# I Am Thoroughly Sturzian



## greenbaggins (Mar 24, 2022)

For a long time, I thought I was the only one with my particular opinions on the textual criticism of the New Testament. I viewed with equal frustration the extremes of the WH position and of the TR position. Of course, from the way many talk, those are the only two options. But then someone told me about Harry Sturz's book (_The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism_). For a long time, I didn't have the time to read the book. However, I now have, and was absolutely delighted with it. Against WH, Sturz argues that the Byzantine readings often predate the Alexandrian readings. We know this from the Chester Beatty papyrii. It often shows the agreement of Byzantine readings with Western readings over against Alexandrian readings. The geographical realities being what they were, the Byzantine readings are then shown by Sturz to be independent from the Western and the Alexandrian (contrary to WH's claim that they were completely dependent).

Over against the TR position, I found that my thoughts on their view of providence are exactly the same as Sturz. According to many TR advocates, the Alexandrian manuscripts were fewer in number because their readings were rejected. They were hidden because they were inferior manuscripts. This is highly unlikely. It is far more likely that Islam explains the paucity of Alexandrian manuscripts over against Byzantine manuscripts. It could also easily explain why manuscripts were hidden. They were therefore hidden not because they were inferior, but because they were valuable, and the Alexandrian scholars didn't want the Muslims destroying them. Now, this last bit is a theory. But it is just as plausible (I would argue far more plausible) than the typical TR theory. At any rate, to dismiss the Alexandrian manuscripts because of the completely speculative quasi-providential arguments most TR advocates use is untenable.

Sturz believes that the Byzantine texts are neither primary nor secondary, but independent. This is exactly what I believe. Sturz also has a very high respect for geographical dispersion of a reading being a huge argument in favor of originality, a canon I also share. Even more, Sturz carefully undermines the "shorter reading is preferred" and qualifies the "more difficult reading is preferred" canons in highly appropriate ways. I cannot commend this book highly enough. I only wish more would read it, and that a published NT could be published along Sturzian lines. I would especially encourage the TR advocates to read this book, and thus be convinced to stop treating the text-critical world as though there are only two possible options.

Reactions: Like 8 | Informative 8


----------



## Taylor (Mar 24, 2022)

Thank you so much for this, Pastor Lane. I’m looking into buying it now.


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 24, 2022)

Unfortunately, it is difficult to find one for a reasonable price. I think I paid around $44 for it, which is definitely on the inexpensive end for what I've seen.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Mar 24, 2022)

Is there an electronic version that you know of?


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 24, 2022)

No, the copyright is 1984, so I highly doubt an electronic version has been created.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 24, 2022)

This might be something:








The Byzantine text-type and New Testament textual criticism : Sturz, Harry A : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive


305 pages ; 24 cm



archive.org

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 24, 2022)

Another option:








The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism


This text argues and provides evidence for the view that the Byzantine text should be taken seriously as a potential witness to ancient readings, but should not be made determinative, as some advoc…




www.energiondirect.com

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 24, 2022)

Lane, I get the impression that Sturz's position is similar to Maurice Robinson's Byzantine Priority view. Do you agree?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 24, 2022)

Sturz does not hold to Byzantine priority. The Byzantine tradition is an independent witness that should be valued alongside the Western and Alexandrian.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 3


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 24, 2022)

Rev Lane, I have it but have not read Sturz: have you read Pickering and if so, how do both fit?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 24, 2022)

I concur with the 44 dollar price, I got a decent used one at that price from baker book house


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 24, 2022)

I have not read Pickering, but I understand he is a straightforward defender of the Majority Text. Sturz would not be. Sturz believes that the Western, Byzantine, and Alexandrian are more or less equal in weight to each other, and should be weighed accordingly. Basically, if two out of three of those traditions agree against the third, then you go with the two.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> I have not read Pickering, but I understand he is a straightforward defender of the Majority Text. Sturz would not be. Sturz believes that the Western, Byzantine, and Alexandrian are more or less equal in weight to each other, and should be weighed accordingly. Basically, if two out of three of those traditions agree against the third, then you go with the two.


That’s the summary I was looking for!

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 24, 2022)

Would these changes affect your own choice of english translation?


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 24, 2022)

John, I would still go with one of the five I mentioned in my article on the subject: ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, or CSB. Any one of those would be acceptable.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 24, 2022)

And it's not really a change. I believed what Sturz said before I read Sturz.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Mar 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> I have not read Pickering, but I understand he is a straightforward defender of the Majority Text. Sturz would not be. Sturz believes that the Western, Byzantine, and Alexandrian are more or less equal in weight to each other, and should be weighed accordingly. Basically, if two out of three of those traditions agree against the third, then you go with the two.


Pickering is a providential preservationist and thinks the pure line of mss is in one particular Byzantine family (f35 I think). Pretty idiosyncratic conclusions, but has developed a commendable theory of textual transmission.


----------



## jw (Mar 24, 2022)

Hello, Thoroughly Sturzian.

Reactions: Funny 5


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> John, I would still go with one of the five I mentioned in my article on the subject: ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, or CSB. Any one of those would be acceptable.


Have you been looking at the (new) Legacy Standard Bible? I’ve been reading it. I think it is a worthy replacement for the NASB. Personally I think it and the CSB are my two favorite English versions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Mar 24, 2022)

SolaScriptura said:


> Have you been looking at the (new) Legacy Standard Bible? I’ve been reading it. I think it is a worthy replacement for the NASB. Personally I think it and the CSB are my two favorite English versions.


I’ve been off and on the LSB train. At first, I was thrilled with it. Then, after I started noticing some weirdness, I began to fear it was a rushed project. Now, it appears the committee is listening to suggestions, and they’ve made good edits. I like it, but it does not read near as smooth as the CSB.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Mar 24, 2022)

What's interesting about the LSB is that, even though it's perceived as being John MacArthur's project, he does not hold the copyright on it. My copy (I picked one up at his church's bookstore) reads: "Copyright 2021 by The Lockman Foundation." So, he may have influenced it, but he doesn't control it. Isn't that the translation where "doulos" is always translated as "slave" no matter what the context might be?


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 25, 2022)

SolaScriptura said:


> Have you been looking at the (new) Legacy Standard Bible? I’ve been reading it. I think it is a worthy replacement for the NASB. Personally I think it and the CSB are my two favorite English versions.


Ben, I have not looked at the LSB at all yet. I dare say it would be an acceptable version, though I am wondering at the reasoning for tweaking the NASB. There have already been several tweaks now to the NASB. And is this tweak really enough for it to be called by a new name?


----------



## Taylor (Mar 25, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> …I am wondering at the reasoning for tweaking the NASB.


I think it corrected a lot of annoying inconsistencies in the NASB. In my opinion, the LSB is what the NASB should have been had they followed their own philosophy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 25, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Ben, I have not looked at the LSB at all yet. I dare say it would be an acceptable version, though I am wondering at the reasoning for tweaking the NASB. There have already been several tweaks now to the NASB. And is this tweak really enough for it to be called by a new name?


Even though I’ve not been looking at it casually for a couple weeks… yes, the wording is sufficiently changed that it doesn’t “feel” like the NASB and as such seems like another thing. So I believe a new name was justified.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 25, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I think it corrected a lot of annoying inconsistencies in the NASB.


I think the idea was to go back to the NASB77 where needed; the 77 edition was seen as more consistent to the NASB tradition. 


SolaScriptura said:


> So I believe a new name was justified.


Removing the word American gave the translation an International appeal.


----------



## Taylor (Mar 25, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I think the idea was to go back to the NASB77 where needed; the 77 edition was seen as more consistent to the NASB tradition.


Frankly, the inconsistencies which I’m thinking of plague the 1977 edition, too.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 25, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Frankly, the inconsistencies which I’m thinking of plague the 1977 edition, too.


Has the LSB fixed them? Just curious


----------



## Taylor (Mar 25, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Has the LSB fixed them? Just curious


Yep!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jemand (Mar 26, 2022)

I find Sturz’s book to be fair, honest, and objective. One of my favorite quotes from his book is found on page 37 in Chapter IV,

_The chief weakness in the Burgeon-Hills theory seems to be the foundation upon which the entire structure is built. To present preservation as a necessary corollary of inspiration, then to imply that preservation of the Scripture must be as faithful and precise as inspiration of the Scriptures, appears to be taking a position that is both unscriptural and impossible to demonstrate._

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 26, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Yep!


Now I am curious, what inconsistencies are you talking about?


----------



## Taylor (Mar 26, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Now I am curious, what inconsistencies are you talking about?


A lot of it has to do with concordance. One big example—one that has theological significance—is the Hebrew word זֶרַע (_seed_). The NASB translates it sometimes as "seed," other times as "offspring," and still more times as "descendant(s)." The NASB 2020 is even worse (see Genesis 3:15 for an egregious example). The LSB chose to make their translation very concordant for this word and others, which helps the reader see the biblical-theological significance of the word. The ESV does this, too, but uses "offspring," since it too is an English word which can take the singular and plural without changing form. The CSB uses "offspring," as well, which is a major upgrade from the HCSB. (By the way, I know concordance can be taken too far; not every word needs to be translated the same way all the time. However, there are some instances where it really should, and זֶרַע, in my opinion, is one of them.)

Another thing the LSB has fixed is just weird translation inconsistencies in the NASB that just made no sense. An example that I can think of is 1 Peter 1:2 and 2 Peter 1:2. Look at the difference (this maintains for the NASB77, as well):

"Grace and peace be *yours in the fullest measure*" (1 Peter 1:2).​​"Grace and peace be *multiplied to you*" (2 Peter 1:2).​
The Greek in both cases is the _exact_ same: χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη. The NASB even has a footnote for 1 Peter 1:2—"Lit _be multiplied for you_." So why in the world not just put the "literal" rendering in, like 2 Peter 1:2 (though, oddly, even the "literal" footnote is different than 2 Peter 1:2, using "for" instead of "to")? I cannot for the life of me figure it out. I know the meaning is virtually the same, but it makes me wonder where else this kind of thing occurs in the NASB.

The LSB, thankfully, fixed this and likely many other weird issues with the NASB.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 26, 2022)

I agree Taylor. The NASB in the NT sometimes has 'not the ideal' (to me) renderings. And some cases the footnote has my preferred reading. I love the NASB in the OT though.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 26, 2022)

I do not agree that the same word should be translated consistently in the Bible. It might make for easier concordance work. It makes for lousy translation practice. The word level isn't the only one that counts. It is one reason I never became enamored of the NASB stream very much, even though it is certainly an accurate translation, and one of the five I would recommend. CSB is head and shoulders above the others, in my opinion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Mar 26, 2022)

As someone who has done a fair amount of translation, I'll say I agree with Lane. Always translating a word the same way is just plain incorrect in many cases. The meanings of a word can be so different it's hard to see any connection between them (even if there was one historically). And sometimes senses are suppletive, and have no genuine connection. But on the other hand, I try not to multiply the senses or translations of a word. If its full range can be explained through two basic senses, then more should not be invented. Think of Ockham's Razor - the simplest explanation (the least number of meanings) is to be preferred.


----------



## Taylor (Mar 26, 2022)

To repeat, I agree that it is not a good practice _always_ to translate the same word the same way. I thought I was fairly clear about that in my previous post. But surely we can all agree that there are at least _some_ instances where doing such is desirable. I’m sorry, but it does not seem acceptable to me to translate זֶרַע in Genesis 12-24 two or three different ways (sometimes within adjacent verses!). It has theological significance that is masked if not obscured by non-concordance.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ZackF (Mar 26, 2022)

Taylor said:


> To repeat, I agree that it is not a good practice _always_ to translate the same word the same way. I thought I was fairly clear about that in my previous post. But surely we can all agree that there are at least _some_ instances where doing such is desirable. I’m sorry, but it does not seem acceptable to me to translate זֶרַע in Genesis 12-24 two or three different ways (sometimes within adjacent verses!). It has theological significance that is masked if not obscured by non-concordance.


Some of that could be driven by copyright issues.


----------



## Georgiadis (Apr 2, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> the Byzantine readings are then shown by Sturz to be independent from the Western and the Alexandrian (contrary to WH's claim that they were completely dependent).


I just posted about “Equitable Eclecticism” in the forum and it sounds similar to Sturz’s view. The name was coined by a researcher named James Snapp Jr. and he posted part 2 of his 2010 essay titled, _Equitable Eclecticism: The Future of New Testament Textual Criticism _(part 1 is equally interesting but more of a back story as to why scholars have become so dependent on WH - it’s also posted on his site).

I hope you find this essay encouraging and that it bolsters your enthusiasm for Sturz!






Equitable Eclecticism - Part 2







www.thetextofthegospels.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Santiago DO (Apr 2, 2022)

Georgiadis said:


> Equitable Eclecticism: The Future of New Testament Textual Criticism





> This may lead some readers to decline to investigate the text, deciding instead to hopefully adhere to whatever text (or texts) they already use. Such an expedient response is understandable, especially in light of the often-repeated (but false) claim that textual variants have no significant doctrinal impact. Nevertheless, for those few who are not content to place their confidence in textual critics, or to posit providential favor upon a particular set of variants on account of its popularity or for other reasons, the best option is to become textual critics.
> Becoming acquainted with the contents of the manuscripts and other witnesses gives additional responsibility, but also additional confidence, somewhat like the confidence of a traveler who knows his maps, as opposed to one who does not and must trust his guides.
> Knowing the message of the map that we have – and being aware of which parts are still questioned, and why, concerning how closely their form corresponds to the form of the original – makes one a confident traveler where one should be confident, and cautious where one should be cautious. But after we have done our best to conduct research with scientific detachment, it will do us little good if we only possess the map. Let us walk in the path that the Holy Spirit reveals to us through the Word.


This seems to me to be a paranoid approach which can do much harm to the Church.

I am a no-one to talk about this topic, but I think that if we are just partially confident about certain parts of the Word of God, we are lost. So wherever position we take, let's take it in faith (2 Tim 3:16)


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 5, 2023)

greenbaggins said:


> The geographical realities being what they were, the Byzantine readings are then shown by Sturz to be independent from the Western and the Alexandrian





greenbaggins said:


> Sturz believes that the Byzantine texts are neither primary nor secondary, but independent.





greenbaggins said:


> The Byzantine tradition is an independent witness that should be valued alongside the Western and Alexandrian.


Lane, I have raised this issue again because there have been some fascinating recent discussions about the Byzantine Priority text. I have enclosed a link to a recent discussion by Pastor Dwayne Green on his Youtube page on the Byzantine Priority vs the Majority Text. He quotes Dr Matthew Everhard (a PCA pastor and Jonathan Edwards scholar) who says this:

"I define the Majority Text as the vast, numerical agreement of the manuscripts across all text types to combine to yield a great, preponderant and largely unified witness to the authentic text. I do not merely define the Majority Text as the Byzantine textform (although many do) precisely because I want all text types to be included in collation data analysis. The Alexandrian texts are particularly valuable when a consensus (majority) is not clear, such as in the book of Revelation, since my antiquity would be my #2 criteria immediately behind #1 majority and ahead of #3 ubiquity."

I assume this would move this a little closer to Sturz's position (than some Byzantine Text advocates) because he gives a greater weight to the Alexandrian texts while still liking the Byzantine text? 






"


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 5, 2023)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Lane, I have raised this issue again because there have been some fascinating recent discussions about the Byzantine Priority text. I have enclosed a link to a recent discussion by Pastor Dwayne Green on his Youtube page on the Byzantine Priority vs the Majority Text. He quotes Dr Matthew Everhard (a PCA pastor and Jonathan Edwards scholar) who says this:
> 
> "I define the Majority Text as the vast, numerical agreement of the manuscripts across all text types to combine to yield a great, preponderant and largely unified witness to the authentic text. I do not merely define the Majority Text as the Byzantine textform (although many do) precisely because I want all text types to be included in collation data analysis. The Alexandrian texts are particularly valuable when a consensus (majority) is not clear, such as in the book of Revelation, since my antiquity would be my #2 criteria immediately behind #1 majority and ahead of #3 ubiquity."
> 
> ...


Yes, that is true. I have found myself liking a lot of the Majority Text canons and arguments. I am still more Sturzian than Dr. Robinson (he doesn't think we can really be as sure of provenance as Sturz thought we could), and that is still something I am munching on.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 6, 2023)

greenbaggins said:


> I have found myself liking a lot of the Majority Text canons and arguments.


Just to clarify something in that Youtube video, Pastor Dwayne Green argues that the Byzantine Priority is a better term because the term 'majority' can be a logical fallacy, also what do you do in a particular text where there is no clear majority of manuscripts?


greenbaggins said:


> provenance


I just learnt a new word. I initially thought you misspelled the word providence  



greenbaggins said:


> I am still more Sturzian than Dr. Robinson (he doesn't think we can really be as sure of provenance as Sturz thought we could


I know some in the Byzantine Priority camp argue that we cannot be objectively sure of the dates of the manuscripts, but we can be objectively sure of the number of Byzantine manuscripts that exist. Is this uncertainty over the date of the manuscripts the issue here?


----------



## Logan (Jan 6, 2023)

My understanding with Byzantine Priority is that it's not so much about the dates, but tracing the lineage. If you can show that Documents C,D, E, and F all were copied directly from Document A, then the value of C,D,E, and F and their variants isn't four separate documents, but one document (A).

What we want to investigate and weigh are independent witnesses rather than just count all the dependent witnesses. And sometimes that's hard to prove what is derived or dependent on what.

I agree that the term "Majority Text" (often described as "counting noses") is misleading. Robinson's Byzantine Priority methodology is a lot more nuanced than that, and, I think, very balanced and fair with the evidence we have. I like it a lot.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 6, 2023)

I don't want to derail the thread, but does anyone know of schools of NT textual criticism that prioritize internal over external evidence? The emphasis in all the major theories seems to be on external evidence and how to interpret it.


----------



## NM_Presby (Jan 6, 2023)

TylerRay said:


> I don't want to derail the thread, but does anyone know of schools of NT textual criticism that prioritize internal over external evidence? The emphasis in all the major theories seems to be on external evidence and how to interpret it.


There is, I believe it is often called "thoroughgoing eclecticism". One representative would be J.K. Elliot.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## NM_Presby (Jan 6, 2023)

I'm glad this thread popped up again. I'm interested in reading Sturz. Surprisingly as I'm evaluating ideas since stepping away from a TR position, I'm finding the Majority Text position a lot less persuasive than I would have expected.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Jan 6, 2023)

TylerRay said:


> I don't want to derail the thread, but does anyone know of schools of NT textual criticism that prioritize internal over external evidence? The emphasis in all the major theories seems to be on external evidence and how to interpret it.


The canons of the critical text textual criticism are intended to use "internal evidence", but not in a way many of us would find desirable.
Is your town really called Resaca, Georgia? That's Spanish for "hangover."


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 6, 2023)

Charles Johnson said:


> The canons of the critical text textual criticism are intended to use "internal evidence", but not in a way many of us would find desirable.
> Is your town really called Resaca, Georgia? That's Spanish for "hangover."


It seems to me that before Westcott and Hort, the emphasis was on internal evidence, the assumption being that God had preserved his Word and that it was readily discernable from existing sources, without much concern over transmission.

Yes, my town was named by Mexican-American War veterans who returned from Resaca de la Palma. For the word origin see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resaca_(channel)


----------



## Logan (Jan 6, 2023)

TylerRay said:


> It seems to me that before Westcott and Hort, the emphasis was on internal evidence, the assumption being that God had preserved his Word and that it was readily discernable from existing sources, without much concern over transmission.



Hmm, I'm curious to know why it seems that way. Collation of manuscripts was done by Erasmus and Stephanus, and certainly Beza made some conjectures on the text. Walton...basically everyone I can think of who compared texts went to external evidence.

The only ones I can think of who emphasized internal evidence, were those who were specifically arguing against some specific external evidence. But even they would accept the vast majority of external evidence as the best evidence. Who are you reading that indicates otherwise?



NM_Presby said:


> I'm glad this thread popped up again. I'm interested in reading Sturz. Surprisingly as I'm evaluating ideas since stepping away from a TR position, I'm finding the Majority Text position a lot less persuasive than I would have expected.


I'm interested in knowing what you find unpersuasive. Have you read Robinson's "The Case for the Byzantine Priority" or are you talking about another form of "majority text" (which means a lot of things to different people apparently).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 6, 2023)

Logan said:


> Hmm, I'm curious to know why it seems that way. Collation of manuscripts was done by Erasmus and Stephanus, and certainly Beza made some conjectures on the text. Walton...basically everyone I can think of who compared texts went to external evidence.
> 
> The only ones I can think of who emphasized internal evidence, were those who were specifically arguing against some specific external evidence. But even they would accept the vast majority of external evidence as the best evidence. Who are you reading that indicates otherwise?


I'm mainly drawing on what I've read from Calvin, Poole, Gill, and others on various readings. Yes, they look at different manuscripts, ect., but their textual decisions tend to be based on what reading makes most sense in context, is most orthodox, etc., rather than on a theory of transmission.

For what it's worth, a google search turned up an article by Daniel Wallace in which he says, "Of course, since the days of Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Hort, the emphasis in most schools of thought has been on the external evidence." He seems to be implying that that earlier criticism did not emphasize external evidence. https://danielbwallace.com/2019/05/...-first-in-textual-criticism-using-accordance/

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Logan (Jan 6, 2023)

I see, thanks! Keep in mind that commentators have a different goal in mind than textual scholars. A commentator is concerned with explaining the Bible (usually translated) that is open before them and available to be read, and edifying the reader with exposition upon that. Commentators rarely delve into textual issues and it doesn't make sense that they would. 

However, I would point out that both Calvin and Poole (and Gill to some extent) seem to talk about internal evidence primarily when there _isn't_ clear external. But they do appeal to external. My understanding is that it was primarily the Roman Catholics who appealed to internal evidence (majesty and whatnot) for the Vulgate while the Reformers were crying "ad fontes" and collating external evidence. That certainly was the basis for Erasmus' work as well as Stephanus and Beza.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NM_Presby (Jan 6, 2023)

Logan said:


> I'm interested in knowing what you find unpersuasive. Have you read Robinson's "The Case for the Byzantine Priority" or are you talking about another form of "majority text" (which means a lot of things to different people apparently).


I'm primarily referring to the popular-level arguments for the MT that I've seen online in videos and articles. I read a shorter article by Robinson a while back that didn't totally win me over, but I still need to read his book. It's in my queue for this year's reading.


----------



## NM_Presby (Jan 6, 2023)

TylerRay said:


> I'm mainly drawing on what I've read from Calvin, Poole, Gill, and others on various readings. Yes, they look at different manuscripts, ect., but their textual decisions tend to be based on what reading makes most sense in context, is most orthodox, etc., rather than on a theory of transmission.
> 
> For what it's worth, a google search turned up an article by Daniel Wallace in which he says, "Of course, since the days of Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Hort, the emphasis in most schools of thought has been on the external evidence." He seems to be implying that that earlier criticism did not emphasize external evidence. https://danielbwallace.com/2019/05/...-first-in-textual-criticism-using-accordance/


I think part of the issue here too is the simple reality that in the past they had far less ready access to external evidence. So they would look at how reliable they believed a manuscript to be and any other noteworthy external features when they could, but they didn't have ready access to anywhere near the volume of external evidence that any one of us can pull up on a computer today. Thus, they would be forced to devote more focus to internal evidence.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 6, 2023)

NM_Presby said:


> I think part of the issue here too is the simple reality that in the past they had far less ready access to external evidence. So they would look at how reliable they believed a manuscript to be and any other noteworthy external features when they could, but they didn't have ready access to anywhere near the volume of external evidence that any one of us can pull up on a computer today. Thus, they would be forced to devote more focus to internal evidence.


That's interesting. Wallace speculates in the article that I linked that the emphasis on external evidence today may be because of limitations of format in the resources we have available today.



> For much of the history of the discipline of New Testament textual criticism, practitioners have overwhelmingly favored beginning with the external evidence before looking at the internal evidence. This has been largely a necessity because one could not determine by simply looking at the text the type of textual variant that would be found in the apparatus.
> 
> Perhaps this is why external evidence has been the first step in solving a textual problem: there was simply no other way to do it. Once someone glanced at the apparatus and saw their favored witnesses—whether they be א B, D F G, , or _any _number after —all too often the textual problem was considered solved.



Honestly, I don't think most of them would have bought into the genealogical method in any of its forms. Their theology precluded any method that began with the assumption that we must recover something that is lost. They instead held that we must discern something we already have in hand.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Logan (Jan 6, 2023)

TylerRay said:


> Honestly, I don't think most of them would have bought into the genealogical method in any of its forms. Their theology precluded any method that began with the assumption that we must recover something that is lost. They instead held that we must discern something we already have in hand.



I think you misunderstand me. It's not about what was lost (conjectural emendation) but about tracing the derivation of documents. Five copies of A is not the same things as five independent copies of various manuscripts. It is about extant evidence, not conjecturing about lost evidence. And Erasmus certainly understood that.

If you find a document that has a particular and obvious copying error, and then you find later documents with that same particular and obvious error, it's quite likely that they are derivative copies. You would not count the copy as an independent witness to that particular reading, but as a subset of the original variant.

It's all about discerning what we already have in hand, but doing it in an intelligent way, not blindly.


----------



## Logan (Jan 6, 2023)

Let me try explaining it in different terms:
Manuscripts differ. And when they differ decisions have to be made. 

Say you find 100 manuscripts that all have this particular variant. And only 50 that all say something else. Which variant is the correct one? Suppose you also found out that all 100 manuscripts that had this variant were copied by one person and have been sitting in a monastery for 700 years, whereas the other 50 were from many different copyists all across the entire history of the church and across the continent. Despite being higher in number, the 100 copies with the particular variant are not very valuable as a witness to the text. The 50 copies across all centuries and locations and copyists are. The "genealogy" or history of these documents is very helpful in this circumstance.

Conversely, say there is only one manuscript ever found that has a particular reading in a particular verse. A scholar or theologian should not say "well, despite all the external evidence, these reading makes the most sense internally" and go with that, ignoring the testimony of all manuscripts everywhere across all ages.

But sometimes there are many manuscripts that say one thing and many that say another. Perhaps one has to use their best judgment then and look at internal evidence as a factor.

What you'll find in the early days (the Reformers) is that they didn't have access to many manuscripts and no way to compare. So when Erasmus publishes Revelation with some variants that have never appeared in any known manuscript, those variants persist because no one could possibly know they aren't in some manuscript somewhere. The assumption is that it's accurate until proven false. But it becomes more and more unlikely that it is the correct reading the more evidence mounts against it.

We try to be faithful with what we have. So did the Reformers and early textual critics, though they had far less than we do so their thoughts were informed by a smaller dataset. But I don't think you'll find any of them ignoring the data for a "providential preservation" of a particular printing.


----------



## chuckd (Jan 6, 2023)

jw said:


> Hello, Thoroughly Sturzian.


You forgot the "I'm Dad" at the end.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 6, 2023)

Logan said:


> I think you misunderstand me. It's not about what was lost (conjectural emendation) but about tracing the derivation of documents. Five copies of A is not the same things as five independent copies of various manuscripts. It is about extant evidence, not conjecturing about lost evidence. And Erasmus certainly understood that.
> 
> If you find a document that has a particular and obvious copying error, and then you find later documents with that same particular and obvious error, it's quite likely that they are derivative copies. You would not count the copy as an independent witness to that particular reading, but as a subset of the original variant.
> 
> It's all about discerning what we already have in hand, but doing it in an intelligent way, not blindly.


Logan,
I was responding to Andrew just then. I had missed your comment (post #50) somehow; sorry about that.

I understand the difference between independent witnesses and dependent manuscripts.

When I referred to what is assumed "lost" in modern theories, I didn't mean lost readings that have to be restored via conjectural emendation. I meant that any theory that prioritizes the oldest identifiable witnesses, etc., assumes that the form of the text itself is lost, and has to be recovered. Anything that can't be empirically verified as an old reading is dismissed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 6, 2023)

@Logan For clarification, I reject the view that any particular edition gets everything right. You seem to be imputing that view to me when you say, 'But I don't think you'll find any of them ignoring the data for a "providential preservation" of a particular printing.' I don't hold that view, and never have; nor do I believe the old Reformed writers held it.

I also reject modern externalist criticism, and I think the old Reformed writers would have, too.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jw (Jan 6, 2023)

chuckd said:


> You forgot the "I'm Dad" at the end.


“‘I’m Dad’ at the end.”

**Dad joke inception*

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 6, 2023)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Just to clarify something in that Youtube video, Pastor Dwayne Green argues that the Byzantine Priority is a better term because the term 'majority' can be a logical fallacy, also what do you do in a particular text where there is no clear majority of manuscripts?


The way Robinson explains "majority" involves no logical fallacy. Basically, it is a sliding scale of confidence: the larger the majority, the greater the confidence. It would only result in a fallacy if the bald "majority proves the truth of the matter" were the canon, which it is not. If the manuscripts are evenly divided, then the other canons kick in. 


Stephen L Smith said:


> I just learnt a new word. I initially thought you misspelled the word providence


Ah, provenance, a very important word in NT textual criticism! Dr. Robinson is very skeptical of our ability to know the provenance of a given manuscript, which is one of his two main objections to Sturz. The other is that if the Alexandrian and the Byzantine disagree, the Sturzian method makes the Western text the tie-breaker, which he doesn't think is very sound. I'm still munching on this problem, as well. 


Stephen L Smith said:


> I know some in the Byzantine Priority camp argue that we cannot be objectively sure of the dates of the manuscripts, but we can be objectively sure of the number of Byzantine manuscripts that exist. Is this uncertainty over the date of the manuscripts the issue here?


There is a little more uncertainty over dates than there used to be. The _Myths and Mistakes_ volume has an excellent article about this. Basically, we have about a hundred to hundred and fifty year range for a given manuscript, instead of a fifty year range.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------

