Tue Oct 22 20:26:46 1996

From owner-tc-list  Tue Oct 22 20:26:46 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id UAA08134; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:25:26 -0400
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 02:20:37 GMT
X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.4
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin)
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1064

>I wonder how these theories can be restated to include the HB/LXX
>instead of just the NT.  What are the benefits to be derived from each
>theory? What are the shortcomings of each? how can we best overcome
>those shortcomings?
>
>I am also confused as to why those who prefer the Byzantine text type
>should be a seperate group from those who prefer a particular text type.
>
>perhaps we could group scholars into 3 groups
>        1. Textually uncritical.
>        2. Champions of a particular text type.
>        3. Eclectics.
>coments anyone?

Another way of classifying, probably complementary, is:
1. Those who have something to say about a global history of the text.
2. Those who have no hypothesis about the relation of text-types to one anot=
her.


shlomo w-shayno !

Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - Belgique

Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop compliqu=E9 est inutilisabl=
e.
What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable.
Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd. Wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar.

Back