Subject: Re: A New Scrivener?

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 20:20:56 -0500 (EST)

At 01:37 AM 5/27/97 -0700, you wrote:

>
>The edition I have in my own little "library" is the 2nd. On p.95
>Dr. Scrivener writes, discussing the textual quality of Cod. A: "This
>manuscript is of the very greatest importance to the critic, inasmuch as
>it exhibits (especially in the Gospels) a text more nearly approaching
>that found in later copies than is read in others of its high antiquity".
>If I am reading Scrivener correct here, he is ascribing the importance of
>this MS to the fact that it testifies to _later_ MSS.

Doesn't that position seem a little absurd?  "Its a better ms because it
reflects newer readings.  But these newer readings are based on older ones
which means their better...." ?  Isnt this the polar opposite of my claim
concerning the importance of earlier mss?  And if so, and as I know that you
believe me to be in error, are not you making the same error here?

> Scrivener did not
>try to completely dethrone the later minuscules as did Hort.

First something has to be enthroned before it can be dethroned.  ANd the
only folks who have enthroned a text are those with a particular theological
axe to grind.
(my own personal axe is that older is better)(freely admitted!!!)

> The tendency
>within TC after the official publication of the Introduction by Hort has
>been to judge later MSS as important only if they testify to readings
>found in the oldest MSS. This seems to be the very opposite of the method
>proposed by Scrivener in the above quotation.

Which is what makes Scrivener wrong here (and in many other instances as well).

>I think that modern textual experts have something really important to
>learn from that Grand-Master of TC at this point!

Who gave him this title?

> I am not saying,
>however, that MTC should have completely neglected the work of W & H.
>
>I suspect that the textual criticism of the 20th century would have come
>out differently if textual critics and other scholars had placed the same
>weight on the kind of TC Scrivener represented that they have been
>doing on the kind of TC Hort advocated! 

Sure it would have- it would have gone in a completely wrong direction!
Thank God Scrivener wasn't followed!

>The impartial nature of the Scrivener TC

What hooey!

> is also seen in the following
>statement: 

[blah, blah....]

>
>Many TCers may have *said* they were impartial, but Scrivener clearly
>*is* impartial in his method of TC.

Not at all.  NO ONE is impartial in anything.  The best thing that could
happen to scientific study of the the Bible is for folks to admit this one
common denominator.

>The developments within TC since W & H shows us how stupid it is to make
>"hard and fast rules" in TC. Many times the science (and art) of TC has
>been stretched beyond its proper limits. To me it seems that to trespass
>the proper limits of TC is to talk as though certain textcritical canons
>and modes of thinking are invariable rules. Many times TC principles that
>actually should only have served as suggestions and proposals, have been
>handled as *the truth*. This tendency has clearly influenced non-tc
>scholars, which again have influenced the reading public. The result is
>that many are accepting TC principles as invariable - and many times
>proved or provable - facts rather than taking them for what they are:
>theories and assumptions.

This whole paragraph is a contradictio in adiecto to what you have already
said above (but mostly snipped).

>(I am now referring to assumptions regarding the *original* text and
>what TC principles should attempt, namely bring us closer to the original 
>text, if that still is the primary goal of TC).
>

No- now the goal of TC is to bring us closer to the redactors who worked the
text over before it reached its fixed form.

>It seems that textual critics should be very careful regarding the way
>in which they presents TC results and principles. The "unlearned"
>reading public has a tendency to accept things as *the truth*
>as long as it comes from the more learned academy.

Baloney.  The public at large doesn't give a rat's rump about what academics do.

>
>I apollogize for this lenghty post. My purpose is not to start another
>"overheated" debate. It should be regarded as what it is: just a few 
>thoughts, together with a few words of praise in favor of one TCer I
>consider to be one of the Grand-Masters of TC of all time. That is all.
>

Grand master- ptooey.

(yes, I have once more reverted to the old tried and true Straussian method
of denouncing without supplying controverting evidence.  So sue me!!  :)

>-- 
>- Mr. Helge Evensen

Jim

(and I am sure that this was overlooked by many because my horrid little
name was attached!  Oh no- the Dennis Rodman of theological studies has
reared his ugly head again!!!)

Vale, pie lector!
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Pastor, Petros Baptist Church
Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at
http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm
(submissions welcome!)

[email-masked]

---

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 19:18:02 -0700 (PDT)

> Thank God Scrivener wasn't followed!
But apparently he IS being followed, but not by a majority of TCers.  And his
collation of Codex Bezae is still important, even if his theory of TC is
dated.  So let's give the old man a break.
> >The impartial nature of the Scrivener TC

Now I am no supporter of the priority of the TR (or the "Majority Text"),
but I still find this language inappropriate for the editor of a Journal
that aspires to respectability. 

But I will point out that as a passive observer to the flame-wars (yes,
that is what they have degraded to) over the priority of the TR, I have
seen no convincing evidence that "Scrivener TC" has a better claim to
impartiality than Westcott and Hort. 

On the contrary, W&H have faithfully stuck to the principle they themselves
enunciated so well:
   The uses of internal evidence are subordinate and accessory:
   if taken as the primary guide, it cannot but lead to _extensive_ error.
(emphasis mine) and also:
   knowledge of documents should precede final judgement upon readings.

from the 1949 abridged edition of "The New Testament in the Original Greek",
bs2302 b53 1949 page 543

The only "non-impartiality" I can believe of them is the amusing name,
"Western non-interpolations".  But even here I believe the almost
condescending attitude they had towards Western readings was primarily to
discourage undue haste in accepting readings from 'Western' sources.

> text over before it reached its fixed form.

And this is certainly a more readily attainable goal.  In fact, if it is
ever possible to reach the original form, we must first pass through this
intermediate goal. 

To that end I suggest that the Majority Text receive more attention not because
it is earlier, but because its history promises to tell us so much about the
transmission of texts in general.

So, for example, I would like to see TC texts not refer to the Codex
Ephraemi Rescriptus as if it were shocking or amusing that someone would
erase a NT manuscript to copy St. Ephraem's marvellous sermons.  Perhaps
if TCers paid more attention to his sermons, you would understand how
people WERE reading the text, which would help you understand its history
better. 

> Baloney.  The public at large doesn't give a rat's rump about what academics 

And in the case of TCers, it is because whenever TCers criticize the
commonly accepted text, whether it is the KJV or the NA, or the UBS,
people suspect TCers of a sinister hidden agenda.  After reading "Orthodox
Corruption", I can see why, even though the accusation is _often_
unjustified. 

So the public finds it easier to ignore TCers than to deal with them.  I
can't blame them, though I _do_ consider the situation regrettable. 

Matthew Johnson
Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our 
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).