Tue Feb 13 11:34:22 1996

From majordom  Tue Feb 13 11:34:22 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA10294; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 11:34:22 +0500
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 11:31:31 -0500
From: HuldrychZ@aol.com
Message-Id: <960213113131_143054954@emout06.mail.aol.com>
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Majority Text?
Content-Length: 1105
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

Forgive me, please, if I say something that has already been said in this
forum; I am new here online!
I have noticed a great deal of discussion concerning the so called "Majority
Text".  It seems that there is a resurgence of those who would have us
believe that manuscripts should be counted, and not weighed.  This seems
rather unfortunate.  When I was a student, not that many years ago, we were
taught that manuscripts should be weighed, and not counted, simply because an
error in an early manuscript could be and often was repeated in its
descendents.  If Codex D, for instance, has an incorrect reading at say Mark
16, and those scribes who copied from it kept it close by, then that error
would be passed on to all of its descendents.  Thus, you might have 300
manuscripts with an error and 1 much closer to the original without that
error- yet if those manuscripts were counted the error would win!

My question to the majority text adherents then is, what do you do with this
excellent dictum- "manuscripts should be weighed, and not counted?"

Thanks for any response,


D. Jim West
Petros TN

Back