Subject: Eclectic Method

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:01:14 -0400

Friends,

It is well known that Hebrew Bible text criticism takes as its starting point
the MT (as preserved in Codex Leningrad).  Variants are assembled and
evaluated in comparison to this text.
Why, then, is NT text criticism based on a method that is apparently somewhat
scattered and piecemeal?  There does not appear to be one NT text upon which
comparison of variants is based.  Would TC not be easier if text critics at
least agreed that Sinaiticus (for instance) were the base text and then
variants could be placed in the margin (as is the case in BHS for the Hebrew
Bible)?  Then these variants could be evaluated for what they were worth.

Seeking to know in the wilderness of E. Tennessee,

Jim West

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 14:56:39 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 26 Apr 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> Would TC not be easier if text critics at

The set of volumes coming from Reuben Swanson is doing just that: 
Vaticanus is the base text, and all other fully-collated MSS (most 
papyri and uncials and a representative number of minuscules and Byz) are 
cited in pleno in the various apparatuses Swanson presents.  Even nomina 
sacra and obvious errors are recorded in sub-apparatuses. 

To date only the four gospel volumes are available, but Swanson is 
planning to do the entire NT in this manner, should he live long enough 
to complete it.  The volumes are available from William Carey Publishers 
in Pasadena, CA, and were shown at last November's ETS and SBL meetings.

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~