Sat Aug 17 19:59:19 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sat Aug 17 19:59:19 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id TAA04368; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 19:58:21 -0400
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 19:58:34 -0400
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer)
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: 1996

Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) wrote:
>>Which is precisely why I mentioned the Metzger, Aland, Ehrman & Holmes and
>>Fee & Epp volumes in my original query.  I.e. they are readily available,
>>excellent texts that do exactly that.
>I can't agree with this. I have *nine* introductions to textual criticism
>(Westcott & Hort, Metzger, Aland, Greenlee, Hammond, Vaganay/Amphoux,
>Black, Lake, Kenyon),

[Just as a note, I have (almost) all of these also; I was simply mentioning
the most obvious (and useful) texts.]

>As for Ehrman & Holmes, [...] But what about the essay on the
>Majority Text debate? It completely leaves out Maurice Robinson,
>who is the only supporter of the Majority Text whose opinions I value.

The essay on the MT is a good example of exactly what I was talking about.

On the contrary, the essay in questions _does_ give a balanced,
comprehensive examination of the topic.  It also demonstrates --quite
thoroughly IMnsHO-- why it is all but impossible to take it seriously as a
model.  Despite much protestation on this mailing list, these things --a
balanaced discussion and demonstration of the errors of a method-- are not
incompatible.

> ... What we need is to look at the crackpot
>theories.

I'm sorry, but it's hard to believe that you are being serious here.  Why
is this different from arguing that a text on Physics should give equal
space to Hollow Earth theories or Alien Abductions?

> ... Most of them will prove to be worthless -- but chances
>are that the next big advance is in there. Somewhere.

No; chances are, the odds are --as demonstrated innumerable times before in
every field imaginable-- that crackpot theories are exactly that.

As many people have said before, open-mindedness is our primary asset.  But
open-mindness doesn't mean checking ones mind at the door.

Nichael
nichael@sover.net                                               __
http://www.sover.net/~nichael              Be as passersby   -- IC

Back