Sat Apr 27 09:10:10 1996

From majordom  Sat Apr 27 09:10:10 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA29952; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 09:10:10 +0500
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 96 08:07 CDT
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz)
Subject: Re: Eclectic Method
Content-Length: 2444
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

>Friends,
>
>It is well known that Hebrew Bible text criticism takes as its starting point
>the MT (as preserved in Codex Leningrad).  Variants are assembled and
>evaluated in comparison to this text.
>Why, then, is NT text criticism based on a method that is apparently somewhat
>scattered and piecemeal?  There does not appear to be one NT text upon which
>comparison of variants is based.  Would TC not be easier if text critics at
>least agreed that Sinaiticus (for instance) were the base text and then
>variants could be placed in the margin (as is the case in BHS for the Hebrew
>Bible)?  Then these variants could be evaluated for what they were worth.
>
>Seeking to know in the wilderness of E. Tennessee,
>
>
>Jim West

Let's distinguish two things there: There is the collection of variants,
and there is the preparation of a critical edition.

For the collection of variants, there is (more or less) a standard:
Everything is collated against the Oxford 1873 TR, which is almost
identical to the 1550 Stephanus edition.

This might not be the ideal base, but it is agreed on. And it actually
is a better base than Sinaiticus, because it is closer to the Byzantine
text. That means that, for most manuscripts, there are fewer deviations
to collate. It will be noted that the IGNTP is a VERY LARGE set of
collations against the TR.

The preparation of critical editions is a wholly different kettle of
fish. Witnesses to the Old Testament are relatively few -- the MT
(which shows almost no SIGNIFICANT variants), the various recensions
of LXX (most of which, except the earliest, are very close to LXX),
and a few odds and ends like the Samaritan version and the Qumran
fragments.

That being the case, there has never been a great urge to produce
a critical edition of the OT (BHS resembles the IGNTP rather than,
say, Westcott-Hort or even Nestle-Aland).

Another difference is historical: All texts of the MT are reasonably
good. So even the earliest printed Hebrew bibles are good representatives
of this text-type. Whereas the first Greek texts were printed from
later and imperfect manuscripts (and if you believe that the Byzantine
text is late, they alse reprenseted a rather poor text-type). It
wasn't until centuries later than large numbers of early uncials
(and, later, papyri) started showing up.

So the answer boils down to, The needs of the two disciplines are
completely different.

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back