Subject: Re: Canons of Criticism

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 00:23:54 +0100

Maurice, is it possible that the shoe you are fitting so comfortably on
Evensen's foot could also fit a Byzantine foot?  (A one-word reply will
suffice...)

--Petersen.

>Although I am not going to continue in a debate over ridiculous matters
>coming from the TR/KJV-only quarters, the point below really asks far too
>much of even the most credulous TR/KJV supporter:
>
>On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:
>
>> It is even possible that MSS with such a text could have perished through
>> extensive use. At least, it should be clear that thousands of MSS that
>> were extant in the 13th, 14th, 15th centuries have perished. To my mind,
>> it is even possible to regard the printed TR editions as a transmission
>> of the text of MSS which now have perished.
>> (More heresy!)
>> :~)
>
>Using precisely the SAME argument-ex-silentio, it could equally be claimed
>that "thousands of MSS" containing the current NESTLE 27 text "that were
>extant in the 13ths, 14th, 15th centuries have perished", and "it is even
>possible to regard the printed" NESTLE 27 edition "as a transmission of
>the text of MSS which now have perished."  And there is nothing preventing
>such a claim, except normal logic and the normal laws of evidence and
>interpretation of factual data.
>
>This type of assertion, Helge, is the biggest crock of nonsense I have
>EVER heard coming from the TR/KJV-only crowd, and I cannot imagine how you
>can make such a suggestion with a straight face.
>
>With absolutely NO evidence regarding the supposed "thousands of MSS"
>which perished (I would suggest hundreds), let alone that the text
>EXCLUSIVELY of those "thousands" would happen to agree with the printed
>TR, and all that today remain extant are somehow "different" --- this type
>of assertion makes your whole concept of God's "divine preservation"  of
>the "true text" in totally lost MSS the TR/KJV-only equivalent of Joseph
>Smith finding the Book of Mormon on the golden plates, which, once
>translated, were forever removed from view, leaving only the PRINTED Book
>of Mormon as the "evidence" that such ever existed.  You said precisely as
>much in your last sentence:
>
>> To my mind,
>> it is even possible to regard the printed TR editions as
>> a transmission of the text of MSS which now have perished.
>
>I might as well even claim that "thousands" of MSS from the 13th-15th
>centuries which contained a text like Codex Bezae have similarly perished,
>and that ALL of those which perished in fact were systematically destroyed
>because they contained a pre-publication version of the Book of Mormon
>between their covers.
>
>This is NOT textual criticism; it's not "heresy"; it's absurdity, plain
>and simple.
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
>Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 19:34:00 -0400 (EDT)

> Evensen's foot could also fit a Byzantine foot?  (A one-word reply will

....NOT.

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 02:22:25 -0700

Maurice Robinson wrote:

> extant in the 13ths, 14th, 15th centuries have perished",

Notice that I did *not* *claim* that the TR text was to be found in the
"thousands of MSS" that may have perished! All I said was that "MSS with
such a text could have perished through extensive use". As to the
"thousands of MSS", I did not say that these could have contained a "TR"
text. Of course, it is indicated in my statement that at least some of
them *maybe* did.

> and "it is even
> the text of MSS which now have perished."

None of the Nestle editions represent an unbroken tradition back to the
time when many MSS still were handwritten, i.e. in the transition from
handwritten to printed "transmission".
The Nestle text is not a transmission, but is based on the decisions of
three earlier editions, which in turn were constructed eclectically.
Erasmus' edition was based on handwritten copies, for the most part.
As I see it, the 1516 edition was a continuation of the MS tradition.

It should be kept in mind that the foundation of my argumentation is a
belief in providential preservation, which I interpret to mean that the
providential preserved text is to be found in a historical continued
textual tradition. (And as far as I can see, the Byz text is the ancestor
of the TR).

> And there is nothing preventing

"Normal logic"? "Normal laws of evidence"? "Interpretation"?
Again, "good godly men differ"!

> can make such a suggestion with a straight face.

What a privilege to be the one to widen your understanding of the
"TR/KJV-only crowd"! :-)

> TR,

I never asserted nor suggested such a thing!

> and all that today remain extant are somehow "different" --- this type
> of Mormon as the "evidence" that such ever existed.

This is a bad comparison, indeed. *No* MSS *at all* exist to verify the
book of Mormon. But there *are* many MSS which verify the TR. Although
the Byz txt is not in complete harmony with the TR, it is close. That
cannot be said of the book of Mormon's relation to the "plates". Also, I
do not claim that an angel or a heavenly vision showed me the "original
readings".
There are even ancient sources for nearly *every word* in the TR! There
are MSS, Fathers, Versions, Lectionaries, etc. Is anything similar the
case with the book of Mormon?
And, BTW, the "plates" were *translated*, not *copied*!
It seems that this "comparison" fails on each and all points! (Maybe it
was just meant as a joke?!) :-)

> You said precisely as

You are not responding to any of *my* statements, are you?
This cannot possibly be a reply to any of *my* posts! (Or maybe someone
have tampered with some of the words in it.) :-(   :-/   :-)

Let me clarify: I did not say "thousands of MSS which now have perished".
Also, note that I said it is *even* *possible* for me to regard it thus.
I did not say I believed it was so, it was meant as an expression of
possibility. No, not even a *likelihood*.
What I had in mind was that since the Erasmus edition is very close to
the MSS he used for his edition (at least some of them), it may be that a
few MSS even *closer* to his printed edition may have perished. I did
not mean to suggest that they were *many*! (I believe it is possible that
Erasmus used MSS for his edition which do no longer exist or at least are
no longer available to us. It seems that his 1516 edition bears witness
to the use of other MSS which we no longer know about. I can't see why
this is so illogical!)
But again, I should have explained myself better, but I did not imagine
that it would arouse such reactions. (I *should* have known, though. I
must agree with the statement quoted at the end of one of Mr. Waltz's
posts:)

"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

:-)
 
> This is NOT textual criticism; it's not "heresy"; it's absurdity, plain

Please feel free to maintain that opinion.

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 05:28:17 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:

> such a text could have perished through extensive use". 

> I never asserted nor suggested such a thing!

So what text then did you want us to presume was among those "thousands"
of MSS which perished after the 15th century, since you specifically and
only mentioned MSS containing a TR-type text which likely had perished?

What point was there even in making such a hypothetical if MSS containing
a TR text which differed from the normal Byzantine/majority text were not
the issue?  If even "thousands" of normal Byzantine MSS from the 13th-15th
centuries perished, nothing would change in regard to the TR.  Your
suggestion had no relevance unless you were suggesting MSS which
significantly differed from the normative Byzantine in the direction of
the TR were the ones which were "lost".  This is once more playing subtle
rhetorical games with words, changing the intent as soon as a major
weakness is exposed. 

> Of course, it is indicated in my statement that at least some of
> them *maybe* did.

It seems that the intent of your statement was to plant the suggestion
that so many "thousands" of TR-like MSS perished since the 15th century
that there was a reasonable assumption that the TR text in fact
represented that text of those recently-perished MSS. If that was not what
you intended, there was no point whatsoever in the statement.

> few MSS even *closer* to his printed edition may have perished. 

> I did
> not mean to suggest that they were *many*! 

This is a MAJOR backtrack on your previous statements.  Had you said only
that instead of making the grand implication regarding "thousands", none
of this discussion would have been taking place.

> handwritten to printed "transmission".

The text found in the Nestle editions, even though primarily Alexandrian,
still agrees at least 90% in the gospels and 95% in the epistles with the
TR or the Byzantine text.  Anyone should be able to note even among those
MSS an "unbroken line of tradition" in their transmission and
preservation, especially if the TR text itself is nowhere to be found in
any known Greek MS, but that all have degrees of variance from it.  The
Alexandrian text merely has a slightly greater degree of variance from the
Byzantine majority than does the TR; but this does not change its basic
reliability in transmitting the original text for 90% or more of the NT.

> three earlier editions, which in turn were constructed eclectically.

Irrelevant. The Scrivener TR on which you base your faith-assumption that
it is basically or even totally equivalent to the autographs is not a
transmission, but is based on the decisions and reconstructions of F.H.A. 
Scrivener, who himself was not making any claims to autograph
authenticity in the TR-type of text he reconstructed "eclectically" from
previously-existing TRs.  There is no difference.

> textual tradition. (And as far as I can see, the Byz text is the ancestor

If the TR agreed with the "Byzantine consensus text" (which could be
determined even from taking 20 minuscule MSS and going with the "majority"
reading of those), then this statement might have a little more
credibility.  Since the TR differs from _any_ Byzantine consensus in over
1800 places, the Byzantine Textform is NOT the "ancestor" of the TR;
rather the TR is a close but not identical "cousin" of the Byzantine
majority.

> book of Mormon. But there *are* many MSS which verify the TR. 

Please show me the first MS which is identical to the TR.  If none, show
me the MSS which comes closest to the TR and has something far less than
the 1800 differences between itself and the Byzantine majority.  I would
be especially interested in knowing of the "many MSS" which read "book of
life" in Rev.21:19 or the KJV/TR addition in Ac.9:6 or the Johannine comma
in 1 Jn 5:7. I still consider the Book of Mormon comparison as apt, since
within its pages certain KJV passages can be verbally confirmed in many
places, which demonstrates that the now-lost Golden Plates similarly had
access to some of those very same "thousands" of MSS which had
perished.... (And I am being facetious). 

> Although
> cannot be said of the book of Mormon's relation to the "plates". 

How can you say yea or nay in their absence?  It is a faith assumption,
plain and simple. Ask any Mormon.

> Also, I

You claim instead of an angel that God Himself directly molded the text
into the TR form under Erasmus and later printed TR successors through his
"divine providential preservation" mechanism.  Since God thus altered the
text in over 1800 places from the reigning Byzantine majority by this
hypothesis, the parallel to the angel and the book of Mormon is still apt.

> case with the book of Mormon?

There doesn't have to be, since it is a faith assumption.  But don't
forget all those KJV passages within the Book of Mormon.  As for the
"ancient sources", it seems that the same could be said of the Byzantine
Textform far more than the TR, but also for the Alexandrian and Western
texttypes also.  So this proves nothing, except what Bentley said about
"pick and choose as you will" among the variant readings, choosing even
the worst by design if you prefer, yet the main thrust and message of the
NT will remain intact, and no major doctrinal shift will occur.  

If the TR advocates would simply claim that the TR was a "reasonably
adequate" text reflective of Reformation-era scholarship and practice,
which still could be used today with profit -- I think none of us would
have a major objection.  The problem comes in claiming what amounts to an
unwarranted assertion that the TR (especially the Scrivener edition) "is" 
the autograph text, and that all other texts are not what God has
"providentially preserved".  But for whatever reason (and I suspect the
modern KJV-only movement is the primary cause), the TR-as-autograph issue
has come to the fore among a small faction, and a warped view of textual
transmission and criticism is somehow co-opted into the support of their
theory.  Why must this take place?  Why is it not sufficient merely to
claim "reasonable adequacy" and merely "prefer" to use the TR or KJV
without making those two items into the one and only touchstone?  That is
the part that is beyond me.

> And, BTW, the "plates" were *translated*, not *copied*!

So was the Latin Vulgate, yet it also provides a "reasonably adequate"
reflection of the autographs.

> Please feel free to maintain that opinion.

Thank you.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 08:39:21 -0500 (CDT)

Replies, I hope brief, to several messages of Evensen.

The first is a technical footnote only (I may get back into this debate
later, but I hope not :-):

>three earlier editions, which in turn were constructed eclectically.

Not quite true. Nestle1 and Nestle 2 were based on the editions of
WH, Tischendorf, and Weymouth -- and Weymouth itself was a resultant
edition. Nestle3-Nestle25 were, of course, based on WH, Tischendorf, and
Weiss (with some minor alterations). But NA26 and NA27, while eclectic,
are *not* based on earlier editions; they represent the text determined
by the UBS committee.

Evensen wrote in another letter:

>> What's more, this is not a faith issue for me. Since I don't
>> believe in providential preservation in any form, I don't
>> *expect* the text to be preserved in any one manuscript (although
>> B comes close in the Gospels, and 1739 in the Epistles). I don't
>> *want* to adopt the text of any one manuscript -- so I don't. :-)
>
>With all due respect, but I seem to find a "faith statement" here.
>If I am interpreting Mr. Waltz correctly, he is stating (as a fact)
>that B comes close to the original text in the Gospels, and that
>1739 does so in the Epistles. I must ask: What canons of criticism
>verify that this is so? As far as I can see, it's not stated as a
>"likelihood". (Sorry if I have interpreted you wrongly, Bob).

That isn't the point I wanted to convey. I merely meant that, *IF*
I had to adopt the text of single manuscripts, it would appear
that B has the best text of the gospels and 1739 the best text
of the Epistles. This is based on the fact that B has fewer
harmonizations in the gospels than any other manuscript known
to me, and 1739 seems generally to agree more with the other
seemingly-early text types than any of them agree with each other.
But I repeat that I would not follow these manuscripts blindly;
I have a fairly rigorous system, and it just happens that these
mamuscripts most nearly approximate the results of that system.

It is, of course, true that I make certain assumptions in assessing
manuscripts and reading. I believe, for instance, that unharmonized
readings are usually more original than harmonized readings.

We cannot, as yet, objectively "prove" such assumptions. But we at
least can apply them systematically. Such a system may be *wrong,*
but at least it is repeatable. (Which, btw, cannot be said of many
of the modern eclectic systems.) As one who is scientifically
trained, this is the first test I make of a system -- and one which
the TR fails.

Of course, you can ignore science. All you have to do is move into
the backwoods, and live without electric lights and electricity
itself and television and any metal more advanced than iron and
automobiles and bicycles and.... :-)

[ ...On the differences between the TR and HF... ]

>A little too strong statement there. It's not "thousands" of differences.
>I think the appr. number of total differences is somewhere between
>1800 and 2000. Well, "thousands" could of course apply to 2000, but for
>the person who does not know the appr. number of differences, the above
>statement may easily be interpreted to mean far more than just 2000.

>From the information available to me, editions of the TR typically
differ at between 100 and 300 points. Thus the minimum number of
differenced between HF and a TR edition is 1500; the maximum is
over 2000. Such a number can reasonably be described as "thousands."

Now I do not wish to imply that the TR is un-Byzantine. Most of
those thousands of differences are trivial (though not all; witness
the ending of Romans). The TR is strongly Byzantine. It is just
not *purely* Byzantine -- and there is no evident pattern to the
departures that would allow us to reconstruct it.

Put it this way: If all printed evidence were destroyed, could you
reconstruct the TR? I strongly doubt it. Whereas my text would not
be affected at all....

***

For everyone's peace of mind, I will not pursue the mathematical
argument. This was, of course, just a simple projection. We all
interpret the argument differently, based on our faith assumptions
and/or scientific training.

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

                        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: Jim Deardorff <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:35:30 -0700 (PDT)

In responding to Helge Evensen, on Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Maurice Robinson
wrote, in part:

> But don't forget all those KJV passages within the Book of Mormon. 

This piece of their discussion raises a question in my mind.  If the
document a translator has before him in places reads very much the same as
certain passages he recalls from his favorite Bible, is it not likely that
the translator will call upon his memory of the Bible, if not the
particular Bible itself, to render the translation in those places?  (This
would be a translator who is not a modern scholar and who would not feel
obliged to try to make a totally independent translation.)

I've noticed in Metzger's 1968 book that he references H. Bornkamm having
maintained that Luther did this with respect to using a memorized
version of the Vulgate during his translation. 

Is there some long, Greek or Latin word I should learn that describes this
process?

(In asking this, I don't wish to imply that I in any way defend any true
legitimacy of the Book of Mormon.)

Jim Deardorff

---

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:23:43 -0700 (PDT)

On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote:

[snip]
> 
> Since the TR differs from _any_ Byzantine consensus in over

I fail to see how your conclusion follows from your premise.  All the
number of disagreements can prove is that they are in fact now separate
text-types.  I don't see how it can prove that one is not the ancestor of
the other. 

In particular, in making this claim you seem to be implying that the
history of the Byzantine text-type of von Soden has been over-turned. Now
I realize that von Soden's entire theory of the transmission of the NT
text has never been widely accepted (and never will be), but even in 1991
Amphoux wrote that no more modern history of the _Byzantine_ text-type has
yet been written.  So are you claiming that a more modern history _has_
been now written?  What book/monograph would that be? 

[snip]
> reflection of the autographs.

Eheu, eheu, pulchre dixisti!

Matthew Johnson
Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our 
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).

---

From: Ralph Nielsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:49:14 -0700 (PDT)

>great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).

RALPH NIELSEN
"I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not taste
death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28,
etc.).

You've been waiting a long time, haven't you, Mr. Johnson?

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:00:51 -0500 (CDT)

>been now written?  What book/monograph would that be? 

Since Maurice is frantically trying to get packed to head to
Germany, I'll try to tackle this for him as best I can. This is *not*
the official response of a Byzantine-prioritist -- but dealing with
the TR is generally an easier problem. :-)

First, let's not confuse our terms. The TR *does* belong to the
Byzantine type -- but is not a good representative of the type.
It's similar to the situation of, say, P66 and P75 in the Alexandrian
type. P75 is *the* best representative of the text -- very pure
and close to the original. P66, by contrast, clearly belongs to the
type but is *not* a good representative. Too much mixture. Similarly,
the (original) TR has a basically Byzantine text but with mixture
from other sources -- notably 1 and the vulgate. Thus the TR is not
a *descendent* of the Byzantine text; it is a cross.

As far as the history of the Byzantine type, we aren't really referring
to that. All we are working from is the information about Erasmus's
sources.

But if the history of the Byzantine type is to be written -- yes, it's
true, von Soden is the basic work to consult. But even that has to be
modified in the light of Wisse and the Claremont Profile Method.
The basic history is still good (the three basic groups -- Kx, Kr,
and Family Pi -- all endure) -- but there are many detailed modifications
in Luke. (Which implies, btw, that we need to examine the situation
in other books as well....)

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 22:52:03 -0500 (CDT)

On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote:
> ...

It is not beyond me.  The answer is that religious people who do not have
a foundation for their faith that is based on truth will always invent
artificial supports.  Certainty is more important to them than truth.  In
the case of KJVOs, evidence is of no concern, because no matter what it
consists of, it will be discarded if it does not fit their need for
certainty.  They can and will do incredible hermeneutical gymnastics to
rescue their version from every peril or possibility of tarnishing.  The
sad thing is that those who need this certainty the most do not even have
it because their premise is wrong.  The truth is, there is not one verse
in the Bible that speaks of preserving any copy, edition, or translation.
I am tempted to include a paper I read last year at the ETS national "The
Role of the Spirit in Bible Copying and Translating," but I have rambled
on too long as it is.  (Sorry, I almost got to preching)

--
Prof. Ron Minton: [email-masked]   W (417)268-6053  H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803