Sun Apr 28 13:36:27 1996

From majordom  Sun Apr 28 13:36:27 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA03396; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 13:36:27 +0500
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 13:33:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Byzantine Text
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1904
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu


This post actually comes from Ulrich Schmid, who was unable to post it 
due to mail-daemon bouncing from the tc-list:

On Fri, 26 April 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

[quoting Robinson:]

>>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.

Shure, someone else cares. But it is not easy to comment on statements like the 
above mentioned, where theories are so easily dismissed without submitting any 
alternative. 

I may refer to Robert Waltz's -to the best of my knowledge- initial post on the 
subject. On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, he wrote:

>So let's not simplify the case. I support your (i.e. Jim West's)
> argument that the Byzantine text is late, but we should no more
> develop a fetish for the Alexandrian text than the Byzantine. 
>We need a text based in HISTORY, not just theoretical text-types!

I very much agree with that. But, I simply wish to know Bob's _theory_ of "a 
text based in HISTORY".

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

Back