Subject: Re: A New Scrivener?

From: "DC PARKER" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 12:44:10 GMT

Scrivener was an outstandingly accurate collator, and his work is 
always a valuable tool for checking other collations.  The _Adversaria 
Critica Sacra_, the _Full & Exact Collation of about 20 Greek Mss_
 and the _Codex Augiensis spring to mind at once.

And yes, he has quite full information on MSS.  But today, for the 
kind of information 
that Mr Waltz is looking for, one would expect to find it in library 
catalogues - it would take you a long time to compile it for 5,000+ 
MSS!

Scrivener seems to me to be a good example of a very good collator, 
whose textual theories and ability to produce a critical edition were 
limited, and whose views have stood the test of time rather poorly.  
But let us be grateful for what he was good at.

DC PARKER
DEPT OF THEOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
TEL. 0121-414 3613
FAX  0121-414 6866
E-MAIL [email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 07:19:21 -0500 (CDT)

It's amazing how quickly discussions on this list can turn ugly. (And
yes, I know I've been part of that; don't say anything.) I wish I had
some way of telling you all to "cool it."

First, let's not exaggerate Scrivener's textual theories. We all know
that Scrivener was not a liberal such as Hort. Nut neither was he a
conservative such as Burgon. Even a casual glance at his introduction
will show that.

Scrivener was a moderate. And, like most moderates, his views were
actually on the conservative end of the spectrum. But -- unlike Burgon --
he used and respected old and/or non-Byzantine manuscripts. The fact
is, I don't know of anyone on this list who agrees with his positions.
But they are not absurd or extremist; we should respect him -- and
deeply respect his collation work.

But none of this was the point of my original post. I was speaking
of Scrivener's *manual*. Which is by no means the extremist document
that, say, the Alands' is. (I call Aland & Aland extremist because
they really pay almost no attention to other viewpoints or editions
than their own.)

The excellent thing about Scrivener is that it gives so much useful
information about the entire spectrum of NT materials. Yes, it's now
brutally dated (it doesn't use Gregory numbers; the Sinai Syriac was
unknown; there are no papyri, etc...). But the *form* is good, and
rather unbiased. To get that same level of information today, you
qould need the Kurzgefasste Liste, Aland & Aland, Metzger's volume
on the Versions, and at least one other introduction. And even so,
you wouldn't have as much detail.

Someone objected that it would be much harder to gather that level
of detail about manuscripts today. True enough. But the T&T volumes
demonstrate that the information is available (in Munster, at least).
It just hasn't been published.

If nothing else, it's a hint for what should be in the next edition
of the KListe. And, in my opinion, the writers of upcoming TC manuals
would be well-advised to examine Scrivener for ideas.

Now can we stop arguing about a century-out-of-date book and
start arguing about something more current? :-)

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

                        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)