Subject: Entre nous...

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 13:28:21 +0100

Robert Waltz wrote:

>I'm not going to continue this discussion with Petersen about the
>origin of this reading, as I think our differences are primarily
>based on the way we use the language. (At least, that's the politest
>way I can think of to say "He's twisting what I said." :-)
>
>But there is one thing he said which utterly confuses me:
>
>>I have no idea whether it is original or not, nor do I care which is
>>original.
>
>You "do not care" which reading is original in this passage? Is not
>the purpose of textual criticism to do our best to determine the
>original reading? If that is *not* the purpose, then what is?
>
>I am obviously missing something fundamental here

Yes, you are.  The point of textual criticism is--according to one
well-known definition--recovering the text which is "closest to the
original."  But *which* of the many readings extant (or capable of
triangulation among the extant witnesses) should not be of concern to the
textual critic.  To take an example, the textual critic should have *no*
personal investment in whether the "original" is "veil" or "power" in I
Cor. 11:10;  nor should the textual critic care (from a personal or
theological point of view) whether the "Great Commission" is part of the
original text of Matthew or not.  However, as the repeated intrusion of
*personal faith perspectives,* and the patent cutting of the evidence to
fit pre-conceived theories of textual transmission evident on this list (an
Evenson is not the only one doing this), it seems that the operative theory
for many on the list is: "this is what I believe, now let me argue it."  A
textual critic, however, begins with "I don't know what is going on;  let
me assemble the evidence and see if it points in a direction;  it may, or
it may not."  And if the evidence points in a particular direction, that
direction should have *no* relevance for the critic's life (otherwise
he/she will be tempted to shape the evidence to fit his/her beliefs).
Clear?

>In another message (not directed at me, thankfully), Petersen
>wrote:
>
>>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...)
>
>>>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.
>
>[ etc. ]
>
>I must spring to Robinson's defense here. Be it noted that I do not
>agree with Robinson's theory of the text, or with the text he prints,
>or with his theology, or almost anything else (except, perhaps, his
>taste in music).
>
>But the difference between Robinson's theory and Evensen's is vast.
>Evensen offers a text on the basis of faith. Robinson offers a text
>on the basis of evidence. Whether or not we agree with his theory
>(and few if any of us do), Robinson *has* a theory, and follows it
>consistently. Thus he differs from Evensen as fundamentally as
>Petersen or I do. The fact that his text resembles Evensen's more
>than ours is irrelevant.
>
>Robinson is a textual critic, even if an unorthodox on. Evensen is
>not.
>
>What more need one say?

One might say that I, personally, find the descriptions that you and
Robinson use--and I will quote--a bit "over the top."  Robinson:
"ridiculous matters," "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," "This is NOT
textual criticism; it's not 'heresy'; it's absurdity, plain and simple."
Waltz: "Evensen offers a text on the basis of faith. Robinson offers a text
on the basis of evidence," "Robinson is a textual critic, even if an
unorthodox on. Evensen is not."  Should I note this vocabulary, and use it
the next time I hear the Byzantine text being projected back into the early
centuries, *without any manuscript, versional, or patristic support*?

I am a very dumb man, and--esp. on this list--have never been sure who is a
textual critics and who is not (I suspect most are not).  But I find it
amusing to note that Robinson now gleefully uses the charge of an
"argument-ex-silentio" (the incorrect hyphens are Robinson's:  in Latin it
is "argumentum ex [or: e] silentio") against Evenson, but complained
bitterly when I used it against him.  While there certainly are differences
between Robinson and Evenson, I was struck by one of Robinson's charges
against Evensen: "With absolutely NO evidence regarding the supposed
'thousands of MSS' which perished";  but is this not the same argument I
used against Robinson, pointing out the empirical dearth of evidence for
the Byzantine text before the fourth century?  And now, one of your's:
"Robinson *has* a theory, and follows it consistently";  but so does
Evenson--although most of us would not accept his presuppositions, even as
most of us do not accept Robinson's presuppositions.  Beyond that, *mutatis
mutandis,* the rhetorical/argumentative parallels are striking (I have
already given one example above: "With absolutely NO evidence...", etc.).

But then, I must not--by the recent standard of exchange on this list--be a
textual critic.

--Petersen, Penn State University,
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 12:09:17 -0500 (CDT)

Here we go again... Once again, I will keep this short.

On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
wrote, in part:

>Robinson use--and I will quote--a bit "over the top." 

[ ... ]

>centuries, *without any manuscript, versional, or patristic support*?

Not relevant to what I am saying. Remember that I do not agree with
Robinson's text or method. But he *has* one. That is, he has a system.
It's *wrong,* but it's a system.

Let me give an analogy. The Ptolemaic system of astronomy assumed
that the earth was the center of the universe, and calculated the
positions of the planets on that basis. It was wrong -- the earth
is *not* the center of the universe. But it was systematic; anyone
could repeat the results. Similarly, you or I could follow Robinson's
principles and reproduce his text.

Evensen, by analogy, is a reader of horoscopes. He believes what he
believes because it says so. If the TR did not exist, we could not
by any means reconstruct his text.

All I maintain is that Robinson has a logically consistent system.
That is not the same as a correct system. But it's far better than
an illogical one!

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

                        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)