Sat Apr 6 20:13:37 1996

From majordom  Sat Apr  6 20:13:37 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA05367; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 20:13:37 +0500
Message-Id: <3166A818.186B@ucr.campus.mci.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 17:21:28 +0000
From: Don Wilkins 
Organization: UC Riverside
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: autographs and archetypes
References: <9604061137.AA23944@mail.uni-muenster.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1055
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

I've mentioned before that I am new to this list, and I'm finding 
this and other threads most interesting. I share the feeling that 
emendation is not approriate to NT text criticism. As a classicist who 
started with NT studies, my experience has been that classicists do 
not really take into account the advantage of having abundant 
valuable mss for NT, and prefer to go about NT criticism in the same 
way they do for classical texts, where emendation is a necessity at 
times. The only real defense I have ever seen for this approach to 
the NT by classicists (other than the arguments I have been seeing 
in this thread) is that one should always start from scratch and give 
every ms equal weight with every other (i.e. ignore text type 
arguments etc.). I doubt very much that they would apply this 
technique to classical texts if there were an abundance of materials 
there as well (I for one would be overjoyed to find abundant 
classical mss, and would in that case immediately reevaluate the 
role of emendation).

Don Wilkins
UC Riverside

Back