Sat Apr 27 11:38:48 1996

From majordom  Sat Apr 27 11:38:48 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA00283; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 11:38:48 +0500
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 11:35:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199604271535.LAA18510@utc-01.campus.mci.net>
X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" 
Subject: Re: Eclectic Method
Content-Length: 1142
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

I believe that the number of Greek manuscripts compared to the number of
Hebrew manuscripts is one reason why the methodology differs for Hebrew TC
as opposed to Greek TC. 




At 11:01 PM 4/26/96 -0400, you wrote:
>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
>
>
Kevin W. Woodruff
Reference Librarian
Cierpke Memorial Library
Temple Baptist Seminary
Tennessee Temple University
1815 Union Ave.
Chattanooga, TN 37404
423/493-4252
Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net

Back