Fri Oct 25 17:47:22 1996

From owner-tc-list  Fri Oct 25 17:47:22 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id RAA08687; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 17:46:22 -0400
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
 
References: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 16:42:15 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Oh no... I agree with Maurice Robinson
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1986

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson  wrote:

[ most of message omitted ]

[ ... regarding eclecticism... ]
>
>Actually, I am not certain that the real substance of the debate has ever
>been considered on this list.  By this I mean the failure of the eclectic
>method convincingly to establish or maintain a text of the NT which can be
>supported in any form on secure historical grounds within an integrated
>theory of transmission.  It is much easier to take pot shots at the
>Byzantine advocates for holding to what is supposedly a "secondary" form
>of the text than it is to supply a comprehensive theory of eclecticism
>which will provide some hope of correctness in establishing a dominant
>text of the NT which can reasonably be considered to be equivalent to the
>autograph.  (And don't blame me on this point: Epp, Colwell and Clark
>started the critique in this area).

I want to second Maurice on this. Epp and Colwell are often viewed as
"modern" and as "eclectics," but in fact both argue against
eclecticism. In Epp's case, see especially "The Twentieth Century
Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism," "A Continuing Interlude
in New Testament Textual Criticism?," and "The Eclectic Method in New
Testament Textual Criticism: Symptom or Solution?" (all reprinted in
Epp & Fee, "Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual
Criticism"). 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"). 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.

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.


Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back