Subject: The new TR

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 21:30:09 -0700

Dear TCers

My impression is that the majority of the contributors to this list are in favor of the 
Alexandrian text. (And that´s ok, it´s a free world, at least for TCers!). I suspect that 
the Alexandrian text has become a new kind of TR, in despite of all statements in textual 
circles to the contrary! In reality, modern textual criticism has "canonized" the 
Alexandrian text, not to follow it _slavishly_, but to regard it as the "best" text in 
spite of all other evidence. 

Sometimes Byzantine text proponents are accused of starting out with the *presupposition* 
that the Byzantine text is closest to the autograph text. But the Alexandrian text 
proponents do the very same thing: they *presuppose* that the Alexandrian is the "best", 
primarily because of the *age* of its MSS!! Also, often times *TR proponents* are accused 
of holding to readings that do not have good enough attestation from Greek MSS, and the 
accusers are usually those who themselves are ready to question the readings of over 90% 
of the MS tradition. This is ironical! Further, many who criticize TR proponents for not 
following Greek attestation do not hesitate to suggest that some of the original readings 
may be lost and that we must engage in _conjecture_ to find the true reading. This is even 
worse!

I believe that in the final analysis the whole thing is a matter of *preference*. Since 
equally competent scholars differ as to what is the nearest-to-the-autographs textform, it 
can hardly be a matter of *proven fact* that one textform is "more autographic" than the 
other! Since it has been demonstrated that old MSS do not necessary contain the "oldest" 
or "best" texts/readings, we know that the argument from age is not *conclusive*. Also, if 
TC is to be regarded as _science_, textual scholars must be open for *testing* the 
possibility that texttypes _other_ than the Alexandrian can be a faithful representative 
of the autograph text. But this has not been done by most textual scholars, I suspect. (Of 
course, I know most of you follow "forever settled" textual canons, but these canons are 
not "infallible". Besides, the established textcritical canons can _very easily_ be used 
to dismiss the Byz text, if it isn´t enough that many of the canons themselves seems to be 
constructed with a primary goal, namely to discard the Byz text).

Even though most textual scholars differ in respect to certain details, they do not differ 
much in regard to the Byzantine text. And I dare say the *reason* is the argument from 
*age*! That one is the "grand daddy" of all textual canons! It is the "prime mover" of the 
Alexandrian text. If you do not believe it, please just for a moment imagine that there 
exist two uncial MSS as old as Vaticanus with a *Byzantine* text and that these two do not 
differ more among themselves than Vaticanus differs from Sinaiticus. (Of course, you say: 
such a discovery will not take place! And you may be completely right, for it is unlikely 
that one should find such MSS in Egypt, the only place with the proper climate for such 
discoveries). But just imagine how the science of TC would have changed in its views 
toward the Byz text! Why?? Just because of *age*! Age of a MS seems to be the *only* 
evidence that is regarded as "hard facts" or "hard evidence". And if "hard evidence" 
always wins the day, then the Byzantine text never will have a chance of being regarded as 
a possible candidate for the original, if future discoveries will not grant us a few old 
"Byzantine" MSS!

Let´s also imagine (contrary to all likelihood) that there was discovered two or three 
papyri _in Egypt_ with a "Byzantine" type of text. WOW! What would have happened!? I 
suspect that many (maybe *most*) textual scholars would have radically changed their views 
regarding the Byz text. That would have proved to me that modern textual criticism is 
*primarily* ruled by the canon "oldest is best"!

I do not, of course, say that all textual scholars would have held to the Byz text if it 
could be proven by "hard evidence" (i.e. old MSS). It still would have to compete with the 
equally as old Alexandrian text MSS. Neither do I assert that textual scholars do not use 
other evidence than age. But the trend within modern textual criticism is that the 
Alexandrian text is the "best" _at the outset_! (Again, the primary and ruling canon is 
*age*!). And I know that not all scholars are equally "bound" to the Alexandrian text.

The Swedish scholar Harald Riesenfeld wrote in 1968: "The Alexandrian text, which is the 
basis of the scientific editions of the New Testament now used, is the TR of our time". 
After discussing the possibility of reaching an even more "original" textform as a result 
of further studies and collations, he adds: "Already, one may say that such a futurity 
text for the most part will agree with the Alexandrian textform now used".
I believe this shows a bad tendency in modern textual criticism, namely the unwillingness 
to depart from the Alexandrian text *at the outset*. It is a _presupposition_ that the 
Alexandrian text will always (or at least most probably always) prove itself as the "best" 
and nearer-to-the-autograph text!

Please bear over with my "unscientific views" and "error of logic"!

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 16:19:58 -0700

On Tue, 06 May 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Alexandrian text.

I think there is truth in this statement, but it is a little too general.
I, for example, do *not* favour the Alexandrian text in isolation. In my text
of Paul (the only place where I have reconstructed a text), I clearly moved
*away* from the Alexandrian text (as exemplified by Aleph A C I 33 bo).
Generally I moved toward p46 B 1739, which some will call Alexandrian witnesses,
but in my view they are not.

So I (speaking only for myself) am unbiased when choosing between what I consider
early text-types. If someone could demonstrate to my satisfaction that the
Byzantine text is early, then I would figure that text-type in also.

>(And that´s ok, it´s a free world, at least for TCers!). I suspect that 

What you are saying is largely true, but it does not make the Alexandrian text a
"new TR." Almost, but not quite. The TR is a particular edition of a particular
text-type (the Byzantine). In fact, the TR is a *bad* edition of that text-type.
So we cannot compare "the Alexandrian Text" with "the TR."

Jim West raises a good point: the NA26/27/UBS3 text is the true "New TR."

The irony is, if UBS3 is viewed as an edition of The Alexandrian Text, it is
just as defective as the TR is as an edition of The Byzantine Text. UBS3 is
a rather eclectic text that is largely Alexandrian but occasionally follows
other texts. If one wished to uphold one printed edition as *the* Alexandrian
text, I think Westcott & Hort would be better.

>primarily because of the *age* of its MSS!!

True in part, but overstated. (Certainly in my case, since I give a tenth
century minuscule -- 1739 -- as great a place as B or p46, and a ninth
century minuscule -- 33 -- a place as great as Aleph or A or C).

For my part, I put it this way: Any early text-type has a possibility of having
the original reading. The question then becomes, how old are the *text-types*?
Here we have to turn to hard evidence of one sort or another. And in Paul and
the Catholics, which are what I know best, the evidence for the Byzantine text
is very late. Consider:

*** Paul

Text-type    Earliest Date   Witness
Alexandrian   III            Alexandrian fathers; also the prevalence of the type in 4th
                             century uncials
p46/B         II/III         p46
"Western"     II             Irenaeus
fam 1739      III            Origen (very similar although not identical)
Byzantine     VIII           Psi (The Harklean Syriac shows signs of Byzantine influence, but
                             is not purely Byzantine)

*** Catholics
Text-type    Earliest Date   Witness
Alexandrian   III            p72
fam 1739      III            Origen; also C (V)
fam 2138      VI             Harklean
Byzantine     IX             K L 049

I concede that I consider age a factor. But I work from the age of the *type*, not
the age of the mss.

>Also, often times *TR proponents* are accused 
>of the MS tradition.

I have to repeat what Jim West said: "Manuscripts are to be weighed and not counted."
This is the basic -- the *only* -- rule of external criticism.

Now different people will weigh the manuscripts differently. But everyone -- even
a believer in the Byzantine text -- must weigh them, even if only to say "The
Byzantine is best."

>This is ironical! Further, many who criticize TR proponents for not 
>may be lost and that we must engage in _conjecture_ to find the true reading.

Don't blame all for the errors of some.

For that matter, don't confuse the theoretical with the actual. For example, I think
it quite possible that there are places where the original reading of the NT has been
lost. To recover the original text, we have no recourse but emendation. But I will
never print a conjecture. While I concede the theoretical necessity, I am not competent
to engage in such emendation.

>other!

This is obvious. But so what? Do you want us to choose what we consider an inferior
text just so we can be fair? (Political correctness comes to TC.... :-)

>Since it has been demonstrated that old MSS do not necessary contain the "oldest" 
>of the autograph text.

This is also obvious. And I believe you are correct that many people have not tested
the matter. But what test do you propose? Most still consider Westcott & Hort's
attack on the Byzantine Text conclusive. In fact a couple of its pillars (in
particular, the use of conflation) have been demolished. But, to date, the overall
conclusion still stands.

Still, I agree it would be better if people examined the matter for themselves.

[ ... ]

>*age*!

In my case, I freely admit it. And I will change my textual theory if the Byzantine
text can be shown to be early enough.

But this is *not* the basis of the Westcott & Hort case. W&H could not find any
evidence that the Byzantine text was early -- but they couldn't find much evidence
that the Alexandrian text was early, either. What they argued was that the Byzantine
text was a simplified, harmonized, smoothed text.

Now this argument may be false; Wisselink -- as I understand it, without having
seen his work -- has shown that harmonizations in the Byzantine text are not
as overwhelmingly common as we have been led to think. But the argument cannot
be simply waved away as age prejudice.

[ ... ]

>*primarily* ruled by the canon "oldest is best"!

Speaking only for myself, I would say, yes: If you can show me a substantial second
or third century papyrus that shows a *fully developed* Byzantine text (not Byzantine
readings, as in p66, but the *whole text*), then I will revise my theory. I will not
elevate the Byzantine text *above* the other texts, and I will still go to great
lengths to eliminate its influence on other manuscripts -- but I will treat it as
an early text-type and give it its equal vote in making textual decisions.

My opinions only, of course, and there are many who disagree with them. But I
state again, it is not the age of a manuscript but the age of its text that
matters. And here, the Byzantine text still looks secondary (from where I sit).

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

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

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

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 00:29:06 -0700

> Byzantine text is early, then I would figure that text-type in also.

Thanks for the clarification regarding your own position. It is clearly a great advantage in 
TC to approach the MSS in such an unbiased way. Bob, your method seems to be far more unbiased 
and objective than what is normally the case within MTC. This is my impression. And your 
position and your views should get a fair hearing and be taken into account in MTC. At least, 
that´s *my* opinion!

> So we cannot compare "the Alexandrian Text" with "the TR."

I agree. But my comparison has to do with the *acceptance of the text: as the TR was accepted, 
similarly now the Alexandrian text is the "received" text.

> >Further, many who criticize TR proponents for not

But I didn´t blame all!

> an early text-type and give it its equal vote in making textual decisions.

Your comments show me that there are at least *two* on this list that agree with me that age 
is the *most influential factor*!

> My opinions only, of course, and there are many who disagree with them.

There certainly are!

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen