Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 96 11:37:15

In <v03007800ae9334672618@[199.86.40.77]>, on 10/22/96 
   at 07:54 PM, "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]> said:

>On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, Hubert Arthur Bahr III <[email-masked]>
>wrote:
>>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.

>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).

Hey!   Do not leave this lurker out either.....  <grin>
Altho I am not a heavyweight in this discussion I still have done  some
reading ya know..... <grin>
I certainly do not accept the Byz priority due to theological grounds!! I
started reading Kurt Aland material and Weiss <sp?> material and started
in on other material until it started getting too time consuming and over
my head ..... Then I met Maurice Robinson and started corresponding with
him.  He gave me some extremely valuable suggestions and ideas. I concur
that most of the TC theories are a matter of subjectivity since most of
the data is interpreted in different fashions according to their
respective theories much like that done in Biblical debates.  BUT I do not
intend to mean that all of the scholarship and study is by nature
subjective.  No not at all. It is just that I personally contend that each
theory has it's own sphere of influence.  After reading Maurice Robinson's
material and discussing some points with him I decided that it made the
most reasonable case...... <big grin> Now obviously I can not hold a
candle to most if not all of the great people on this list!!  And should
someone want to challenge my post -- 
Oh Woe is me......  What can I do??????    <grin>
Each of us makes our decisions based upon many factors, right??
Therefore until something comes along that makes better sense than
Maurice Robinson's viewpoint then I will continue to support his position.
Subjective ?  some.....  <but then aren't most opinions that way?  <grin>
Lurk mode on ....

>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).

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

>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]

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
[email-masked]
-----------------------------------------------------------