Subject: Re: E. C. Colwell--A Maverick?

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 17:44:31 -0400 (EDT)

At 04:28 PM 10/25/96 -0700, you wrote:

>>
>>I am reading a collection of essays by E.C. Colwell.  In many ways he
>>seems to have been a maverick; for instance he sharply critized Aland
>>and the UBS text (>>Studies in methodology . . .<<, Brill, 1969, p.
>>153):
>>
>>	"The egregious example of the misleading nature of . . . narrowly
>>	restricted editions is the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament.
>>	Yet this is the edition that Aland refers to as a 'model'!"
>>
>>I would like your comments on the strengths and weaknesses of his
>>propositions, and I would also like your ideas as to what factors may
>>have influenced his thinking.

Since no one has so far come to the side of Aland I feel it incumbent upon
myself to do so.  When all is said and done, and the fad theories of textual
transmission have passed into the dust of antiquity, it is Aland's work that
will remain.

What Aland and his very learned colleagues did in their versions of the NT
was to offer "significant" variants based on their many years of research.
It is therefore highly suspect when a scholar comes along and simply makes a
reputation for himself by denigrating the work of his predecessors.  One is
welcome to make a name- but one should do so with a positive contribution to
the field and not hypotheses which have yet to be verified (e.g. Colwell).

To call the work of Kurt Aland egregious is horribly unfair and quite
untrue.  Thus, in spite of comments to the contrary, Aland's work will in
the long run prove to be far more valuable than Colwell's.

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
Professor of Biblical Languages
Petros TN

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 20:10:43 -0700

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Jim West <[email-masked]> wrote:

[ ... ]

>the long run prove to be far more valuable than Colwell's.

I would distinguish two things here: Aland's work as a collector and
cataloger of manuscripts, and his work as a textual theorist.

As a cataloger, Aland is surely the greatest since Gregory (possibly
since Tischendorf). He also founded the only college in the *world*
devoted to textual studies. He is also responsible for the only
complete (or nearly complete) file of manuscript reproductions.
There is no doubt that he will have an enduring legacy.

As for NA27, I do not deny that it is the best hand edition available.
Merk has more variants, but is inaccurate. It's also harder to use.
I wish NA27 were fuller. But I certainly wouldn't want to do without it.

But as a textual critic, he is weak. His proposed method of local
genealogy is good -- but he doesn't apply it. His classification
of manuscripts has value -- but only if one realized that it is
not systematic, and that "Categories I, II, III, and V" do not represent
the "quality" of the manuscripts, but only their approximate degrees
of Byzantine influence.

This is not to denigrate Aland. Who was greater, Tischendorf or
Hort? I don't think that can be answered. Aland is our new
Tischendorf. Now we need a new Hort. Colwell isn't that great,
but he's the closest thing we have. (Other than me, of course. :-)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:59:23 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Jim West wrote:

> myself to do so.  

I do not think that it was Aland's massive research which was being
criticized, but the limitations of the UBS apparatus.  Other criticisms of
Aland similarly have not deprecated his massive labor in assembling the
microfilm collection at Muenster, nor the publication of useful
statistical data in the _Text und Textwert_ series, as well as in other
publications (mostly from Water deGruyter in Berlin).  These will indeed
stand the test of time.

Rather, the only other criticism of Aland has been in regard to his
theories of textual transmission and reconstruction ("hypotheses which
still remain to be verified"), which likely will undergo significant
revision by his successors over the coming years.  In this respect --
theory only -- I would postulate that Colwell will remain more highly
regarded than Aland by future generations. 

> the long run prove to be far more valuable than Colwell's.

Keeping it in the context of the near-universal critique of the UBS
edition (and even I still ask why it continues to be published), the
complaint is valid, and I do not think reflects on Aland's other work, for
which we all should be thankful.

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