Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories

From: [email-masked] (Jean Valentin)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 02:35:50 GMT

>
>I'm sure I have said much wrong, much over-generalized, but occasionally a
>few things right. I'd appreciate any comments from others on my
>misconceptions and any thoughts on what type of paradigm, if any, should
>replace W&H.
>
>
>
>Kevin Grenier

Hello Kevin,

I'm also new to the list. I notice you don't mention the works of the
outstanding French textual critic, C.-B. Amphoux. His recent works tend to
give paramount supremacy to the text of Codex Bezae as representing the
oldest text of the Gospels. He finds that the shift from the D-text to the
B-text is a changing in literary _genre_, from a
wisdom/initiatic/intellectual (nearly gnostic) literature, that must be
approached globally and structurally, to an ecclesiastical, simplified form
of text, in which each pericope can be read independently, for example in
order to form the base for a homily. The other texts (palestinian texts,
byzantine text, early versions) all mix these two oldest texts. For those
interested, his revision of Vaganay's manual has been recently translated
into English, and updated:

L. Vaganay and C.-B. Amphoux, An introduction to New Testament textual
criticism (Cambridge University Press, 1991)

For those interested, I will give references to some important articles of
the same author, in French. I have the impression that he is not known in
the US as he is here in Europe.

These works are very important because they, for the first time, offer a
global, literary explanation of the earliest phases of the history of the
text.

Any comments?

shlomo w-shayno !

Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - Belgique

Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop compliqué 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: [email-masked] (Carlton L. Winbery)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 19:02:40 +0400

Jeremy Duff wrote in answer to Kevin;
>>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.
>
The statement by Kevin is probably an overstatement, for different writers
seem to have had differing opinions about some to the later books.
However, that was not the only factor that caused early variants.  No doubt
the edict of toleration in 311 helped give the Christians more time to
think about mss.  I don't think the fact that scribes used the codex form
is significant.  Many others did that.  The great disparity between the
ability of scribes is also evident.

Carlton L. Winbery
Fogleman Professor of Religion
Louisiana College
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
Fax (318) 442-4996
Phone (318) 487-7241

---

From: [email-masked] (Jean Valentin)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 02:20:37 GMT

>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?

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.

shlomo w-shayno !

---

From: Mike Arcieri <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Oct 96 08:18:25 EDT

Gentlemen, 

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.

>2. Byzantine priority - While the Byzantine text is not present significantly
>prior to 500 (?) CE, it does reflect the autographs better than the other
>text types. Maurice Robinson would say (correct me if I'm wrong) that the
>process of copying and cross-checking would generally bring most deviant
>texts back into line with the autographs.

>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".

>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. Blessings.

Mike Arcieri

---

From: Mike Arcieri <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Oct 96 08:19:20 EDT

>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).

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". In my review of the Robinson/pierpont
GNT, I quoted the leading proponants of the Byzantine text to show precisely
that "majority" does _not_ always rule:

"Before dealing with this question, it will serve us well to see exactly what
Byzantine defenders think of the 'rule' of 'majority = autograph':

a] F. H. A. Scrivener
	That mere numbers should decide a question of sacred criticism never
ought to have been asserted by any one; never has been asserted by a respectable
scholar.

	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.

b] J. W. Burgon/E. Miller
		
	Besides which antiquity is not the sole note of truth any more than
number is.

	Be so obliging as not to say concerning me that I 'count' instead of
'weighing' my witnesses.

	The same may be said of 'o Ihsous"' in S. Matth. xiv. 22, -words which
Origen and Chrysostom, as well as the Syriac versions, omit; and which clearly
owe their place in twelve of the uncials, in the Textus Receptus, in the Vulgate
and some copies of the old Latin, to the fact that the Gospel for the ixth
Sunday after Pentecost begins at that place...

{FOOTNOTE: _The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark_ (Oxford:
J. Parker and Co., 1871), p. 216. It appears, however, from Miller's _Textual
Commentary_, that Burgon may have changed his mind concerning the
non-authenticity of this variant. My decision to include it was to show that
Burgon did not hesitate to reject the reading of the majority of MSS when
necessary.}

c] W. N. Pickering

	Chapter 6 of my book makes clear that all of Burgon's 'Notes of Truth'
need to be applied, not just 'majority' (Burgon's 'Number'). Burgon himself
never argued that a simple majority of MSS was sufficient, by itself, to
determine the text. On page 274 Wallace correctly points out that neither Hodges
nor van Bruggen espouse mere majority. In fact, I am not aware of any "Majority
Text' theorist who does.

d] J. van Bruggen

	we must agree with modern textual criticism that the majority in itself
is not decisive. Not the majority of manuscripts, but the weight decides.

e] M. Robinson

	In sum, a strong emphasis was made on Continuity and Variety, with Number
taking a secondary role. The goal is to reconstruct the Byzantine textform, and
not merely to count noses, as Fee suggested. The 'Majority' partisans have yet
to overcome this problem in their methodology...Antiquity of course plays its
proper role; Respectability of witnesses (scribal character) is considered
significant; and Context as well as Reasonableness are also taken into account
on the Internal side.

f] Z. Hodges

	I have never held the position that every single original reading must
have a majority (or, plurality) among the extant manuscript copies. All other
things being equal, a reading with a very large majority is likely to be right,
but as the numerical advantage decreases so does this probability...I hold,
then, that the Majority textform is the preferred form of the original, but not
that all of its actual readings must survive in greater numbers than any of
their rivals. This latter view is basically a petitio principii, and is
transcriptionally implausible.

So it does indeed appear, as Pickering stated, that no 'Majority text' theorist
believes that a numercal superiority of MSS will always attest to the true
reading." (pp. 7-10)

>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. 

Stemmatic work on the Byz _text_, or merely on some small _family_ within the
Byz tradition?

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

If you refer to KJV onlyism, then I think they are scholarly.....not!!  ;-)

Mike Arcieri

---

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:47:45 -0400 (EDT)

At 04:54 PM 10/23/96 +0000, you wrote:
> Thelogical education is not
>adequate for a discipline like textual criticism as it is a _literary_
>discipline. 
>

And yet many of the best text critics are the product of a "theological"
education.  If, however, you mean that text criticism does not receive
adequate attention in theological seminaries I would have to agree with you.
But I think you have painted with a rather broad brush here.  Maurice
Robinson is an excellent text critic, whether one agrees or not with his
conclusions.

>I notice that what I write might sound harsh to some of you - 

Not really harsh- just too broad and general to be true. "Erore latent in
generalibus" (sorry if this is wrong- my latin is for reading).

>What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable.

Rightly said!

Jim

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

---

From: Mike Arcieri <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 Oct 96 00:46:13 EDT

>Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium

>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.

Cher Monsieur Valentin, 

Re. European Textual Criticism. First, let me say that I am glad you are on the
TC-LIST! Within the last year I have acquired a copy of the following books
(among others):

La Palaeographie Greque et Byzantine		Colloques Internationaux
Prolegomenes a la Codicologie		Leon Gilissen
Paleographie du Moyen Age			Jacques Stiennon
Introduction a la Codicologie			Jacques Lemaire
Le Premier Humanisme Byzantin		Paul Lemerle
Introduction a l'Etude des Manuscrits		R. Devreese
La Reliure Medieval				Baras/Irigoin/Vezin
Les Types de Reglure des Manuscrits Grecs	Julien Leroy
Le Livre et Les Arts Qui s'y Rattachent (1894)	M. P. Louisy
L'Epopee du Livre				A.-G. Hamman

I think the Palaeographical data presented in all of these works to be
extraordinary. I especially enjoy reading Gilissen and Lemaire, whose work is of
the highest calibre. I have seen the work by C. Bozzolo and E. Ornato "Pour une
Histoire du Livre Manuscrit" but do not have a copy (yet); I have several
articles by  Jean Irigoin;  Tell me, have you ever read "La Terminologie Du
Livre-Manuscrit a l'Epoque Byzantine" by Basile Atsalos? Isin't there a center
in Bruxelles for the study of Palaeography? If there is, and they have a WWW
address, can you please forward this to me? Merci bien!

Mike Arcieri

---

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 09:29:10 -0400 (EDT)

At 08:24 AM 10/24/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Indeed, the standard argument for not considering most of the versional 
>data is, is it not, that many of these later versions were themselves 
>based on versional or later Greek textual traditions.  (For example many 
>of the versions mentioned were in fact translations from the Vulgate!)
>

This is how I understand it.

>As such, as "children" of already well attested earlier versions and text 
>types, these later version provide no new or rather _independent_ 
>witnesses to the original underlying Greek text.
>

Again, this is what seems correct to me.

>Clearly there are some versions that provide useful information (in a 
>text critical sense); one obvious example is the Syriac. 

Absolutely- but Syriac is a semitic language which is very close to Aramaic
and therefore very useful in helping us determine possible semitic
substructures to the Greek text.  But as evidence of the Greek text....

> But the 
>inclusion of many/most of the later versional data would seem to be 
>indistinguishable from the traditional Majority Text argument of simply 
>"counting the available manuscripts".
>

Indeed- a procedure most hazardous.

>N

Jim

---

From: [email-masked] (Mark OBrien)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 96 08:55:14 CST

Original message sent on Wed, Oct 23  10:03 PM by [email-masked] (Jean
Valentin) :

[...]

> 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.

Jean,

I appreciated your comments regarding the state of TC in Europe...  very
interesting, and certainly not something you hear about a lot.  I wonder (and
I'm just wondering!), but could the recurrent focus on the "MT/TR/Byzantine"
(and all the variations thereof) issue have anything to do with the fortunes of
the KJV within the Church in the English-speaking world?  Just curious...

Regards,

Mark O'Brien
Grad. student, Dallas Theological Seminary
-----
"Never look at the trombones ... It only encourages them" -- Richard Strauss

---

From: [email-masked] (Jean Valentin)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 19:29:39 GMT

Jim West, you wrote:

>The simplest explanation as to why these minor translations have no
>influence on TC is simply because they are minor.  They do not, in reality,
>help us to reconstruct the Greek text of the NT or the Hebrew text of the OT
Wrong. They document us on very old types of texts. Read Voobus' Early
versions of the NT for the eastern versions. Our knowledge of the vetus
syra is so fragmentary, that old eastern versions help us a lot, also for
the reconstruction of Tatian's harmony. See the introduction of Petersen's
book on the Diatessaron to remind you that such text types are earlier than
any Greek recension (except Codex Bezae, but it's also fragmentary). In the
west, many versions preserve an old latin type of text. I think many
versions preserve types of texts that are older than the one of the greek
manuscripts, whether alexandrine, byzantine or palestinian.

>(unless someone is going to argue that the NT was originally written in KJ
>english!).
Please don't be offensive. There are caveats for the use of the versions
(see Metzger's book on the versions) but they really help in reconstructing
pre-IIId century forms of text.

>
>The only use versions like these have is to compare with one another- being
>translations of translations, etc., they do not take us any closer to the
>Greek text.
Not always. Some are indeed translations of a well-known type of text
(vulgate or byzantine text, sometimes the peshitto). But most preserve
ancient types.
I use to compare the history of the text to this: when you throw a stone in
the water, you get concentric circles. The older ones are the most remote
from the center, right? Well, this is what happens in the history of the NT
text (as in the history of liturgy): some peripheral traditions are much
more conservative than the greek tradition. How do you interpret it when
Persian and Dutch manuscripts preserve many common variants?

>
>When a version does seem to have an "older" reading it is, somewhere, based
>on a Greek manuscript.
Yes, but as you know, many haven't survived. All we have is scores of mss
of the byzantine recension, a few mss of the alexandrian texts, and then
some mss that carry remnants of other text-types, mostly contaminated by
the byzantine recension. When you look at the versions, the picture is
"somewhat" modified. Versions give us important documentation about the
palestinian and western text-types, to mention only these two. Seen from a
greek-only perspective, codex Koridethi is quite an isolated phenomenon,
but when you look at the versions, the agreement of it with georgian (the
"pre-vulgate" type), armenian (the second version), syropalestinian, and
several arabic versions is impressing: this text has been predominant in
the East for centuries - in fact, I suspect that, as it was so many times
translated, it was the official text of the Jerusalem patriarchate before
its byzantinization.

>
>Thus it does not behhove us to waste years of study on "medieval dutch" and
>its contribution to NT TC when we ought to spend our time with the greek mss.
It's everything except wasting time! To take the dutch example, this
language is crucial for the study of the old latin and diatessaric texts.
Though the mss begin to appear in the XIIIth century, the text they contain
brings us directly to the IInd century.
If you want to study greek mss, that's surely an important discipline - an
essential one indeed. But please don't despise what other disciplines can
bring to your research. Scholarship needs interdisciplinary exchange.

shlomo w-shayno !

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.