Wed Oct 23 00:30:27 1996

From owner-tc-list  Wed Oct 23 00:30:27 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id AAA09694; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 00:29:08 -0400
Message-Id: <326D9C90.2E68@dhinternet.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 23:18:24 -0500
From: Hubert Arthur Bahr III 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; U)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories
References: <199610221547.QAA31046@ermine.ox.ac.uk> 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1794

> > Hubert Bahr
> Bob WaltzHubert Bahr

> >perhaps we could group scholars into 3 groups
> >       1. Textually uncritical.
> >        2. Champions of a particular text type.
> >        3. Eclectics.
> >coments anyone?
> 
> Does group 1 really qualify as "scholarly"? :-)

I think I could name a handful of competent Biblical scholars who have
never ventured into textual criticism but simply accepted the verdict
of others.  Scholarly yes, text-critical no.  
> 
> Seriously, I don't think this division is fair. 

It wasn't.

> Eclecticism *must*
> be categorized. My approach, based strongly on text-types, is very
> distinct from Kilpatrick and Elliot, whose approach is based on
> internal evidence. 

So there is a full spectrum of approaches instead of three primary 
colors.  Discarding group 1 which would represent scholars in other 
fields. Groups two and three appear to blended in varying degrees to 
make the field we know as textual criticism.  Am I getting it or getting 
way off?

Red     exclusive use of a particular text 
Orange  strong preference for a particular text 
Yellow  external eclecticism
Green   mixed, mostly external
Blue    Mixed, about evenly
Indigo  Mixed, mostly Internal
Violet  Internal Eclecticism

Is it possible for a version to preserve a better reading than the
original language?  Why is it that we seem to concentrate so heavily on 
the Greek New Testament and virtually ignore the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, 
Georgian, Slavonic . . . Is it that we feel the versions have little to 
offer, or is it simply the difficulty of mastering all the 
languages? 

> -- but if my
> choices are to be an internal eclectic or to choose to always follow
> the text of family 1739, I'll take 1739 any day.

What are the weaknesses you see to internal eclecticism?

Back