Sat Jan 4 12:26:18 1997

From owner-tc-list  Sat Jan  4 12:26:18 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id MAA13112; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:25:16 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <970104120600_1525064553@emout14.mail.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 11:24:00 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: 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: 1834

On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Rich Elliott (REElliott@aol.com) wrote:

>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

It depends on your purpose. If you want to reconstruct a text -- then,
yes, the H&F apparatus is inadequate. It is inadequate even for the
purpose of determining the true majority text, because it doesn't
include the readings of any manuscripts, and does not even give the
readings of textual groupings consistently (that is, it will sometimes
list Kr or Kc or whatnot, but where it lists an Mpart reading, you
can't tell which groups go which way).

On the other hand, as a starting point for controversial discussions,
it's fairly good. Yes, it would be better if it cited more TR editions,
and also if it cited at least two other critical editions (I would
say it should cite Stephanus, Elzevir, Beza, and -- now -- R&P in
the first apparatus, and W&H and NA25 along with UBS in the second).
But that's not the point. The point is to show how a text constructed
on H&F's principles would appear. Most of us don't accept that
principle -- but if we did, the apparatus would be acceptable if
not ideal.

But you see why I keep calling out for a Majority Text edition with
a *real* critical apparatus. :-)

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back