Subject: Re: tc-list 1Tim 3:16: A reqeust for a majority text advocate.

From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 1999 13:26:39 -0400

Martin:

The best and most exhaustive defence of QEOS as opposed to OS appears in
Dean John W. Burgon's work _The Revision Revised_ London:  J. Murray, 1883
pages 424-501.

Kevin W.Woodruff (not a MT proponent)

At 07:22 PM 08/07/1999 PDT, you wrote:
>I have followed the debate over the majority text with interest and would 
>like to thank those who took the time to post in detail.
>
>I have a special request for proponents of the majority text. The response 
>to my original query ended up in a _general_ debate on the majority text.  I 
>have seen responses from those who favor hOS as the reading for 1Tim 3:16 
>and think I understand the reasons for their preference.
>
>However, I don't understand the rationale for selecting QS in 1Tim 3:16 from 
>the majority camp.  Perhaps I missed it or did not understand it.
>
>Could a majority text advocate briefly present arguments specific to 1Tim 
>3:16?
>
>Thank you very much.
>Sincerely,
>Martin Smart
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________
>Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
>
>
Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div.
Library Director/Reference Librarian
Professor of New Testament Greek
Cierpke Memorial Library
Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary
1815 Union Ave. 
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404
United States of America
423/493-4252 (office)
423/698-9447 (home)
423/493-4497 (FAX)
[email-masked] (preferred)
[email-masked] (alternate)
http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 20:17:30 -0500

>Kevin W.Woodruff (not a MT proponent)

We need to make a point here.

A true Majority Text proponent *cannot speak* to a particular reading.
If you take the Majority Text, you take the Majority Text. You can't
argue anything else at a particular reading.

(This is not unique to the Majority Text, BTW. If one believes, say,
that the "Western" text is original, one still has no argument to
make on particular readings.)

A Majority Text advocate must demonstrate why the Majority Text
*as a whole* is superior -- but until that person is prepared
to make exceptions for individual readings (in which case one is
no longer a pure MT advocate, but something else), there is
no case to be made on an individual basis.

Thus, the argument for 1 Tim 3:16, for a majority text advocate,
is that QS is the reading of the Majority Text.

Of course, one can argue for the reading on other grounds. Burgon
did so. But it's actually a violation of his principles. :-)

Let's put it another way: All textual critics have a system for
selecting the best reading. Some are simple, some are complex,
some are contradictory, but they all have something. Explanations
of why a particular editor prefers a particular reading are simply
justifications: "This is the reading which best fits my system,
and here is why." Since the system of the MT advocates is simply,
"The majority reading is best," that's where the matter sits.

(I wish Scrivener had had something to say about this reading,
though. Scrivener is often accused of being a simple Majority
Text advocate, a follower of Burgon. This is simply not true.
He tended to prefer the Byzantine reading, but with a lot of
exceptions and restrictions. His would be the best argument
for the reading from someone who favoured the Byzantine reading
for more complex reasons.) 

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

                        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: "Maurice A. Robinson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 01:25:49 EDT

>argue anything else at a particular reading.

Not so, Bob, unless you are caricaturing the "majority text" position as
merely "counting noses" (cf. Fee 1979, 1993). If the term "majority text"
meant precisely that, then I know of no real "majority text" advocate who
would concur.

Certainly, a position favoring the "majority text" or (as I prefer) the
Byzantine Textform as an entity requires its own underlying theory,
justification, and defense within a framework of transmissional history,
followed by varied reasons for preferring such over against all other
methods of evaluating the data and the respective conclusions of opposing
schools of thought. But it would be quite wrong further to caricature a
pro-Byzantine position as having little or nothing to say in regard to
individual readings. 

Indeed, the defense of any Byzantine reading on both internal and
external grounds -- quite disassociated from the other portion of the
theory -- remains prerequisite if a pro-Byzantine advocate is seriously
to "do" NT textual criticism. Within this area (praxis rather than
theory), the same data has to be evaluated on a reading-by-reading basis,
using basically the same text-critical principles which might be applied
by those within the modern eclectic school, with the primary difference
being in regard to the value accorded external evidence as opposed to
internal criteria. While some principles considered "standard" among
eclectic praxis might not be applied due to theoretical differences
(e.g., the criterion preferring the shorter reading), other criteria will
look just as familiar to a pro-Byzantine critic as to a modern eclectic
(e.g., the more difficult reading, the smoother reading, the
non-harmonizing reading, the reading which best explains the rise of all
the others etc., though with certain modifications disallowing additional
factors based upon favored external witnesses or various factors which
might be more subjective than substantial).

>make on particular readings.)

The same would hold in those cases as well, just as if one were to be an
advocate of the Alexandrian texttype (as opposed to a true "eclectic"
text) as closest to the original. Judgments and observations at _all_
units of variation are necessary and part of the process for establishing
any preferred text as original or "best".

>no case to be made on an individual basis.

Once more I would disagree. The _theory_ provides the framework which
might suggest the Byzantine Textform as a whole to be superior, but it
still remains to establish the theoretical claim by specific practical
examples. I would also note that this line of argument seems to further
caricature the Byzantine Textform as monolithic and always in the
numerical majority, when in fact there are numerous places where the MSS
comprising the Byzantine Textform are seriously divided as regards
quantity, and in which cases one would be foolish to proclaim "majority
text" when there is no substantial majority present.  Precisely in those
cases other principles beyond the basic theory underlying Byzantine
preference would have to be elucidated before any decision among variants
can be made.

>did so. But it's actually a violation of his principles. :-)

Another caricature, since Burgon provides his "seven notes of truth" as
the basis for his theory, of which "number" is merely one of those notes
(and not even in the top three positions on the list). It does not do to
claim (as Fee) that those seven principles are merely seven different
ways of declaring the numerical majority to be correct, since this is
clearly not true on the face of it. Burgon was fully in accord with his
own principles in providing "other grounds" for preferring the Byzantine
reading in that passage; indeed, such was the _only_ way he could proceed
within his own theoretical framework, since "number" was not the only nor
the overriding criterion.

>"The majority reading is best," that's where the matter sits.

This still remains caricature. Applied in the same manner to modern
eclectics, it would read "B and Aleph (or B and P75, or even B alone)
happen to read in this manner", thus "the reading of B is best" and
that's where the matter sits. Since I don't think any modern eclectic
would prefer his or her method reduced to such simplicity, perhaps one
can then see why I consider such reductionism when applied to the
pro-Byzantine position unjustified as well.

> Scrivener is often accused of being a simple Majority
>Text advocate, a follower of Burgon. 

Although Scrivener and Burgon were contemporaries, neither was a follower
of the other, as their writings prove. Scrivener in the main did support
a basically Byzantine text, but (in accordance with his own views of
textual transmission) would differ from Burgon in many places, based on
his estimation of the manuscript evidence. A resultant text from
Scrivener, constructed on his principles, however, would be far closer to
the text preferred by Burgon than to that favored by modern eclectics,
contrary to the impression Dan Wallace seemed to give in NTSt a while
back.

>This is simply not true.
>exceptions and restrictions. 

The exceptions and restrictions were not many, and really did not affect
his predominantly Byzantine preference as regards text. Basically his
primary difference with Burgon was his decision to exclude witnesses
beyond the 9th century and to evaluate antiquity more from the uncial MSS
(no papyri available to him) and versions than did Burgon (who favored
the Fathers far more than the early MSS and versions). The amazing thing
is that even with these differences Scrivener still came to a basically
pro-Byzantine position as regards his overall preferred text., since his
theory as established would tend to favor such a result..

>His would be the best argument

Not necessarily so today, in part due to his being a person of his own
time and culture, without all the new data recovered in the century or so
since his death (e.g., what difference might the reading of P46 have made
to Scrivener's line of argument and conclusions regarding 1 Tm 3:16?). 

Scrivener certainly represents a good example of one who evaluated the
text on solid theoretical and practical grounds, integrating both theory
and praxis into his methodology, but in this sense he is not much
different from Burgon (who did much the same within his own theoretical
framework, though with much added bombast and rhetoric, which Scrivener
properly eschewed); the same could apply not only to myself or
Hodges/Farstad, but even to Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort,
Nestle-Aland, Merk, Vogels, Bover, etc., each of whom would differ from
the others in at least some theoretical points and manner of expression,
but all of whom (within their own respective schools!) yet arrive at very
close results regarding their preferred text based upon the application
of their theory and praxis (which probably is exactly what one would
expect from textual critics in general).

==============================================
Maurice A. Robinson
Professor of NT and Greek
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina