Fri Jan 17 10:16:05 1997

From owner-tc-list  Fri Jan 17 10:16:05 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA10188; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:15:10 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970116213541.288f9e32@mail.sunbelt.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 08:27:34 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Original Text
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2223

On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Jim West  wrote:

>Just as an aside- Kurt Aland was a brilliant critic and more capable than
>most in the field of textual studies.  It is currently the vogue to deride
>his incredible contributions; but his work has stood, and will continue to
>stand, the test of time.  The works of others will come and go, but Kurt
>will be around for a long, long while.
>
>The Alexandrian text type is excellent.  If there is any demonstrable proof
>that any other type or mixture of types is superior to it, it has failed to
>appear to this point.

I think (as is so often the case) that this needs to be clarified.

Kurt Aland was, of course, a great worker in this field, who has
probably made more information available about NT manuscripts
than anyone since Gregory.

He founded an Institute which is the strongest single force in
TC today.

He took the Nestle text and, for the first time, gave it an apparatus
which can be reliably used to infer the readings of a number of
important manuscripts (especially among the minuscules).

We should be incredibly grateful for his efforts.

That is, however, not the same as being a great textual theorist.
In my opinion, Aland was *not* a great theorist. He focus on
manuscripts is right, but his *use* of manucripts was not especially
effective.

So, for example, I would agree that the Alexandrian text is the best
in the Gospels (though not in Paul; I would rate both 1739 and
p46/B higher). But that doesn't mean it can be relied on absolutely.

To repeat an analogy I've used before: Tischendorf and Hort were
both great names in TC. But they were great for different reasons:
Tischendorf for his work with manuscripts, and Hort for his theoretical
work. Aland was another Tischendorf: He did great work with manuscripts.
But I do not think his textual theories will stand. He was not a Hort.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         waltzmn@skypoint.com

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

Back