tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post6088303998951665199..comments2024-03-29T07:11:17.775+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: An Interview between Kenneth Clark and Maurice Robinson from 1977P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-47099880782106795242022-04-04T19:31:26.213+01:002022-04-04T19:31:26.213+01:00I'm just a simple layman, but I can't find...I'm just a simple layman, but I can't find the text of Alexander Souter. Might any of y'all know if his GNT is available online?KevinForChristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07477669188846813286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-21371572794121745062022-03-25T18:59:18.799+00:002022-03-25T18:59:18.799+00:00Dr. Robinson, in your judgement, do you believe th...Dr. Robinson, in your judgement, do you believe that Clark was being loose, casual and/or utilizing hyperbole (in regards to his "99%") when he states(?):<br /><br />"(1) the recognition that nearly all variant readings (say 99%) likely had their origin in the period before 200 AD; and whenever a reading is widespread, over many texttypes and MSS, this must be taken as an absolute certainty."<br /> <br /><br />This statement would seem to clash with an earlier statement of his: <br /><br />"It is of particular interest to realize that many textual alterations first appeared in Byzantine copies of the NT. It has been widely held and often repeated that the important alteration of text occurred before A. D. 200, but this view is considerably modified by the panoramic research of the IGNT project. It is true that every additional copy collated yields new readings of exegetical consequence."<br /><br /><br />It seems to me that Clark didn't necessarily have every single variant reading, (especially late non-viable readings,) in mind when explaining principle "(1)." Perhaps you can shed some more light on this point. Thanks!<br />Matthew M. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16314585538959945496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-53478326353080061072022-01-19T15:11:14.333+00:002022-01-19T15:11:14.333+00:00Elijah might have failed calculus on the first try...Elijah might have failed calculus on the first try, but the medical degree that allowed him to remove two appendixes and insert a third came through ok. Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-91415142995275347132022-01-19T14:09:11.300+00:002022-01-19T14:09:11.300+00:00[two significant mistakes that are corrected in th...[two significant mistakes that are corrected in the published version]Elijah Hixsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816323223305820788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-23277105354038863432022-01-19T14:07:24.858+00:002022-01-19T14:07:24.858+00:00Richard, thank you so much for your kind words. I ...Richard, thank you so much for your kind words. I do have to say that although the published version is mostly unchanged from the unpublished version that is available (apart from that I added a conclusion section, took out two appendices and published them as articles and I might have added an appendix not in the thesis version [can't remember]), I made two significant (in my opinion) mistakes—I didn't take recent history into consideration and identified the wrong city of where N022 was 'discovered' in modern times, and in the concluding chapter, I somehow forgot how maths work and left out one of the manuscripts (I think O023) in my totals in the conclusion chapter. I did fail Calculus 2 at university though the first time I took it, so perhaps forgetting to add a whole manuscript is not all that surprising.Elijah Hixsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816323223305820788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-33601404657716235822022-01-19T06:12:02.107+00:002022-01-19T06:12:02.107+00:00Thanks, Elijah. Your work on N022 O023 and Σ042 is...Thanks, Elijah. Your work on N022 O023 and Σ042 is ground breaking. You conclude that only about a third of singulars can be attributed to the scribe, if these three manuscripts are representative. I am going to read your thesis with interest.<br /><br />All, Elijah's work was discussed on this blog in March 2018 and his thesis is online.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-24201381334782018412022-01-19T04:22:30.222+00:002022-01-19T04:22:30.222+00:00"(2) However, singular or near-singular readi..."(2) However, singular or near-singular readings are to be immediately eschewed...and readings which have so little support likewise have little claim to originality."<br /><br />And thus Burgon's second "Note of Truth" — "2. Consent of Witnesses, or Number" "Trad. Txt." p.29<br /><br />I believe Clark probably agreed more with Burgon in regards to "Number" than he may have realized. For even Hort acknowledged/believed that the combination of B/א was weightier than either B or א (would be) without the "consent" of the other (generally speaking). So we can like it or lump it, but "Number" certainly stands as a "Note if Truth." Or else, why do men on every front uniformly reject the poorly attested readings found within the TR corpus? e.g. Luke 2:22, Acts 9:5-6, Eph. 3:9, I Jo. 5:7-8, Rev. 16:5 etc. Matthew M. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16314585538959945496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-36452990320868220372022-01-18T22:41:16.020+00:002022-01-18T22:41:16.020+00:00The reigning paradigm at the time was clearly that...The reigning paradigm at the time was clearly that the lectionary text (a) was itself distinct, though of a generally Byzantine character; and (b) had numerous readings of (presumed) earlier date than what appeared among continuous-text Byzantine MSS of the 5th and later centuries.<br /><br />This apparently is what drove Clark's statement, as I interpret it. Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-17363760044261399622022-01-18T17:45:11.130+00:002022-01-18T17:45:11.130+00:00The assigned date, and the implication: that the ...The assigned date, and the implication: that the lectionaries echo a Byzantine text from the 300s.James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-10455870493261731332022-01-18T16:49:15.140+00:002022-01-18T16:49:15.140+00:00I think there's a book on purple manuscripts t...I think there's a book on purple manuscripts that addresses this as well. You can take N022 O023 and Σ042, all copies of the same exemplar, and look at how many readings in any one of them would be singular if we didn't have the other two. It shows that many of the unique readings in those three manuscripts were already in the exemplar but only survived to this day in the three of them.Elijah Hixsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816323223305820788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-78362144813922721242022-01-18T06:24:42.729+00:002022-01-18T06:24:42.729+00:00Which would seem to be in keeping with what Royse ...Which would seem to be in keeping with what Royse says about the “complex scribe.”Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-15021418316536512932022-01-18T03:13:13.963+00:002022-01-18T03:13:13.963+00:00Thanks, Peter. That is good to know. I have been r...Thanks, Peter. That is good to know. I have been reading Farnes. If I have understood him correctly his test samples of minuscule 821 has 23 variants that would be singulars if we did not happen to have its vorlage, 0141. However, only 5 of these "singulars" are not also in 0141. This would suggest that the majority of singulars are not the creation of the scribe.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-74573339180152172782022-01-17T05:16:44.948+00:002022-01-17T05:16:44.948+00:00Clark would consider a texttype as a particular cl...Clark would consider a texttype as a particular cluster of related MSS which normally would have some "distinctive" readings peculiar to most MSS related to that cluster at any given point (the terminology "cluster" was not then being used, so far as I know, but that would be what he was describing as opposed to any product of a formal recension).<br /><br />Clark was still eclectic in one sense, in that he would not advocate following a single texttype throughout; but he did not lean to reasoned or thoroughgoing eclecticism in individual variant units if such meant disregarding the overall pattern of readings involved in such (at least that's how I understood him at the time). Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-85749087499223901642022-01-16T23:15:17.435+00:002022-01-16T23:15:17.435+00:00Professor Robinson, could you comment on what Clar...Professor Robinson, could you comment on what Clark believed constituted a text type? I am not too surprised that he refrained from counting the so-called Western Text as one. But given what he said about that, would applying the same criteria consistently not also undermine both the Alexandrian and Caesarean text types (both of which this interview makes apparent that he believed were deserving of the label, in contrast with the Western)?<br /><br />I also am a bit confused about Clark's position. It seems like he is still stuck with an eclectic text when all is said and done. Am I missing something here?Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-53216211680148244202022-01-15T20:14:47.254+00:002022-01-15T20:14:47.254+00:00*Royse’s*Royse’sPeter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-8524746614853552512022-01-15T20:14:33.421+00:002022-01-15T20:14:33.421+00:00Richard, see Royer’s discussion of the “complex sc...Richard, see Royer’s discussion of the “complex scribe.” He is well aware that not every singular is the work of that manuscript’s scribe. Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-444699554216320702022-01-15T17:06:57.192+00:002022-01-15T17:06:57.192+00:00Which part: the type of text or the date, or both?...Which part: the type of text or the date, or both? Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-62372858878648121682022-01-15T16:15:59.042+00:002022-01-15T16:15:59.042+00:00Daniel, I think you are assuming that copyists mad...Daniel, I think you are assuming that copyists made many errors and that they did not tend to accumulate with each generation of copying, while I assume that each copyist made few errors and that they did accumulate. Is that right? If so, you need to explain how a copyist would avoid duplicating the errors in his exemplar.<br /><br />If we did not have F(012) you and Clark (and many others it seems) would falsely accuse the scribe of its sibling, G(010) of making many singulars which we know go back to at least to their common ancestor.<br /><br />Royse, who is normally very thorough, discusses the origin of singulars (p92-93) but simply assumes his conclusion that they can be attributed to the copyist himself. What is going on? Are text critics reading each other too much and falling victim to group think? Perhaps Peter Head could chime in?Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-76391477739021326572022-01-15T05:41:06.923+00:002022-01-15T05:41:06.923+00:00Timothy Joseph,
<< Snapp chooses the manusc...Timothy Joseph, <br /><< Snapp chooses the manuscripts and the text to be compared >> <br /><br />Ahem. Granting that I select two manuscripts for comparison in my Head-to-Head contests, and granting that I select the passage, how does either point add up to a "sham"? <br />How would you go about making a comparison of the accuracy of the scribes of the texts of two manuscripts at a specific passage? James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-26350848670916221052022-01-15T05:33:52.042+00:002022-01-15T05:33:52.042+00:00"The Lectionary Text in fact must have been B..."The Lectionary Text in fact must have been Byzantine in character from its inception, circa the fourth century." <br /><br />That's quite a claim from Clark. James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-3747498586727196992022-01-15T02:25:02.091+00:002022-01-15T02:25:02.091+00:00As always, another superb article by Dr. Robinson....As always, another superb article by Dr. Robinson. Thanks!Timothy Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06641788186736340533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-41952499825568343172022-01-15T02:21:52.325+00:002022-01-15T02:21:52.325+00:00Stop it, the whole’ Head to Head Contest’ is a sha...Stop it, the whole’ Head to Head Contest’ is a sham, Snapp chooses the manuscripts and the text to be compared, If your argument is based on this, it is also false.Timothy Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06641788186736340533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-89722205840613134382022-01-15T01:02:20.702+00:002022-01-15T01:02:20.702+00:00I'm rather surprised by the claim that the Cae...I'm rather surprised by the claim that the Caesarean text has nothing original in it. I would think that Jesus Barabbas would be a primary example to the contrary.Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-91095651601714170362022-01-15T01:00:53.590+00:002022-01-15T01:00:53.590+00:00No, most singulars would not be reproduced by the ...No, most singulars would not be reproduced by the scribe. Think of it this way. If every scribe included all the text of his exemplar, plus errors he introduced, the manuscript chain would get more and more error-ridden at every step, withe the ones at the tail end of the chain resembling the mangled phrase at the end of a game of Telephone (aka Chinese Whispers). Istead, what James Snapp has shown in his "Head to Head Contests," a manuscript 800-1000 years old can be much closer to the standard than one 1600-1800 years old, apparently because the transmission stream of the former was of the sort that weeded out errors as they arose.<br />Thus, if we find an error that appears in only one manuscript, it can most likely be attributed to that scribe; if on only two closely related mss, probably the scribe of the earlier one. Manuscripts with accumulated errors tended to either become "corrected manuscripts," or were replaced in the copying stream by "authentic manuscripts," both of which we read of as being preferred by ancient scholars. <br />Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-61816068394615953552022-01-15T00:40:46.794+00:002022-01-15T00:40:46.794+00:00I am struck by Clark's claim that most singula...I am struck by Clark's claim that most singulars are the creations of the scribe of the manuscript in question. He said "However, singular or near-singular readings are to be immediately eschewed. In 99% of the cases, they are likely the creation of that very scribe, whether intentionally or quite by accident”. How can this be? Wouldn’t most of the singulars in the Vorlage be reproduced by the scribe? How would he correct singular omissions, for example? Are we to assume that copyists always worked from multiple exemplars? Royse also seems to believe that singulars must betray the habits of the scribe rather than his predecessors. Am I missing something?Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.com