Sun Jun 9 03:16:19 1996
From owner-tc-list Sun Jun 9 03:16:19 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id DAA21034; Sun, 9 Jun 1996 03:14:14 -0400
From: rachel@ms1.hinet.net
Message-Id: <199606090711.PAA23712@ms1.hinet.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 96 12:08:30
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Holmes Overview
In-Reply-To:
X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v1.00
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3882
In
,
on 06/07/96
Once again I change from my lurking mode:
I wrestle with how I can make my input more useful to
the others on this list.... Since I am not a TC active member
I basically read the posts and then together with outside
reading form my base of opinion. Thus to many this current
post will only appear to be a "Amen!" or "I agree"
thus robbing it of its voice in the crowded arena. If anyone
can give me some better suggestion as to how to make
my "vote" heard more clearly please do so.....
Thus I have snipped out large portions to basically state
my *reasoned out* opinion.....
---->1) I think it is important to distinguish between textual
--->*methodology* and textual *history* ....
--- modern---eclecticism still proceeds as if it has no theory of textual
---transmission,
This is not a mere---generalization, but applies with equal
validity to the current praxis of both rigorous and reasoned
eclecticism.
This is a very significant point that Robinson has made
and in my reasoning it justifies why I support and
accept
his methodology.....!!
There is the matter of developing a
consistent comprehensive theory of transmission and -then-
evaluating individual readings within the framework of that
particular theory.
-My methodology in divided readings would still require ---work
with only those readings which show a significant degree ---of
support within the transmissional history of the readings,
At least Robinson is very consistent in using
his methodology which is more than I can
attest
concerning other so-called Byzantine
promoters...
--->The *method* outlined by, e.g., the Alands, Metzger, Colwell,
---Amphoux, >Fee, Holmes, etc....-- and, I would suggest,
---Robinson and Waltz--is >very, very similar.
Since I know Fee and Robinson
For *me* the best scenario would be a
an email exchange between these two
incredibly gifted Scholars..... This is due
to personal exchange with each one in
which I have the highest esteem for both
Scholars for different reasons.
Unforunately there is already too much
rhetoric
in this field for this too take place.....
---I appreciate the comment, but I more than anyone else realize
---how undeveloped and unexplored is the territory within my
---theory. Just so long as it clearly gets differentiated from
---the KJV/TR crowd, as well as from that of Pickering or
---Hodges/Farstad, I will be content.
This was my point and observation above with the
smiley!!!
I am not too favorably impressed with that of
Pickering
or Hodges/Farstad and esp. I grow weary with the
rhetoric of the KJV/TR crowd. I also do not
appreciate
being squeezed by most of the TC teaching aids to
follow the Alands, Fee, et al. route.......
Again this is why I have so much esteem for M.
Robinson
in that he has taken a lot of time explaining his
position
and helping me to more clearly understand Textual
Criticism as a field of study rather than being a
salesman
for his position....! Which is something I do
*not* find
readily available else where.....
---
Thanks for taking the time to view this...........
Respond to Jim at the following address
----------------------------------------------------
rachel@ms1.hinet.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
Back