Sun Dec 29 20:14:05 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sun Dec 29 20:14:05 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id UAA05743; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 20:12:41 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 19:09:29 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: James
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1265

On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, "Ronald L. Minton"  wrote,
in part:

>The TR is, of course, not to be confused with the MAJORITY TEXT.  Even 
>Aland muddied the water some here.  They are similar, but only because 
>the mss that were available and used by Erasmus were Byz.

This is, of course, true (though I'm not sure what it has to do with
a Bezan text of James. :-)

Indeed, I think Aland has muddied the waters more than necessary; he
never paid much attention to the two Majority Text editions, and
never observed their higher critical principles. In addition, there
are a number of places (2 Cor 2:17 springs to mind) where he seems
to have simply accepted the TR reading as *the* Byzantine text
when it is not.

I'll concede that it would be very difficult to determine the
Byzantine reading at all points. But Aland should have *said* so.

We desperately need an edition of the Byzantine text with true
critical apparatus. It's a lot of work, and not much reward. (Since
relatively few people would accept it as original.) Is anyone
working on such a thing? Anybody want a lifetime burden? :-)


Robert B. Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn

Back