Sat Apr 27 15:53:28 1996

From majordom  Sat Apr 27 15:53:28 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA01333; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 15:53:28 +0500
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960427194952.006993d4@mail.teleport.com>
X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 12:49:52 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Dale M. Wheeler" 
Subject: Re: Byzantine Text
Content-Length: 2547
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

>From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz)
>Date: Fri, 26 Apr 96 14:09 CDT
>Subject: Re: Byzantine Text
>
>>>And in fact it could be argued that I am _not_ an eclectic in the
>>>gospels; my text THERE is almost purely Alexandrian. I agree with
>>>Maurice that there are only two clear text-types in the gospels, and
>>>ONE of them has to be right. We just choose different ones.
>>
>>Thus you would have some differences with UBS3-4/Nestle26-27 where they
>>adopted more Byzantine readings than did their predecessors?
>
>I disagree with them in BOTH directions. That is, sometimes I think that
>they adopted Byzantine readings they ought not. I also, quite frequently,
>think they adopted NON-Byzantine readings where the Byzantine reading is
>obviously correct.
>
>The way I would put it is, They had NO theory of the text (except a
>subjective feeling, which they do not admit, that the Alexandrian
>text is best"), and no clear critical method, and wound up with a
>text that is neither fish nor foul.
>
>I often agree with their text. I almost never agree with their
>reasons. From an intellectual standpoint, Robinson's viewpoint is
>superior. So is Westcott and Hort's. Both have theories of the
>text. I disagree with both theories, but an edition not founded
>on a theory of the text is NEVER reliable.
>
>And since, chances are, nobody else cares, there I will let the
>matter rest. I hope I can now offer Robinson the last word.

Bob, I would have to say that you are wrong on this last point; there
are lots of folks who really do care, who have the same feelings about
the way critical texts are prepared, have the same frustrations about
the lack of serious discussion about the history of the text, etc. I
think, based on my talking to other Profs, that a large number of folks,
regardless of what ultimate view they hold, have a great deal of 
ambivalent feelings about the resultant critical texts and the methods
used to arrive at the readings, especially since such a text never 
existed anywhere else in the history of Christianity as far as we can
tell. I personally find the discussions you and Maurice are having to
be stimulating....

***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Chair, Biblical Languages Dept                  Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street                               Portland, OR  97220
Voice: 503-251-6416    FAX:503-254-1268     E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com 
***********************************************************************

Back