Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criti

From: [email-masked] (Nichael Lynn Cramer)
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 13:03:46 -0400

Mike Phillips wrote:
>        If you folk would forgive an intrusion by a lurker, I'd find an
>encyclopedia which was eclectic and carried a diversity of viewpoints on
>entries that were disputed (like a mishnah, for example, where opposing
>opinions are reported, while some conclusions are allowed to be drawn) much
>more meaningful 'in the field' than any tome which reflects the opinions of its
>sponsor(s) to the expense of others.

Which is precisely why I mentioned the Metzger, Aland, Ehrman & Holmes and
Fee & Epp volumes in my original query.  I.e. they are readily available,
excellent texts that do exactly that.

Nichael
[email-masked]                                               __
http://www.sover.net/~nichael              Be as passersby   -- IC

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 15:30:15 -0700

On Sat, 17 Aug 1996, [email-masked] (Nichael Lynn Cramer) wrote:

[ ... ]
>excellent texts that do exactly that.

I can't agree with this. I have *nine* introductions to textual criticism
(Westcott & Hort, Metzger, Aland, Greenlee, Hammond, Vaganay/Amphoux,
Black, Lake, Kenyon), and even combined they don't make up a complete
introduction. Aland gives a lot of useful information about manuscripts,
but is very brief when it comes to the *practice* of textual criticism.
Metzger gives more examples, but his textual theory is really little
more than an update of Westcott & Hort.

I have a lot of respect for Epp; he has a clearer vision of what needs
to be done than anyone else I know of. But nobody is *responding* to
his vision.

As for Ehrman & Holmes, I agree, it is the best available summary of
the state of the art. But there are a lot of holes. I can't blame them
for leaving me out; I'm nobody. But what about the essay on the
Majority Text debate? It completely leaves out Maurice Robinson,
who is the only supporter of the Majority Text whose opinions I value.
Ehrman and Holmes show the state of mainstream textual criticism.
But mainstream criticism, as Epp pointed out, has hardly advanced
at all since Hort's day. What we need is to look at the crackpot
theories. Most of them will prove to be worthless -- but chances
are that the next big advance is in there. Somewhere.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 19:13:05 -0400 (EDT)

> who is the only supporter of the Majority Text whose opinions I value.

Robinson (and his co-editor Pierpont) _are_ mentioned in Daniel Wallace's
article in the Fee and Epp volume which also has been cited.  Of course,
Robinson/Pierpont receive only footnote mention, and that not in the least
favorable (though I do consider Wallace's jibe that I am a true
"Burgonite" as a compliment, left-handed as it may be, within a proper
assessment of Burgon's theories, since Burgon's seven canons of criticism
were openly stated in our Introduction to be our basic working
principles).

> Ehrman and Holmes show the state of mainstream textual criticism.

This should be qualified as "mainstream eclectic textual criticism",
unless you want to specifically define "mainstream" as "modern
eclecticism" (sort of like all the "mainline denominations" when mentioned
tend to include all the larger ones except the Southern Baptists *;-) 

> are that the next big advance is in there. Somewhere.

I suppose from a modern eclectic standpoint my own theory might be
considered "crackpot"; however, should one be able clearly to disassociate
my "Byzantine-priority" theory from whatever is advocated by the TR
defenders, the KJV-Only crowd, and even the other "majority text" 
supporters" who often have questionable agendas and methodologies, I would
suggest that there is at least a modicum of plausibility within my theory
which is defensible.  Some subscribers to this list already know this from
what I have previously posted on this list; some from private
correspondence.  At least there is some recognition that there is a
certain viability in what I am claiming.  Next Spring a lengthy published
article will appear from my own hand regarding my position (in the journal
_Faith and Mission_), which might move me somewhat outside of the
"crackpot" stage.  (I hope all participants realize that I was fully
within the modern eclectic fold for some time before departing upon
recognition of its theoretical weaknesses; I have stated this before, but
it likely needs repeating to avoid any further "crackpot" impressions). 
*;-) 

I will be interested indeed to see if the proposed Encyclopedia of TC will
end up as anything more than the Encyclopedia of Modern Eclectic Textual
Theory and Praxis, and whether opposing positions will be stated fairly
and whether all sides of various theories will be presented by advocates
and critics alike (which of course, if done in fairness, will likely make
the proposed volume so large as to be economically unpublishable).  The
other volumes previously mentioned have in my opinion been rather myopic
when it comes to theories which the editors themselves do not hold ("Hort
has put ... blinders on our eyes" -- Colwell).  

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