Sat Jan 4 12:11:01 1997

From owner-tc-list  Sat Jan  4 12:11:01 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id MAA13024; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:10:04 -0500
From: REElliott@aol.com
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:06:01 -0500
Message-ID: <970104120600_1525064553@emout14.mail.aol.com>
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: H&F Maj Text apparatus
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 669

Dear TC colleagues:

I have recently been in discussion with a previous Greek professor of mine
who is still using the Hodges and Farstad Majority Text.  I was arguing how
the apparatus is insufficient at best.  I would appreciate any comments from
any of you either pro or con in respect to this work so as to give further
reference and maybe even learn something from some of you out there (as I
usually do).  I am mainly arguing that the apparatus of either the UBS or NA
contains much more information as to the textual nature of the variants.
 This is not a discussion of the text itself.

Thank you for your input

In His Service
Rich Elliott (REElliott@aol.com)

Back