Wed Oct 23 23:17:47 1996

From owner-tc-list  Wed Oct 23 23:17:47 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id XAA20354; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 23:16:35 -0400
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 23:12:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nichael Cramer 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories
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: 1203

Jean Valentin wrote:
> 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?
> [...] 
> Why is it so, why are our approaches so exotic to one another? Is
> theological background the only reason?

Jean

I don't think a theologicial (or perhaps more correctly a faith) stance is
the _only_ reason behind the MT position, but I think it is safe to say
that it is the primary reason motivating the overwhelming majority of its
advocates. 

Now it is certainly true that there are a few scholars who argue for the
MT/TR on genuinely scholarly grounds.  But it is also true that you can 
count those scholars on one hand (with plenty of fingers left over). 

Your point is well taken that there is lots of noise on this topic.  But
viewed more appropriately --i.e. in terms of a scholarly debate-- given
that there are only (at most) two or three scholars supporting the
minority position, the sound and fury tends to overwhelm the substance of
the debate. And certainly makes it sound bigger/more important than would 
otherwise appear. 

N

Back