greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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.