such as these continue....*;-)

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> For Colwell, perhaps the best essay is "Hort Redivivus:
> Criticism of the New Testament"). 

I would add to this Colwell's article on "Genealogical Method: It's
Achievements and Limitations" as particularly significant.

> Both authors attempt to show

...with equally mixed results.

> the most.* It's right up there with p46, B, Aleph, and D.

All of which are among my favorite MSS which I do _not_ primarily use to
establish the original text. *;-)

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:17:46 -0700

>if topics such as these continue....*;-)

Would it have helped if I had put a smiley on the topic? :-)

Seriously, I think that Maurice and I see many of the same problems with
conventional eclecticism. We just come to totally different conclusions
about how to address the problem.

>Achievements and Limitations" as particularly significant.

Colwell's book, in fact, breaks up into four parts: "Genetic
Group Relationships" (pp. 1-95), "Elementary Procedures" (pp. 96-
124, including the infamous essay on the 70% rule), "Methods in the
Dating of New Testament Manuscripts" (pp. 125-147), and "The
Contemporary situation." The essays in Part I, which include
"Genealogical Method" as well as my favorite "Method in Grouping
New Testament Manuscripts," add up to a startling indictment of
the procedures of the early twentieth century. "Hort Redivivus,"
the only essay in part IV, is Colwell's proposals for remedying
the situation. I probably agree with this article more than
Maurice Robinson, since my results are closer to Colwell's.

>...with equally mixed results.

Here again we agree, though my resultant text is obviously closer
to the eclectics' text than is R/P.

>establish the original text. *;-)

Why am I not surprised? :-)

BTW -- speaking of controversial manuscripts.... I've recently been
wondering about 2427. It's a manuscript of Mark (Aland dates it as
XIV century) that has the peculiar property of standing closer to B
than any other manuscript (including Aleph, according to my statistics).

I saw a reference in a commentary once claiming that this manuscript
was of questionable authenticity. I can imagine a reason for the
question: What is a near-copy of B doing being made in the fourteenth
century? But this doesn't seem to me to be reason enough to really
doubt it. Does anyone know anything about why this ms. is
controversial?

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]