Sat Apr 27 11:28:26 1996
From majordom Sat Apr 27 11:28:26 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA00219; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 11:28:26 +0500
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 11:25:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andrew Gross
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: re: Eclectic method
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1560
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
On Fri, 26 Apr 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote:
> 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.
I'll let the NT text critics give this a more thorough answer, but I can
tell you that in Hebrew Bible text criticism, using a diplomatic text
edition (as with BHS) is simply the easiest and most obvious method.
Because there is no competing tradition, there isn't really a choice
involved here. Before 1948, perhaps we could have argued that the Aleppo
Codex might have been a better choice for a base text than the Leningrad
Codex, but since it was damaged, the Leningrad Codex is the obvious choice.
Of course, the Hebrew University Bible edition actually will be using
Aleppo as its base text. I don't know what they'll be doing for the
missing sections -- perhaps using Leningrad.
Okay, now I'll step aside and let the NT experts give the problems with
using a diplomatic edition for the NT rather than an eclectic one.
andrew gross
Back