Fri Nov 1 13:49:21 1996

From owner-tc-list  Fri Nov  1 13:49:21 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id NAA11459; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:48:05 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <327A51F9.3D51@voicenet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:40:26 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Hort's prejudice against the TR
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 848

On Fri, 01 Nov 1996, "L. Mark Bruffey"  wrote

>Is it true, as Pickering asserts, that Hort at age 23 had studied few if
>any mss when he said he wanted to do away with the TR?

Of course it's true; how many manuscripts could someone that young
have studied?

I can't see that it's relevant, though; Hort had, obviously, seen the
TR, and I believe the edition of Tregelles, which showed some of the
weaknesses of the TR. (I could be wrong about which edition Hort saw;
it could have been Lachman or one of the early works of Tischendorf).

Take an analogy: Kepler worked out the laws of celestial motion without
ever having looked through a telescope, and without spending much time
working with Brahe. One need not have all the evidence in hand to be
able to start examioning what one has.

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back