Wed Oct 23 22:09:57 1996

From owner-tc-list  Wed Oct 23 22:09:57 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id WAA20000; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 22:08:44 -0400
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 04:03:51 GMT
X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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: 1209

Hello all! Just a remark in passing, I don't know how you will react about
it, but I would find it interesting to have your comments...

Seen from here (Europe) it's quite strange to see all these (often
passionnate) discussions about the Byzantine text / Received text /
Majority text that are going on in the US. How do you explain this
difference?

Here in Europe, most of the discussion goes between the german school
(Aland and his text) and the French school (arguing for the Western text,
even more specially, as with C. Amphoux, for Codex Bezae). For Europeans,
the question of the Byzantine text is settled for a century.

Why is it so, why are our approaches so exotic to one another? Is
theological background the only reason?

As I see that some of you argue in favor of the Byzantine text, I would
specially appreciate to have their comments. Also all your comments about
European NT textual criticism will be appreciated.


shlomo w-shayno !

Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium

Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable.
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