Subject: Hort's prejudice against the TR

From: "L. Mark Bruffey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 11:39:37 -0800

Is it true, as Pickering asserts, that Hort at age 23 had studied few if
any mss when he said he wanted to do away with the TR?

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:40:26 -0700

On Fri, 01 Nov 1996, "L. Mark Bruffey" <[email-masked]> wrote

>any mss when he said he wanted to do away with the TR?

Of course it's true; how many manuscripts could someone that young
have studied?

I can't see that it's relevant, though; Hort had, obviously, seen the
TR, and I believe the edition of Tregelles, which showed some of the
weaknesses of the TR. (I could be wrong about which edition Hort saw;
it could have been Lachman or one of the early works of Tischendorf).

Take an analogy: Kepler worked out the laws of celestial motion without
ever having looked through a telescope, and without spending much time
working with Brahe. One need not have all the evidence in hand to be
able to start examioning what one has.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 08:57:49 -0500 (EST)

> any mss when he said he wanted to do away with the TR?

At that time Hort was a young college student, and his statement regarding
"that vile textus receptus" probably reflected more of his teachers than
anything original to himself.  

This was a time (ca.1840) when textual criticism had already progressed
away from the TR into critical editions such as Mill, and slightly revised
texts such as that of Bengel or Griesbach, but the influence of Lachmann,
whose 1830s edition was based _entirely_ upon early manuscript evidence,
was probably the most significant item influencing Hort at that time,
since it would have been strongly praised by his professors and fellow
students of that era.

Quite frankly, taken in context, Hort's quote is quite appropriate.  The
complaint was primarily in regard to anyone slavishly following "that vile
TR" which "rested entirely on the evidence of late MSS" (I paraphrase,
since I do not have the exact quote at hand).  To that extent, even the
pro-Byzantine proponents would agree with Hort -- the TR as an edition may
be a fair reflection of a predominantly Byzantine texttype, but not one of
us (nor even Burgon) would attempt to maintain any authority or viability
for the TR, having been composed as it was from mainly late MSS.

Pickering (as well as Colwell on this point) appears to make too much of
this early statement of Hort as somehow reflecting a determined attitude
to replace the TR with a non-Byzantine text, when his primary criticism
was only over the matter of the TR being based on a few late MSS.

_________________________________________________________________________
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: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 09:03:14 -0500 (EST)

> it could have been Lachman or one of the early works of Tischendorf).

Lachmann and some early Tischendorf were likely, but definitely not
Tregelles, which came later, during the 1870s as I recall.

I did not mention the point, but certainly I would also concur that Hort
had studied few if any MSS by age 23, but then, most seasoned
textual critics of that era also had not worked with actual MSS in any
great quantity, since there were no MSS and few reliable complete
collations.  Tischendorf was the first to really begin presentation of
diplomatic evidence, followed by the massive labors of Scrivener in the
1850s.