"Even though we seem to have some lucid observations regarding the different approaches and ‘styles’ of TC currently practiced, ¹ textual critics and writers still seem incapable of using intelligent descriptive terms for these methods, as opposed to self-promoting nonsense:

When critics say “Thorough-Going/Rigorous Eclecticism“, they really mean (sans advertising) Eclecticism with Preference to Internal Evidence and conjectural theories.

When they say “Rational/Reasoned Eclecticism“, they really mean (sans claims) Eclecticism with bias in favour of Textual Evidence.

Its better to just cut the nonsense. In both cases, it is just individual textual critics, engaging in “pick-and-choose” selective use of various evidences, hence “eclecticism“.

The results show that all these approaches are subjective and error-prone. They can only have a limited validity as part of a larger comprehensive scientific system, structured to achieve deterministic and reliable results.

No wonder James Snapp Jr. wants to abandon these recent approaches as inadequate, and substitute a more conservative and scientific approach, incorporating the best of previous attempts, while avoiding the obvious errors and shortcomings."

1. (see for instance The Text of the NT in Contemporary Research, Ehrman/Holmes, ch 21, " Reasoned Eclecticism" p 331)

peace Nazaroo

..."We aren’t suggesting that partial solutions haven’t already been discovered or tried, or that elements of such a plan haven’t already been discussed and added to an ongoing wish-list of a final text-critical method acceptable to the majority of experts in this field.

... On the positive side, we are asserting only that:

(1) No such acceptable system has been made public, been peer-reviewed and been adopted by the majority of textual critics. We still live in a limbo of competing and contradictory ideas about how to reconstruct the text.

(2) As far as we know, no complete, comprehensive, scientific system has yet been invented, which can operate independently of key fundamental axioms (premises and presumptions) about the textual history of the NT.

- Nazaroo

..."Thus one‘s view of the history of the text is no less important than one‘s basic approach to methodology.

..."For example: Maurice Robinson works with the same toolbox of transcriptional and intrinsic considerations as virtually all the rest of us. Yet he has produced a quite different text. A fundamental reason for this different outcome from the use of the same set of tools is that he works with a much different conception of the history of the text.

On his interpretation of the history of the text, it is impossible for a reading supported only by 'Western' or Alexandrian witnesses (or a combination thereof) to be an original reading, and this conviction deeply shapes his use of internal considerations."

- Dr. M. Holmes (2006)

..."Methodology does not work alone; it works only in conjunction with a view of the history of the text. Westcott-Hort and Zuntz work utilize a very similar methodology, but arrive at rather different results because they work with very different perceptions of the history of the transmission of the text."

- Dr. M. Holmes (2010)

..."one should not confuse the conclusion and consequent application of the theory as developed, with the initial inquries that led to the development of the theory itself."

..."I do differ from one of Dr Holmes' statements, however:

On the contrary, I continue to use and apply all relevant internal considerations to all readings within a variant unit, and teach my students to go and do likewise."

..."And by the way,... my and Pierpont's original starting position before any theory or analysis was that of Rigorous Eclecticism, allowing any variant reading potentially to be correct, and evaluating all candidate readings on that initial basis.

Only later did we develop in various stages what ultimately became the Byzantine-priority position."

- Dr. M. Robinson (2010)

out of 6,928 variant-units (VUs), there are . . .

SBL—WH: 6,049 agreements, 879 disagreements (= 87% Agreement with WH)

SBL-NA27: 6386 agreements, 542 disagreements (= 92% Agreement with NA)

SBL—RP: 969 agreements 5,959 disagreements (= 14% Agreement with RP)

SBL Alone: 56 disagreements with all 4 other texts (30 agree with WH margin)

Thus if "agreement" is expressed in terms of the VU count, ¹ it appears Holmes has closely followed the viewpoint of other modern Eclecticists such as the Alands (NA27).

1. This measure of "agreement" might be reasonably challenged, since it is based on "unweighted counting", something cursed like the plague in the case of the MSS themselves. Some Variation Units should be considered far more significant than others, such as those that affect translation into other languages, and a majority of VUs will be insignificant. Also, to a lesser extent, changes in the actual Variation Unit Count may be necessary (some might be merged, others broken up).

"As well as basic canons, and meta-rules, we also need a General Procedure. This was recognized way back in the 1880s, as various early Textual Critics tried to articulate exactly what the procedure should be. Grandiose schemes were proposed, such as that of Milligan, as outlined here:

Milligan on TC - - Click here.

This issue, that of the overriding general methodology has never been resolved, in spite of great advances in many categories of research and sub-tasks. Thus we find four different methodologies in current practice, (see D. A. Black’s overview here):

D.A. Black on TC - - Click here.

Thus we also have fresh minds attempting to offer yet more alternative methodologies, for example Mr. Snapp’s offerings here above.

But the real elephant in the room must be that after some 200 years, NT TC is still badly split over both the methodology to be used, and also over the resultant text (WH vs. Maj.). What is painfully obvious to all is that starting premises, and axioms, and especially one’s view of the history of the textual transmission drastically affects the NT text that one reconstructs.

One can say then that the need for a methodology that is truly independant of ideology and starting premises, that is deterministic, and scientific, is paramount. It is one of the big three problems facing TC today."

In passing, Stephen Carlson brings up another big problem currently unsolved in TC. Its this: From discussion, its obvious that two separate goals can be broadly stated:

In any proposed overriding 'Method of NT TC', we have to not only perform these tasks with some independence, but also allow each project to inform and advance the other, in a scientific and accurate way.

Thus all older methods which begin with a predisposed view on Textual History must be essentially rejected, now that we know that all such approaches result in different texts, and thus the viewpoint is dominating the results in an unscientific fashion.

But any newer methods must not only overcome undue influence of viewpoint on the outcome (the text), but also coordinate and contribute to constructing that viewpoint.

Stephen Carlson rightly notes that there is an added danger of circularity when we mix the two tasks together, and when neither task is along far enough to definitively guide the process of the other.

Other dangers also lurk, such as the question of temporal order originally raised by the Alands. Do we advance one task by using the other, or wait for the results of each investigation separately? At what point and how far is each task and its results allowed to influence the results of the other task?

Again it becomes a question of balancing the competing and in some cases simply independent directions, which cumulatively affect the end result (the text).

So for yet more reasons, we again need a set of meta-rules or guidelines that can establish a hierarchy and authority when competing impulses from various sources (textual evidence, textual history) clash, or misalign.

Its a great subject, that of constructing an Overall Method which can guide and adjudicate between various competing evidences and observations about textual transmission, along with sources, such as MSS, fathers, etc.

peace
Nazaroo

Now I’d like to turn to your Main List of 12 “canons” (rules) by which you envision NTTC (Equitable Eclecticism) can be carried out. The first striking thing is your opening qualifier:

Thus at the starting-gate, we see that unlike most textual critics in the past, but in a way similar to Mr. Robert B.Waltz, ¹ that Mr Snapp also creates a hierarchy for his rules.

We won’t analyze Waltz‘s precarious structure here. We only bring it out to show that other textual critics have also perceived the need for at least some kind of hierarchy for these canons, in order to deal with cases in which they conflict.

Mr. Snapp also perceives quite well the problem that arises when rules and supposed “probabilities” give conflicting evidence for the true reading.

His own solution however, is not to provide any rigid hierarchy generally, but to leave this choice in the hands of the supposed expert textual critic. Hence his own simple and general “two-step” hierarchy, with

Principle Zero: No principle should be applied mechanically.

It seems clear from this peculiar expression that the power as it were, and the judgment, is in the hands of the critic.

As a scientist, Mr. Snapp must understand why I object to such a rule and “new world order“, in which textual critics compete using the most convincing articulations (i.e., debating techniques).

In short, its not science.

For a truly scientific system, the choices should be based almost entirely on the scientific and historical facts as far as they can be ascertained, and not influenced at all by the bias or opinion of the critic, no matter how experienced or trustworthy.

Everyone should be using the same equations, the best that scientific analysis can construct, and they should all be getting the same answers.

As it stands however, in Mr. Snapp’s “system”, we see no mechanism which would protect the world from the caprice, bias, in short, the idiosyncracies of the textual critic. In fact, we see the opposite: We see the textual critic enthroned as the “expert” to whom all ‘mechanical’ (scientific) choices must defer. Mr. Snapp’s system teeters on the brink of idolatry.

We anticipate that Mr. Snapp will naturally object, that the “Five Step Method” expounded in the previous post will ensure that the caprice of individual critics will be reigned in and constrained.

But that is the very thing to be demonstrated.

We would naturally expect that in a purely sensible world, all textual critics will, when confronted with Mr. Snapp’s system, more or less instantly recognize its self-evident brilliance, and via peer-review, eventually adopt it unanimously, ringing in the new era of scientific “Equitable Eclecticism“.

But I think there is room here and perhaps a duty, for James to at least attempt to make a case on this point, that his “Five-Step” plan can and will ensure that future NTTC will be deterministic, scientific, and free of bias and possible abuse.

1. Bob Waltz is the creator of the online Encyclopedia of NTTC. There, Waltz also constructs a similar “Two-Tier” System, in which the canons (rules, principles) are not only separated into two groups, but each group becomes ruled by an overriding “canon” of its own.

To quote Waltz,

peace,
Nazaroo

A Glance Back at the Additional Rules

I would like to make one more note here, that Rule 5 of the “Additional” list is an inversion, or negation of an old rule or canon, namely,

This rule, after nearly a whole century of careful, detailed research, has naturally turned out to be nonsense. Its great that most textual critics today recognize it as worthless, and its probably safe to say at this point, that this “Canon” is in the doghouse. In fact, I can’t help but notice a parallel, in that excessive application of this “canon” to the detriment of all others, and even common sense, is precisely how Hort sabotaged his own scheme of dethroning the Textus Receptus. Now, like the proverbial Judas, who resigned by hanging himself, this canon has also been put to rest.

Oddly, James Snapp Jr. has here retained a remarkable 12 Canons to carry on the work of Textual Criticism, just as if they were the very Twelve Apostles. I suspect, viewing over the list, that the replacement for Judas is probably number 9:

This appears to me to be the ‘new kid on the block’ in this list, although probably all of them have been suggested in one form or another in the past by their various promoters.

But unfortunately, not only is this list poorly ordered, in terms of similarity, subject-matter and application, no hierarchy is in sight, and no way of arbitrating between them has been offered by James. This is not a small matter, for even a quick glance reveals that these “canons” can easily fall into opposition:

For instance, take 5. and 7.:

We naturally ask, how can we know that a reading “is consistent with the author’s discernible style and vocabulary”, without taking note of “the form of a similar statement in a similar document, or [elsewhere] in the same document”???

(5) says reject such similarities, while (7) says retain them!

And this not simply a rare exception or unusual example: the rules as worded plainly contradict one another, all the time. If James is going to argue that these will be applied to different variation units, VU-types, or documents, where is the real canon, that tells us when and where?

This should make it plain that although no hierarchy or clear description of limitations, application and scope for these 'canons' has yet been offered, one is definitely and absolutely needed.

to be continued…

peace,
Nazaroo

Lets look at James' Shared Principle #9.

On the surface this 'new' canon/rule has an attractive plausibility. It is known that the early Christian community and the Jewish community ended up in strong and violent opposition, with the Christian community excommunicated from Judaism.

This conflict goes right back to the beginning of Christianity, with both John the Baptist and Jesus being arrested and executed by Judaean and Roman authorities (respectively King Herod, and the Priests/Pilate).

Jewish Christians were immediately persecuted by strong-willed individuals in the Jewish government (i.e., "Saul"/Paul & the High Priest Ciaphas etc.) acting on their own.

Much of this is documented in the earliest materials (Gospels/Acts/Paul).

Later the Jewish authorities instituted official "cursing" of 'heretics', forcing secret Christians out of the synagogues (Jamnia, 90 A.D.).

Over the first few hundred years, there was bitter animosity between Christian and Jewish communities. This was also compounded by the Wars between the Romans and the Jews (c. 70 A.D.- 140 A.D.), and the spreading of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire.

By the time Christianity was legalized and made the 'official religion' of the Roman Empire (c. 330 A.D. with Constantine), there was a strong, entrenched anti-Judaism running rampant both within Christianity and the Roman government.

Roman anti-semitism began long before the time of Jesus, with the expansion of the Empire and the disputes with Jewish communities in Palestine, Egypt, and even Rome. That having been said, the case for Christian 'anti-semitism' remains complex and ambiguous.

It was certainly not the official position of Christian leaders that Judaism was to be rejected. They saw Christianity as the natural development of O.T. religion and the Judaism of Jesus' time. Paul for instance, had great hopes for Israel and belief that many of them would be converted. Nor did Jesus and His 12 Apostles preach against Judaism itself. Rather, they were themselves Jewish and upheld and interpreted Torah (Jewish Law) in a way that supported many of its fundamental principles.

Thus, even while conflict and antagonism between early Jewish Christians and Jewish authorities was a crisis dividing Jews, these early believers saw themselves still as authentic Jews fulfilling law, prophecy, and the Redemption of Israel.

It was not until Christian Jews were excommunicated by the Jewish authorities that the remaining Judaism was seen as "other", and began to be referred to as "the Jews", to distinguish them from Jewish Christians "the Saints", "Christians".

Since the NT books span several decades at least (with materials from about 35 A.D. to as far as 70-90 A.D.), we can see these attitudes evolving and crystalizing in the various layers.

Thus, while the earliest gospel, Mark is very polemic, it is still strongly "Jewish", distinguishing disputes between Jesus and various authorities. Acts records conflicts between the two communities in Paul's time, and finally John appears to have been written at a time when the split between the two communities was complete, and the attitude toward "the Jews" (Judaeans who rejected Jesus) was crystalized.

On top of these authentic developing attitudes, we also have sneaking into the text, much later Gentile Attitudes stemming out of the Wars, and the resistance of Jews to Roman manipulation, the persecution of Jews, and the imposition of Christianity.

Because the attitudes evolve and change greatly in both definition and intensity, and are complicated by many later layers, it must be noted that the above Canon #9 is an ineffective guide.

It seems to work well in identifying later Roman alterations to the text such as those found in the 4th century Uncial Codex Bezae and certain "Western Readings" (see for instance, Epp, The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts).

But this same "rule" falls apart when we turn to deal with books like the Gospel of John from the later early Christian period (c. 70-120 A.D.). John is loaded with statements that have the strong appearance of "anti-semitism", and they are clearly original to this Gospel.

Even though the issue of 'anti-semitism' in John is itself complex, hotly disputed, and unresolved in current studies, the fact of the problem remains: The suggested rule is no guide at all for what John might have written in recording the violent debates between Jesus and "the Jews", which seem to reflect the hindsight of the later experiences (excommunication etc.) of the Christian community.

In short, the Rule might work well to identify glosses in Mark, may leave us with many unsolved questions in Luke/Acts & Paul, and should probably be reversed when dealing with John!

Simply suggesting that "rules should not be mechanically applied" does not give any clear, specific and reliable guidance regarding the actual situation, or how to use this "rule".

peace
Nazaroo