Subject: RE: the new TR

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 02:40:09 -0700

Thanks to all of you that have responded to my initial post on "the new TR"! 

Let me just remind ye all that my main purpose was to direct attention to a serious 
weakness within modern textual criticism (MTC), namely that MTC rely _too heavily_ on 
the canon of *age*, to the point that this canon is *practically* "canonized", and that 
age (of MSS) is the *main* reason for accepting the Alexandian text rather than other 
texts, especially the Byz text (after all, it´s late for its _MSS_ are late). I am *not* 
talking about "peanuts" here, though. I know that textual scholars are not completely 
unified as to the *degree* in which they accept the Alexandrian text. Also, it is clear 
that MTC does not have a common "TR" when it comes to minor details of the text. What I 
assert is that most of MTC is working *from* the presupposition that the Alexandrian 
text is the best because of the age of its MSS. The canon "oldest MSS are more likely to 
contain the original readings" is the ruling factor, in spite of the fact that age of 
MSS is not conclusive at all, as most textual scholars will admit. But it clearly seems 
that MTC is working within the framework of the canon "oldest MSS is best". It may sound 
simplified, but I believe that this is what it amounts to in the final analysis. When 
scholars are working with TC, their personal *acceptance* of the oldest MSS naturally 
will lead them into accepting Alexandrian readings and rejecting Byzantine readings, 
even though the facts they face do not necessitate this. Again, forget "peanuts"! I´m 
talking about the overall picture and the general situation. Scholars differ as to the 
*number* of Byz readings they accept, but they always will accept *some*! They also 
differ as to in what degree they accept the Alexandrian text, but they *largely* accept 
it as the "best", and *mainly* because of the *age* of its MSS.
(Personally, I care for "peanuts", but that´s not what I did care for in my initial post 
on "the new TR").

It should be noted that it is *impossible* to engage in TC without *some* kind of 
presupposition! One may evaluate the data as objective (or neutral) as one is able to, 
but one cannot help one´s own personal subjectivity and bias, which in varying degree 
will add an *interpretation* on the basis of the data. Some other scholar (equally as 
competent) may come up with an entirely *different* interpretation of tha *same* data!

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 20:15:00 -0700

On Thu, 08 May 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>the canon of *age*

I can't help but point out one minor fact: The oldest possible text
of the NT is the autograph. So age must be good for something.

Unless, perhaps, you are arguing that the autograph is not the
original text? :-)

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

                        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: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 14:06:17 -0700

> Unless, perhaps, you are arguing that the autograph is not the

When I say "canon of age" I refer to the age of the *manuscripts*. You may have 
established "old texttypes", but you cannot prove the oldness of a certain *texttype* in 
the way you can prove the oldness of a *manuscript*! In a way, a MS is in itself a 
"texttype" (sorry for the unscientific use of the term), of course, because the text 
found in it is a certain form of text, so it is clear that the text in a MS is as old as 
the MS. But that does not demonstrate that it is closer to the *autograph* text! Later 
MSS can very well contain the oldest texttype, that is, the original text. That was my 
point, but of course, no one can prove the "autographness" of the Byz text, neither of 
the Alexandrian! 
In TC we are talking about _probabilities_ when it comes to the *original* text!

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 09:11:27 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 8 May 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:

> Let me just remind ye all that my main purpose was to direct attention
> to a serious weakness within modern textual criticism (MTC), namely that
> MTC rely _too heavily_ on the canon of *age*, to the point that this
> canon is *practically* "canonized", and that age (of MSS) is the *main*
> reason for accepting the Alexandian text rather than other texts,
> especially the Byz text (after all, it´s late for its _MSS_ are late). I
> am *not*

Undoubtedly the age of mss is an important factor to most text
critics, but it is hardly the _main_ reason for accepting the Alexandrian
texts.  Based on age alone, we should scrap the Alexandrian text and look
instead to the earliest Western witnesses, which predate the Alexandrians
by almost a century (see the recent posts by Waltz and several posts by
Petersen).  And speaking of age, can Helge provide us with a good
explanation for the whereabouts of the Byzantine text, especially outside
of the gospels, in the first few Christian centuries?

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: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 08:21:13 -0700

>point, but of course, no one can prove the "autographness" of the Byz text, neither of 

Of course you are right. But -- unless you are prepared to argue that the autograph
is *not* the original text (which one actually could do -- one could argue, say,
that the "original" is the text contained in the first *collection* of Paul's
letters) -- it is unquestionably true that the earliest manuscripts are closer
to the autograph than the late, and that their text-types are closer still.
Barring strong evidence to the contrary, one can only assume that the early
text-types are the best tools we have to ascertain the original text.

Now the Byzantine *may* be an early text-type. It *may* be the original text-type.
But that is not germane to the discussion. Age is age.

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 15:14:28 +000

Mr. Evensen writes:

> texts, especially the Byz text (after all, it´s late for its _MSS_ are late). 

The way scholarly discussion works is that any such characterization 
or charge is fair game, but you have to substantiate it.  So, e.g., 
provide examples of Text-critical scholars, textbooks, etc., doing 
what you allege--preferring the Alexandrian text *purely* because of 
the age of mss.  You have not done this, so your charge is not 
substantiated, which means that it can't be entertained seriously, 
because you either can't substantiate it or won't go to the trouble 
to do so.  
You have already been told by practicing text-critics, such as David 
Parker (and I would add my own experience here too) that your charge 
is incorrect.  Text critics who attempt to assess the comparative 
worth of text-types (and not all do, e.g., "radical eclectics" such 
as my friend Keith Elliott don't spend much time on this) base their 
judgments on several matters, most importantly the perceived 
frequency with which this or that ms or group of mss prefer readings 
whose quality is judged superior, more likely to be original, etc.  
 
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: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 02:30:37 -0700

Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote (in part):
> So, e.g., provide examples of Text-critical scholars, textbooks, etc., doing
> the age of mss.  

I did ***not*** say that text-critical scholars, textbooks, etc. are preferring the 
Alexandrian text *purely* because of the age of MSS!!!!! Even a quick look at the above 
quoted part of my message will reveal that! We would do better if we read each other posts 
_correctly_!

My point is that *the most influential factor* is the age of MSS! And that leads to an 
Alexandrian text priority theory (not the acceptance of *all* Alexandrian readings or a 
complete embracement of *all* the oldest MSS´ readings!).

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 12:13:39 +000

> complete embracement of *all* the oldest MSS´ readings!).

Then I respectfully request that you *substantiate* your claim as 
you've emphasized it:  Please give citations of text-critical works 
in which the age of Alex mss is cited as "the most influential 
factor" in giving Alex mss a high value.  
 
L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 23:52:25 -0700

James R. Adair wrote:
> Petersen).

I didn´t say that textual scholars based their preference for the Alexandrian text on 
age *alone*. But I still believe that, in the final analysis, the ruling factor is 
age. The Western witnesses are rejected, I suspect, because of their all too obvious 
recensional nature; they depart too radically from the other texts. Another factor is 
that the Western text doesn´t have very many witnesses.

> And speaking of age, can Helge provide us with a good

No! I can´t. And the reason is obvious: I do not expect any archeological discoveries 
*outside of* Egypt that will reveal *another* textual tendency than what has already 
been found in the MSS of that locality. My theory is that the Alexandrian texts are 
*local texts*. And I think that Robinson and Pierpont, in their _Introduction_, offer 
a very good case for the Byzantine text. Like Hort, they have given us a *history* of 
the text.

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 01:16:49 -0700

> factor" in giving Alex mss a high value.

I shall do so in a separate post. And that will be my final word in this 
"debate".

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen