Tue Apr 30 08:38:35 1996

From majordom  Tue Apr 30 08:38:35 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA10400; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 08:38:35 +0500
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 96 07:35 CDT
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz)
Subject: Re: Byzantine text
Content-Length: 1458
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson  wrote:

>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.

The advantage of citing the TR is that it would make reading collations
so much easier! I spend much of my time dealing with minuscule collations,
and they are all against the TR. I am combining these with information
about the old uncials. So, in order to do this, I have to haul out my
TR (which is otherwise useless to me) or photocopies of Tischendorf's
pocket edition (I don't know of a full Tischendorf in my area) and
collate that. It's just another book to deal with!

Besides, the NS26/27 text, although it now cites more manuscripts,
still uses the same list of variant READINGS as in NA25 and previous
editions; the only additions were a few readings from the papyri.
So very many Byzantine readings don't even make it into the apparatus.
Whatever one's opinion of the Byzantine text, it is certainly too
important to be ignored!

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back