Subject: Re: The new TR

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 15:21:30 -0500 (EST)

Helge,

At 09:30 PM 5/6/97 -0700, you wrote:
>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. 

I agree with you with one qualification- it is NA26 (or 27) that is the new
TR.  And since the editors adopt (for the most part but clearly not always)
Alexandrian readings, then it is fair to say that the Alexandrian text type
underlies the modern TR.

>
>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!! 

Quite true- everyone, without exception, operates with some presuppositions.
The challenge is to know what they are and examine them.

>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.

mss are weighed, not counted!  I think that adding up numbers and attempting
to quantify by mathematical means is wrongheaded.  The quantitative method
is simply another version of the Byzantine method which presupposes that if
a reading has a lot of ms support it must be right.  Thus, if A agrees with
50 miniscules while it disagrees with 46 then the quantifiers would have us
believe that the 50 miniscules represent the oldest reading.  That is simply
not the case. mss are weighed, not counted.

> 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!

Conjectural emendation is used sparingly these days, even by the most
radical critics.  Thus, this is an unfair characterization.

>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*. 
No it is not; but taken together with the other tools of evaluation it is
the best method we have.

>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 TC is half art and half science!  (A fact the quantifiers and bean
counters forget; as do the "experts" who oftentimes forget that when one
looks at a painting one must appreciate the artist and not just the canvas).

>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".

No, only His Holiness the Pope is infallible (in matters spoken ex cathedra).

> 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).
>

Just as your text critical a prioris aim to discredit the Alexandrian
witnesses and the papyri.

>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

But there aren't!!!!  We can't deal in fantasy in TC- only with facts.  If
the Byz textform were as ancient as the Alexandrian it would deserve more
respect.

>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"!

Then too, for sake of argument, lets imagine that we actually have an
autograph.  Who can say that it is; and who would believe it?

>
>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". 

And rightly so!!

>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".

And rightly so.

>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!
>

No, it shows commitment to a prsupposition.  Just as your excellent
questions show your commitment to your presuppositions and mine to mine.

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

Plato is dead- and he was the last who lived by logic alone (except for Mr.
Spock of the Starship Enterprise).  Any contrary claims notwithstanding.

>-- 
>- Mr. Helge Evensen

Jim
(who hates to disagree with anyone)

+++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Pastor, Petros Baptist Church
[email-masked]

 "Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes!"

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 15:33:33 -0700

Jim,

> radical critics.  Thus, this is an unfair characterization.

It is used sparingly, all right, but it *is* used, not normally in text editions (as far 
as I know), but in TC.
 
> No it is not; but taken together with the other tools of evaluation it is

You confirm my point that the "oldest is best" canon is the most important one for 
modern textual criticism! (If you represent MTC on this particular canon).
 
> witnesses and the papyri.

But I don´t regard my "a prioris" as *established science*!

Some of the papyri *do* have some good readings!
 
> the Byz textform were as ancient as the Alexandrian it would deserve more

If we can deal *only* with facts in TC, then we all must quit engaging in TC today! By 
the way, I seem to recall that you once stated that a certain Alexandrian reading 
undoubtedly (or "clearly") was the *original* reading. *I* do not have the originals, do 
*you*??

But again, you confirm my points! 
 
> autograph.  Who can say that it is; and who would believe it?

I agree! That´s the reason we cannot *only* deal with _facts_ in TC!
 
> >basis of the scientific editions of the New Testament now used, is the TR

Again, thanks for confirming my points!
 
> >text for the most part will agree with the Alexandrian textform now used".

See above.
 
> questions show your commitment to your presuppositions and mine to mine.

Seriously, I must thank you for your honesty.

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 10:38:49 +000

The discussion on this list has been almost entirely NT stuff, 
although I thought that the list was to reflect the breadth of the TC 
journal, encompassing both NT and Heb Bible/OT text-critical matters 
& people.
Hoping that there may still be a few Heb bible TC people lurking out 
there (or that they can be coaxed to tune in), I want to mention a 
very interesting essay I stumbled across recently:
Gerard J. Norton, "Changing Paradigms in the Study of the History of 
the Biblical Text," _Hermathena_ 154(1993): 19-37.
Norton (a member of the Hebrew OT Text Project) reports on the 
effects of 20th cent. OT mss discoveries and changing nature of the 
printed editions.  He also offers criticisms of present (even latest) 
printed editions of the Hebrew OT, and I found his descriptions of 
the nature of these printed editions both very informative and 
somewhat startling.  I had simply assumed that the practice of Hebrew 
Bible TC was not so different from the way NT TC is practiced, and 
that printed editions were based on somewhat more similar approaches. 
 But such is not the case.
I would find it valuable to have OT TC specialists and NT TC 
specialists discuss the differing approaches, etc.  And this list 
would be an excellent forum for doing so.  Any takers?

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 09:34:15 -0400 (EDT)

> the Biblical Text," _Hermathena_ 154(1993): 19-37.

I'm glad that the list will finally have the chance to discuss some really
interesting aspects of TC (viz., HB/OT TC)!  ;-)

> I had simply assumed that the practice of Hebrew 

I haven't read Norton's article yet, but I'll try to get a copy today so
that I can comment intelligently on it. In the meantime, for those who are
interested in comparing the approaches of OT & NT TC, the article I wrote
for TC deals with exactly this.  It is entitled "Old and New in Textual
Criticism: Similarities, Differences, and Prospects for Cooperation," and
it may be found in TC vol. 1 (http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html).  
To outline the article, I argue that OT & NT TC work with different data,
have different goals, use different terminology, and use different
methodology.  Nevertheless, there is much that each discipline can learn
from the other.

Sorry for the blatant self-promotion, but, as was pointed out in a recent
post, one of the main purposes of this list is to discuss the issues
raised in articles in the online journal, something we haven't done a lot
of.  

In this context, I might also mention that another article is in the
final stages of preparation and should appear soon, the first article in
TC volume 2.

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 11:16:54 +000

Having read through Adair's essay from vol. 1 of TC this weekend, I 
recommend it very much to NT & OT scholars in mapping out the 
commonalities and distinguishing features of TC as practiced in these 
two circles.

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place