Tue Apr 30 01:51:54 1996

From majordom  Tue Apr 30 01:51:54 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA09546; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 01:51:54 +0500
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 01:48:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Byzantine text
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1285
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu



On Mon, 29 Apr 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> I agree as to the bias of NA26; you would think they would at least
> note the divergences from TR! 

Out of curiosity, I would ask "why"?  Not to include TR readings (which
are mostly quite insignificant, since almost all true Byzantine readings
are included in N27 under the "M" siglum) is but what should be normal
practice in a critical edition.  The TR (any edition) is totally
irrelevant to NT textual criticism, except as a collation base. 

I do agree that some readings which the N27 editors considered important 
are certainly not as important as many others which they left out.  I for 
one would probably have preferred a number of synonym-substitution 
or omission/inclusion variants for the numerous places where a KAI/DE 
or word-transposition difference is noted.  But that, I suppose, is the 
nature of a hand-edition as opposed to the major critical editions such 
as Tischendorf, Von Soden, or IGNTP (Legg and others).

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back