Subject: A New Scrivener?

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 11:22:26 -0500 (CDT)

TCers --

I recently had the good fortune to acquire a copy of Scrivener's
_Plain_Introduction_ to TC. I must admit I have been very impressed.
I can't help but wonder why no one has produced a TC introduction
along these lines.

I know that Scrivener's theories don't impress anyone today (including
me); he's too traditional for the modernists and too eclectic for
the true Majority Text advocates. But as a manual, his volumes
are excellent as far as they go. They describe the manuscripts
in more detail than even the Kurzgefasste Liste (e.g. I learned
from Scrivener that 630 is *not* complete; it is missing several
verses in Acts. But the KL -- at least the first edition -- shows
630 as entirely intact). They give details on the Latin manuscripts
I have seen nowhere else. The discussion of critical canons is good
-- if perhaps biased in some ways not favoured by moderns.

I have used this information with good effect in several recent
updates to my Encyclopedia pages. So why doesn't someone produce
a manual along the lines of his? (Using Gregory numbers, of
course....)

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

                        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: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 17:37:22 -0700

> I can't help but wonder why no one has produced a TC introduction

Scrivener's 2 vol set was posthumous (ed. by Edward Miller) and his INTRO was _the_ english standard in the 
late 1800's. There's a good amount of details in those 2 vols which is still helpful; at the very least, his 
discussion provide a good basis to start from, as long as we take into consideration all advances in NTTC 
since his time.

Now if only the KJV only people could read Scrivener, they might actually get a little smarter... ;-)

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 01:37:04 -0700

> Now if only the KJV only people could read Scrivener, they might actually get a little smarter... ;-)

Yes, undoubtedly *they* and all others interested in TC would profit from
this most valuable work. It seems clear that modern textual critics would
become a little smarter too, if they would study the works of Scrivener
more closely. I believe it is far more important today for modern textual
scholars and TC students to read the works of Scrivener than to read 
Hort´s Introduction. (Of course, it is good to read *both*!)

It seems that Scrivener was ahead of his time in many ways. Remember that
he lived in a time when most textual critics and other scholars almost
uncritically accepted the theories of Hort. (Although the theories
of Hort had not been officially published at the time of the first two
editions of the "Plain Introduction" by Scrivener, he clearly knew of
them at the time of the second edition (1874). In his second edition, he
is referring to W & H "The NT in the Original Greek, with a Preface".
He informs that the book is marked "Confidential", while mentioning
"the Prefatory matter". ("A Plain Introduction...", 2nd edition, 1874,
p.432). [The first edition was published 1861, and the fourth 1894 by
Edward Miller]). But most important is the fact that he served on the
Revised Version committee (1870-1881).

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. Scrivener did not
try to completely dethrone the later minuscules as did Hort. 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.
I think that modern textual experts have something really important to
learn from that Grand-Master of TC at this point! 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! At the same time, the Scrivener 
kind of TC is not very far from much of MTC. His willingness to take into
consideration readings and witnesses which deviate from the Aleph-B-team,
is similar to MTC, a thing almost inconceivable for W & H. The reason for
this in MTC is, of course, TC developments and MSS finds in the 20th 
century.

On p.480 Scrivener seems to deviate considerably from the consensus of
his day, when he writes: ".....more than enough has been alleged to 
prove to demonstration that the true and pure text of the sacred writers
is not to be looked for in Aleph or B, in Aleph-B, or BD, or BL, or any
like combination of a select few authorities - for that were indeed
Comparative Criticism made easy - but demands, in every fresh case as it
arises, the free and impartial use of every available source of
information".
Here too, it seems that modern TC has something to learn.
But this statement by Scrivener is not very far from the consensus
*today*, though the *reasons* for arriving at a similar conclusion today, 
are not necessary identical with that of Scrivener. MTC has, it seems to
me, not yet arrived at "the free and impartial use of every available
source of information". MTC is clearly making *use* of "every available
source", but *impartial*? No, not yet!

Another interesting statement is found on p.439: "Attention must be paid
to the genius and usage of each several authority, in assigning the
weight due to it in a particular instance. Thus the testimony of Cod. B
is of the less influence in omissions, that of Cod. D (Bezæ) in
additions, inasmuch as the tendency of the former is to abridge, that of
the latter to amplify the sacred text".

The impartial nature of the Scrivener TC is also seen in the following
statement: ".......that this rule be henceforth applied impartially in
all cases, as well when it will tell in favour of the Received text, as
when it shall help to set it aside. To assign a high value to cursive
manuscripts of the best description (such as 1. 33. 69. 157. Yscr, or 61
of the Acts), and to such uncials as L-R-Delta, or even as Aleph or C,
whensoever they happen to agree with Cod. B, and to treat their refined
silver as though it had been suddenly transmuted into dross when they
come to contradict it, is a practice too plainly unreasonable to admit of
serious defence, and can only lead to results which those who uphold it
would be the first to deplore" [Footnote: "So of certain of the chief
versions we sometimes hear it said that they are less important in the
rest of the N.T. than in the Gospels; which means that in the former
they side less with Aleph-B"]. (p.483-84).

Many TCers may have *said* they were impartial, but Scrivener clearly
*is* impartial in his method of TC. At that time it was not always easy
to stay impartial. Most scholars were *greatly* impressed by the
discovery of Cod. Aleph and its general agreement with Cod. B and (to a
lesser extent) the other uncials.

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.
(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).

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. Therefore,
in TC material it should be clearly stated that the science and art of TC 
has not in any sense *proved* what the original form of the NT was, 
not even what it *most likely* was. TC is limited to *theory* and
supposition when it comes to the *original* NT text. And no one, I
suppose, would challenge the fact that the main goal of TC is to
establish the *original* readings of the text. But it is nothing more 
than a *possible* original form of the text that can be established by
way of TC, at best.

All that an old MS or an old reading in reality *proves* is that that
particular old reading *existed* at the time in which it is demonstrated
to have existed, *not* that it is original or "more likely" original. Of
course, many times we can know what is *more likely* the original
reading, but far from always. But we *never* can *prove* the original
readings. However, many times we can certainly prove the inauthenticity
of readings if the readings in question are scribal errors or other
demonstrable errors. 
But let us not present theories to the world as though they were
*truths*!

---------------------

On the whole, Dr. Scrivener represented a far more sound and balanced
view on TC than did Hort. Later TC developments and MS finds have
demonstrated that the "middle of the road" position taken by Scrivener
was a *wise* position to take in his time. The rigorous aleph-B position
taken by Hort has shown itself to have been *unwise*.

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.

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen