Subject: Re: getting Real

From: Jean VALENTIN <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 97 01:37:15 +0200

>The purpose of Text criticism is to establish the reading most likely to
>have been original.
Jim, this may be _your_ purpose. But confronted with the complexity of 
the evidence (and this complexity is the source of the debates we're in) 
many scholars would, at least for one or two generations - try to attain 
more modest goals. Like for example : making the history of the text, 
gathering documentation, solving one or another specific question.
I appreciate your "most likely" though, and I think that is quite to the 
point. The evidence is so complex, the documentation is so immense, and 
so many hundreds of mss have not yet been read... In the present state of 
the art, nobody can be too dogmatic about what the "original text" (if 
there ever was such a thing) should have been.

________________________________________________________________
Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE
________________________________________________________________
email : [email-masked]   ***   netmail : 2:291/780.103
________________________________________________________________
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: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:57:07 -0500 (EST)

On Sun, 6 Apr 1997, Jean VALENTIN wrote:

> The evidence is so complex, the documentation is so immense, and 

Certainly the bulk of even the continuous-text MSS have not been collated
in detail, but I suspect nearly everyone on the list will agree that there
would not likely be too many surprises, especially not after these have
already been subjected to the thousand test-passages now partially
provided in the _text und Textwert_ series. 

I suspect the "representative sample" of collated MSS which we currently
possess is indeed sufficient and adequate for establishing the "original
text" in accordance with various theories of transmission or the lack
thereof. This would include not only my own theory and resultant Byzantine
Textform edition, but also the NA "Standard Text" view, as well as texts
constructed on a rigorously eclectic basis.  The fact that all texts tend
to agree around 90% implies (at least for that portion) virtual certainty
as to the autograph text in such agreed-upon wordings. So, yes, I _do_
think something meaningful can be said regarding the "original text"
(which apparently _did_ have some real and valid existence), based upon
the evidence we currently possess. 

_________________________________________________________________________
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: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 10:36:38 -0700

>provided in the _text und Textwert_ series. 

I wonder about this. While I conceded that T&T gives us at least
some information about the vast majority of manuscripts, the data
really hasn't been analysed.

For example, no one ever seems to have studied family 330 (330,
451, 2492). Even Davies, who collated 330 for her study of 2344,
never noticed its family connections.

Similarly, family 2138 has not been studied until recently, and
generally has been lumped with the "Western" text when it is
examined.

Nor did anyone notice that 1891 is a near-sister of 1739 in Acts
until the last few years.

I think we still have some surprises awaiting us. I concede that
family 330 probably doesn't hold many *big* surprises (since
it's about 75% Byzantine) -- but if there's one undiscovered
group, there might be more....

>the evidence we currently possess. 

That I won't argue with.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)