Subject: The new TR: my conclusion

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 19:08:06 -0700

This is my final post in this «debate»!

I agree with Jimmy that we all should keep a respectful tone on the list. 
If I have offended any person on this list with any of my statements, I 
apollogize for it!

Let me emphasize the fact that «none» of my messages on this list are in 
any way an expression of my lack of respect for textual scholars and 
modern textual criticism (MTC). I think textual scholars are doing a very 
fine job in many areas.

Let me also make it clear once again that I am *not* a scholar, not a 
*textual critic*, nor am I an experienced practioner of TC in any sense. 
I have studied the subject through handbooks, articles, etc. and am doing 
my own thinking on the subject.

I realize that I should have used slightly different expressions in some 
cases. For instance, my use of the terminology «the canon of age» may not 
be completely acceptable in MTC, since many do not regard age as an 
established *canon*. But please also note that such a priority placed on 
the age factor does not necessarily *have to* express itself in the form 
of an established canon! My point in saying that MTC *primarily* is ruled 
by the age factor, has to do with a strong *tendency* in that direction 
within MTC. Maybe I use wrong language here, but what I mean is that the 
Alexandrian text (whether «proto-» or «later») on the whole is regarded 
as far more «original» than the Byz text, and that the *main* reason is 
*age* (whether of the MSS or the «texttype»). It may be an «unwritten 
canon», but I believe that age is an underlying fundamental «rule» in 
MTC. 

I am not saying, however, that age is unimportant.

As to my mention of the Alexandrian MSS/text, maybe I will do better if I 
use the expression «Alexandrian-like MSS» or «MSS containing an 
Alexandrian-like text». I know that when it comes to minor details, there 
are several groups of «texttypes» represented in the oldest MSS. My 
original point, however, had to do with the *fundamental* situation, 
namely that in general one can divide MTC into two groups: those who hold 
to an «Alexandrian-like text» priority, and those who hold to a Byzantine 
text priority.

Eclectics may say that they do not favor a certain texttype or group of 
MSS above another. But their *resultant text* is not very far from what 
we may call an «Alexandrian-like» text. Eclectics may arrive at their 
choices based on *internal* criteria, but it is doubtful that they will 
accept very *many* «late» readings, *even* if the internal evidence 
should have necessitated it! And since internal criteria may be used very 
*subjectively*, the results may vary from scholar to scholar. For 
instance, the internal principle that´s looking for what reading fits the 
*context*, may often be a matter of pure subjective *interpretation*.

Further, maybe the reason that eclectic scholars do not arrive at textual 
results that more closely approximate a Byzantine text, is that they 
never take the time to investigate the Byzantine or «later» readings, to 
see whether or not they meet the requirements of internal criteria. There 
may be an «universal» prejudice against the «late» Byzantine text/MSS 
which may serve as a «controlling factor», that hinders scholars from 
accepting Byz readings!
I do not know of any eclectic scholar that have come up with a 
«Byzantine-like» text or a «late» text. Remember, I´m talking about age 
as «the most influential factor». It does not matter whether or not it is 
recorded in a handbook, it seems nevertheless to be the strongest factor 
in MTC!

In his book «The Ancient Text of the NT», professor Jakob van Bruggen 
writes: «In the textual criticism of the 20th century, the rejection of 
the well-known traditional or Byzantine text predominates. That text is 
even ruled out completely and in advance by the selection-process at 
Münster. The arguments against this text originate from the 19th century. 
People are still using them, but without sufficient reason........The 
arguments against this Byzantine text are still less decisive than in the 
19th century.......This text deserves to remain recognized as reliable, 
unless real contra-proof can be given from a recovered better text. 
However, there are no better texts. There are theories about a better 
text and there are reconstructions of such a text,.....» (p.36).

Professor Hurtado has asked me to substantiate my statements regarding 
the age factor. More precisely, he asked me to cite text-critical works 
that prove that age is «the most influential factor» in MTC. In the 
following, I shall do just that.

But note that some of the works cited may not be regarded as strictly TC 
works by some.

(Before reading the citations, please also note that even though not all 
factors are clearly stated as established rules in TC works, it can still 
be that a particular *trend* or *tendency* in TC is a dominating factor 
among textual scholars! It does not necessarily have to be written in the 
textbooks in order to be a fundamental factor).

I will not add my own «italics» or emphasis in the quotations. I trust ye 
all will read them carefully!

I will begin by citing Comfort (who is not very popular on this list, but 
who nevertheless should be allowed a hearing). However, he is somewhat 
«radical» on the question of the age of *MSS*, so he clearly does not 
represent MTC fully on that point. 
>From his _Quest for the Original Text_, I cite the following: «.....while 
the Alands present strong arguments for the early manuscripts as 
providing the best witness to the original text, N/A26/UBS3 does not 
always follow the evidence of the early manuscripts.......Of course, an 
«early» manuscript is not always the most trustworthy manuscript; 
nonetheless, several of the earliest manuscripts are the most reliable - 
a position constantly affirmed by the Alands» (p.30).
«.....there are those who say it is too simplistic to think that the 
earliest manuscripts are the best manuscripts. These scholars argue that 
the original reading can be found in any manuscript of any age. This is 
hypothetical true, but hardly bears up when put into practice. A reading 
with testimony from one early papyrus manuscript of reputed reliability 
(with the support of at least one other early reliable Greek manuscript) 
is far more likely to represent the original text than a reading found in 
later manuscripts». [you may call it a «canon»]
	Textual critics working with ancient literature universally 
acknowledge the supremacy of earlier manuscripts over later ones» (.....)
	 «Nineteenth-century New Testament textual scholars - such as 
Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort - worked on the 
basis that the earliest witnesses are the best witnesses. We would do 
well to continue this approach to recovering the original text» (p.38).

What is the implications of Comfort´s statements here? To my mind, these 
statements show that for Comfort, age is of utter importance, and I 
suspect that it is «the most influential factor» in his judgements! (Of 
course, that factor is almost always used together with other factors).

In his _Text_, Metzger gives a more general statement about «most 
scholars´» view on the Alexandrian text: «Though most scholars have 
abandoned Hort´s optimistic view that codex Vaticanus (B) contains the 
original text almost unchanged except for slips of the pen, they are 
still inclined to regard the Alexandrian text as on the whole the best 
ancient recension and the one most nearly approximating the original» 
(p.216).

If this diagnosis is still true, the Alexandrian text may be regarded as 
a kind of «TR» for modern scholars. (A «TR» in the sense of a general 
*acceptance* of the text. Note that I´m not referring to any *printed* 
edition as a «TR»). Not that they are bound to it, but they operate 
within the frame of an Alexandrian-like form of the text (as contrasted 
to the Byz and Western texts). Scholars´ personal preference for the 
Alexandrian text clearly often influence their textcritical judgments.

The Swedish scholar H. Riesenfeld, in his work _Den nytestamentliga 
textens historia_, writes: «Original readings have most often been 
preserved in the Alexandrian textform alone, more seldom in the Western 
textform alone.......» (p.393).

In a work written a few years later, he writes: «A fundamental rule is 
that original readings in many instances have been preserved alone in the 
Alexandrian text, more seldom in the Western text or other 
tradition-branches which have existed together with the Alexandrian and 
the Western text. Only in single instances can original readings be 
expected to have been kept exclusively in the relatively late Byzantine 
text.....».
«Readings that are supported by both the Alexandrian and Western text 
should have preference before the others» (1968).

Note the terminology «be expected»! It speaks for itself.

In «Manuscripts and the Text of the New Testament» by Elliott and Moir we 
read: «....it is the discoveries of texts earlier than the great uncials, 
on which Westcott and Hort built their elaborate theories of texttypes, 
that has caused the breakdown of previously accepted theories. There has 
thus been a weakening in the «cult of the best manuscripts» in favour of 
an appraisal of a wider selection of witnesses» (p.87).

I wonder *why* the discoveries of *later* MSS under the same period did 
not cause a breakdown of previous accepted theories!!

In the same book, p.93, we read: «There is always excitement at each new 
discovery, especially if the manuscript is an old one or one that 
contains a good proportion of its original text».

In David A. Black´s «New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide», 
there are listed some «Principles for Establishing the Original Reading». 
He lists three main principles under «Principles of External Evidence», 
of which the first is: «Prefer the reading attested by the oldest 
manuscripts». He writes: «Generally speaking, earlier manuscripts are 
more important than later ones for establishing the text». He then adds a 
warning that this principle must be used with caution. (p.34).

«If we wish to recover a text of the New Testament «as close as possible 
to the original,» then we should accept the most ancient text we can 
recover, as Burkitt stipulated nearly a century ago». These are the words 
of William L. Petersen, in B. Aland & J. Delobel: «New Testament Textual 
Criticism, Exegesis and Church History: A Discussion of Methods», p. 150.

I know, of course, that this statement does not primarily speak of the 
age of *MSS*, but of the *text*. Nevertheless, it is an argument from 
age. And since we do not have the originals, an «early text» must be 
recovered from the earliest *witnesses*, whether it be church fathers, 
versions or MSS. And in instances where versions and church fathers do 
*not* concur with the *oldest MSS*, I suspect that the versions and 
fathers will not carry the same weight!

In the same book we also find an article by Jacobus H. Petzer, in which 
he writes: «The Münster theory has a different approach. By seeing the 
Alexandrian text as _de facto_ equal to the original text, it cannot 
adopt an eclectic approach,.....» (p.34). Later he writes: «By far the 
majority of scholars still see the Alexandrian text as the best possible 
representative of the original text, largely because of the quality and 
antiquity of its main witnesses and its largely unedited nature» (p. 35).
I know that this is not saying that age is the *only* reason most 
scholars see the Alexandrian text as the best. But, again, if the age 
factor was removed, I wonder what weight «quality» and «unedited nature» 
would carry! As long as age is the «pillar» or the «fundamental rule», 
the other factors are added to strenghten the reliability of the text. 
Has anyone tested the Alexandrian text *after* removing the age factor? 
(I know it wouldn´t be fair to do so, but if such a test was carried out, 
it would be shown whether or not age is «the most influential factor»). I 
do not mean to *completely* remove the age factor, for all MSS and texts 
have an age of some kind. I´m talking about removing the Alexandrian text 
from among the *oldest* witnesses. What would it show?

The Vaganay/Amphoux volume certainly isn´t advocating the principle of 
age as the most important factor. The age factor is described as one 
among three «defective» principles. But I must ask: What would be the 
authors´ conclusions regarding the Alexandrian text be if the age factor 
was removed from that text?? I know it´s just speculation, but a certain 
degree of speculation ought to be allowed in TC.
On p.62 we find this statement: «In order to choose the correct reading 
from amongst the different variants, it used to be customary, and indeed 
it too often still is customary, to appeal to the number, the age and the 
general character of the witnesses; these are three criteria which, 
whether taken singly or together, are insufficient to justify a choice of 
reading».
Even though they dismiss the argument from the age of *MSS*, they do see 
the age of the *text* as important (p.63).

Gordon Fee writes (commenting upon External Evidence) in his article «The 
Textual Criticism of the New Testament»: «The first thing one must do at 
any point of variation is to weigh the MS evidence supporting each 
variant. Thus one usually asks the following questions: How old are the 
witnesses supporting each variant or how old is their text? How good is 
the general quality of the MSS? How wide is the geographical distribution 
of the witnesses?» (The Expositor´s Bible Commentary, Volume 1: 
Introductory articles, p.430).

A rather straightforward statement is found in the Danish scholar Søren 
Giversen´s textbook: «Det ny Testamentes Teksthistorie» (1978): «If one 
is to choose between two readings, then the best attested [reading] must 
be regarded as the most original one, and the decisive part here is not 
the quantity of manuscripts, but their quality, which usually is attached 
to their oldness» (p.122).

In other words, if «oldness» is removed, the «quality» would be 
weakened!!

H. H. Oliver wrote back in 1962: «Some recent critics have returned to 
the earlier pattern of Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort: to seek for the 
original text in the oldest MSS. Critics earlier in the 20th century were 
highly critical of this 19th century practice. The return has been 
motivated largely by the discovery of papyri which are separated from the 
autographs by less than two centuries» («Present trends in the Textual 
Criticism of the NT», JBR, XXX, pp.312-313).

It seems to me that the quotes above demonstrate my point that, *in the 
final analysis*, age is «the most influential factor» in MTC! But, I may 
be wrong. And I am aware that this isn´t much evidence, and the evidence 
may be weak, for substantiating my statements regarding the importance 
and primacy of the «age factor». And some quotes do not directly support 
my claims, but I have included them only to remind of the *importance* 
placed on the age principle. But I suspect that the age factor is more an 
«unwritten» principle (which underlie MTC) than a clearly established 
written principle.

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen