Subject: Re: Canons of Criticism (part1)

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:44:44 -0700

(Response to Maurice Robinson - Part 1 of 2)

(This message was too long, so I had to break it into two parts)

I am aware that Maurice is soon leaving for Muenster, but I hope that he
is able to read this post and comment on it before he leaves.

Maurice Robinson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:
>
> > 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".
>
> > > 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,
> >
> > 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?

I only wanted you to presume that there must have perished a considerable
number of MSS. My mentioning of it in the particular context was to
emphasize the point that many MSS most likely *have* perished, and that
because of that, it should be possible to grant the possibility that
there existed "TR MSS" among these. It was far from my intention to
suggest that *all* of these "thousands of MSS" contained a "TR text".
I wanted to make the point that *if* "thousands of MSS" that were extant
in the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries indeed *have* perished, the higher
the likelihood would have been of the existense of a "TR text" among
them. But if we, for instance, *knew* for a fact that only *90 MSS* from
that time did perish, the likelihood of a "TR text" among them would have
diminished considerably.

Usually, I try to express myself in as few words as possible on this list
hoping it will be understood in spite of it. :-)

Notice my words "*At least*, it should be clear...." (emphasis added),
and "it is *even* possible....." (emphasis added).
My use of words here indicates that I did *not* intend to give the
impression that *all* those "thousands of MSS" must have contained a
"TR text". If I had, I would *not* have tried to *deny* it *now*!
At least, I have tried to be honest and consistent as far as I know to
be. You see, I am not just trying to be adamant in my position, I really
*believe* that my position is a legitimate one! :-)

>
> 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?

Of course that was the *issue* in my discussion. And the reference to
the hypothetical "thousands of MSS" was involved in the argumentation,
but my point is that I never asserted (nor indicated) that all those
"thousands of MSS" belonged to the "TR type". (It is interesting in this
context to note that many *still* regard the TR as a "strongly
Byzantine" text. If the TR had not existed and if a MS containing a text
identical to one of the TR editions, it is clear to me that textual
critics would have regarded it as "strongly Byzantine". Or.....?).

As to my *point* in making such a hypothetical statement regarding lost
MSS, I think I have explained that adequately above.

> If even "thousands" of normal Byzantine MSS from the 13th-15th
> centuries perished, nothing would change in regard to the TR.

In my presumption I included in those "thousands" at least a few
"TR MSS".

(I seem to remember having read that some of the later Byzantine MSS are
nearer to the TR than the earlier ones. Is this correct? Were not the MSS
Erasmus used for his first edition Byzantine MSS?)

> 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".

Not "the ones", but "*some* of the ones"! Of course it has *relevance*
even if I did not suggest that *all* of them may have had such a text.
(See above)

> This is once more playing subtle
> rhetorical games with words, changing the intent as soon as a major
> weakness is exposed.

If nothing else, this demonstrates that if we do not read each others
words carefully in the course of the debate, we fail to grasp the
*intent* of the words actually written.
And I do not think that a "major weakness" has been exposed. I have not
changed the intent, as I have explained above.

>
> > 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.

"No point whatsoever"? Again, you fail to grasp my *intent*.

>
> > 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*!
>
> 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.

"Grand implication"?
Another way in which you could have avoided this discussion was to read
my words carefully at the outset! :-)
There is no backtrack here, much less a "MAJOR" one! The problem is not
my statements, but your *implications* of them! I have not made as strong
implications regarding the "thousands of MSS" as you have done regarding
my previous statements.

>
> > 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 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.

Haven't you missed the whole point here? Remember, we are talking about
those 90 and 95% respectively, when we discuss textual differences.

> 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.

As far as I know, there's no disagreement between us here. But that's not
the subject of our discussion. What we are discussing here, is a
transmission or preservation of a particular *form* of the text.
In my thinking, providential preservation does not apply to "all MSS",
no matter their textual form. I interpret providential preservation to
apply to a textual tradition with substantial agreement. In my opinion,
there is "substantial agreement" between the Byz txt and the TR editions.
And we must not *only* look at the *number* of differences between those
two texts, but also at the *nature* of the actual differences!
Consequently, I do see a completely different pattern of textual
deviation between the TR and the Alexandrian text.

>
> > The Nestle text is not a transmission, but is based on the decisions of
> > 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,

I know, of course, that the Scrivener edition *as such* is not a
transmission, but its form of the *text* is, since it represent the
much earlier TR editions which have been in current use up to 1881 when
Scrivener first published his reconstruction. You know as well as I do,
that the differences between the Scrivener reconstruction and the earlier
editions are *very* few and *very* minor. These differences may not be
greater than the differences between most Byzantine MSS. (Correct me if
I'm wrong. Or do I have to ask?)
Is a similar thing the case with the Nestle editions? If not, I think
that my argumentation in this respect has some relevance.
But again, "good godly men differ", and we certainly *interpret* things
differently.

For clarification, I add this: My view of providential preservation
necessitates that the providential preserved text must have had a clear
dominance and extensive use among the Christians through history. As far
as I can see, this has only been the case with the Byz txt and the TR
(as for the *Greek* text).
In my view, a text which has been in "substantial" agreement for over
1600 years (from ca. 350 a.d. up to today), has a great on originality.
In my line of thinking, the majority principle is secondary.
Of course, you will argue about the differences between the Byz txt and
the TR, but these differences are still comparatively small when viewed
as a continual transmission from about 350 until today.
I view the TR as both a continuation *and* a correction of the Byz txt.
But the corrections are comparatively small.

If the text of the Nestle editions (or a text very similar to them) can
be shown to have been part of extensive use in the church and historical
continuity, only then, in my view, is it to be regarded as a real
providentially preserved transmission or textual tradition!

> 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.

Scrivener did not claim to reproduce the text nearest to the autograph
text in his reconstruction of the KJV text, for he held (more or less) to
the Byzantine traditional text. His goal was not to reconstruct an
"original" text, but the KJV Greek text. But that does not mean that it
*cannot be* nearest to the autographs! I doubt that even Paul the Apostle
always knew that his epistles were *inspired* writings. In my opinion,
a person can very well be an instrument for providential preservation
without knowing it.

>
> > 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).
>
> 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.

A "Byzantine consensus text" is one thing, but Byzantine MSS is another!
It depends on what you consider to be "a Byzantine text". In my view,
*all* readings within the Byzantine tradition(s) must be taken into
consideration, because I do not operate within a "Byzantine consensus"
theory as you do. Let me put it this way: The "ancestor(s)" of the TR
is/are "Byzantine MSS". (My "private interpretation").

It seems that our respective definitions of the word "ancestor" differ
slightly. By that word I meant to indicate that in the same manner as I
descend from my ancestors, so the TR descends from its ancestors: the
Byz txt/MSS. There are differences between the two, as there are
differences between me and my ancestors. (It may be an unscholarly
definition, but it was, at least, what I meant by it).

>
> > 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.
>
> Please show me the first MS which is identical to the TR.

I did not say that any *one* MS verifies the TR! Even the Nestle text
"verifies" over 90% of the TR text. There are MSS *extant* to verify
the TR, that is, the TR can be reconstructed from MS sources. Can the
book of Mormon be verified by *extant* MS sources?? Can *it* *today* be
reconstructed from *extant* MS sources? If not, the comparison of my
view to that of the Mormons is clearly false.
Only if the book of Mormon had MS sources for *almost all* of its text,
can my view be compared to the Mormon view. For it is known that the TR
is attested by MS evidence for almost all of its text. Actually, there
is MS evidence for all of it. Only some of it is weak, and a few are
readings dependent on the Latin rather than the Greek. But even *Latin*
evidence is "good" evidence compared to the Mormon view, which depends
*without exception* on the "revelations" of Joseph Smith. There is no
extant ancient (or otherwise) manuscript evidence for the book of Mormon.
(I don't know how to put it any plainer).
(Oops! I almost forgot that there are a very few "readings" in the TR
which normally are described as emendations and mistakes).

I never thought that I find the true text "in totally lost MSS", as you
have stated. It is true that the exact text of the TR is not found in any
one handwritten MS. But the sources and MSS Erasmus used, together with
the different Byzantine MSS, *does* give us the TR text.

> 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.

Here you fail to keep my statements within the *context*. The book of
Mormon has *no* *extant* MSS to sustain it. The TR has! That's my reason
for thinking that this is a bad comparison. When I said that there were
"many MSS" to verify the TR, I was arguing in the context of your
assertion that my view on the TR can be compared to the Mormon view
on the book of Mormon.
I did not say that each one of "many MSS" sustained every reading in the
TR.
I said that there are many MSS which **verify** the TR! There's a
difference!
For remember, this must be kept in context of your assertions that my
view can be compared to the Mormon view. But the Mormon view cannot
consult *any* MS evidence. They have only a "translation" of
*non-existent* plates! (Which of course *never* existed).
Their problems are not that they have an ancient MS text which
does not sustain their text more than 98% of the time. Their problem is
that they cannot even find 1% Ms attestation for the book of Mormon.
There is a clear difference here.

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.

(By Rev.21:19 you mean Rev.22:19?)

Since I mostly follow Dr. Hills' views on the text, I might as well quote
him here as my authority. On Rev.22:19 he says: "....._book_ for _tree_
in Rev. 22:19, a variant which Erasmus could not have failed to notice
but must have retained purposely. Critics blame him for this but here he
may have been guided providentially by the common faith to follow the
Latin Vulgate" (KJV Defended, p.203).
There is MS evidence for the reading, even "ancient" evidence, but it's
not *Greek* evidence.

On Acts 9:6 Dr. Hills notes that it is absent from the Greek MSS. He
gives a list of Latin Vulgate readings, among which is found the
rejected reading of Acts 9:6. In his introduction to that list, he says:
        "....[they] seem to have been placed in the Textus Receptus by
the direction of God's special providence and therefore are to be
retained" (ibid. p.200-201).
Here too, there is evidence for the reading, but only Latin.

He has a rather lenghty discussion on the Johannine Comma. I will only
give a short quote from his conclusion:
        "....it is not impossible that the _Johannine comma_ was one of
those few true readings of the Latin Vulgate not occurring in the
Traditional Greek Text but incorporated into the Textus Receptus under
the guiding providence of God. In these rare instances God called upon
the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to correct the usage of the Greek-
speaking Church" (ibid. p.213).

I do not go into the discussion on these readings, but I highly
recommend the reading and study of this book by Dr. Edward Hills. In my
view, I believe it is important to every textual critic to at least
*read* Hills' works, in order to be familiar with what he rejects! :-)

(continued)

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:58:38 -0500 (CDT)

>is able to read this post and comment on it before he leaves.

It's too late, I fear. He is already on his way (he may not be on
the plane, but he is definitely away from his e-mail).

I was also given to understand that he wants this thread to drop.
Certainly I think we can stop. I think we've all reached the point
where we are simply re-hashing our positions. Time to let the
passive observers decide which of us have made the worst fools
of ourselves. :-)

In the spirit of that hope, I won't waste all your time with
refutations of Evensen's supposed arguments. :-)

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

                        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)