Fri Feb 16 12:17:27 1996

From majordom  Fri Feb 16 12:17:27 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA24638; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 12:17:27 +0500
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 12:17:18 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair" 
X-Sender: jadair@scholar
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Majority Text?
In-Reply-To: <960216112644_145862276@emout06.mail.aol.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1086
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

Maurice Robinson described five different positions which might be 
labeled as "Majority Text" positions, and he identified himself with the 
fifth group.  I agree that the term "Majority Text," even (or 
especially!) for this fifth group, is problematic, because the fact that 
the resulting text agrees with the Majority Text most of the time is 
presumably mere happenstance.  I would think adherents of the fifth 
position would call their position the Byzantine Priority position, since 
it is supposed to be based on the stemmatic priority of a Byzantine-like 
text.  On the other hand, if this fifth position actually ends up 
reflecting the Majority Text all of the time, rather than most of the 
time (which is it?), one has to question whether the purported 
methodology of independent analysis of readings is really being 
followed.  Isn't the proof in the pudding?

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

Back