Fri Aug 16 21:49:39 1996

From owner-tc-list  Fri Aug 16 21:49:39 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA00961; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 21:48:43 -0400
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 20:41:39 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criti
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2196

Nichael Lynn Cramer listed some "devil's advocate" objections to the
TC Encyclopedia.

I'm not sure I agree with him; I think there is a lot of material that
is not covered in the books he listed. But I have another concern.

It has to do with editorial supervision. How does someone decide what
goes in the Encyclopedia? More to the point, *who* decides?

This list is very eclectic -- far more so than most of the libraries
or introductory manuals I've seen. For example, we have Maurice
Robinson, who believes in Byzantine priority. We have a number
of people who would elevate the role of the father in NT criticism.
And we have me, with my emphasis on the role of text-types and the
need to properly define them.

Some things we can all agree on, e.g. "Hort was a member of the
committee that prepared the English Revised Version." But most of
the basic work in this field could be called opinion (e.g. if
someone says, "B is an Alexandrian text in Paul," I would be forced
to disagree). Who decides whether we say , "B is an Alexandrian
text in Paul," or "Hort felt that B is mostly Alexandrian in Paul,"
or "Hort considered B in Paul to be mostly Alexandrian in Paul,
with some Western mixture, but Zuntz felt that B and p46 formed
their own text-type. Waltz agrees with this view, with some
reservations."

I, for instance, would very much like to write about manuscript
families in Paul and the Catholics, and also on the nature of
text-types. But would anyone here accept my interpretations? I
never did get people to give me a definition of a text-type :-)
(other than Colwell's, which many of us agree is defective).

I could also contribute articles on the nature of oral transmission.

So how do we handle this? Minority reports? An editorial board?
Something else?

Also, who decides what articles go in the Encyclopedia? Does someone
have a list of topics we need covered?

Don't get me wrong; I think this is a great idea. It can be hard to find
information in this field; a good summary would be immensely helpful.
I just think there are some issues that have to be hashed out. And they
need to be hashed out now, *before* the arguments start.

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back