Sat Oct 26 12:56:33 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sat Oct 26 12:56:33 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id MAA13220; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:54:41 -0400
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:50:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Oh no... I agree with Maurice Robinson
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1372



Re: the topic of this message: "Oh no... I agree with Maurice Robinson"
It seems that textual criticism probably has degenerated beyond recovery
if topics such as these continue....*;-)

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> For Colwell, perhaps the best essay is "Hort Redivivus:
> A Plea and a Program" (in "Studies in Methodology in Textual
> Criticism of the New Testament"). 

I would add to this Colwell's article on "Genealogical Method: It's
Achievements and Limitations" as particularly significant.

> Both authors attempt to show
> that, at this time, we do not have an established theory of the
> text, and so engage in rather mixed methods.

...with equally mixed results.

> BTW -- For once I get to correct Maurice Robinson on another point
> (although I'll admit I left myself open to this). I don't *really*
> consider 1739 the most important manuscript. I consider it *one of
> the most.* It's right up there with p46, B, Aleph, and D.

All of which are among my favorite MSS which I do _not_ primarily use to
establish the original text. *;-)

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back