Subject: Re: Original Text

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 21:34:47 -0500 (EST)

>I do know what the original text is not.
>
>1.  It is not Kurt Aland's "original text," ie. the Alexandrian text; 
>though that is no doubt close and, like all other texts and families, 
>exact in most places.  This is not to detract from his contributions to 
>textual studies, but I believe his use of the original text was a step 
>below his usual work.

Just as an aside- Kurt Aland was a brilliant critic and more capable than
most in the field of textual studies.  It is currently the vogue to deride
his incredible contributions; but his work has stood, and will continue to
stand, the test of time.  The works of others will come and go, but Kurt
will be around for a long, long while.

The Alexandrian text type is excellent.  If there is any demonstrable proof
that any other type or mixture of types is superior to it, it has failed to
appear to this point.

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

Jim West, ThD
Petros TN

[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 08:27:34 -0700

>that any other type or mixture of types is superior to it, it has failed to

I think (as is so often the case) that this needs to be clarified.

Kurt Aland was, of course, a great worker in this field, who has
probably made more information available about NT manuscripts
than anyone since Gregory.

He founded an Institute which is the strongest single force in
TC today.

He took the Nestle text and, for the first time, gave it an apparatus
which can be reliably used to infer the readings of a number of
important manuscripts (especially among the minuscules).

We should be incredibly grateful for his efforts.

That is, however, not the same as being a great textual theorist.
In my opinion, Aland was *not* a great theorist. He focus on
manuscripts is right, but his *use* of manucripts was not especially
effective.

So, for example, I would agree that the Alexandrian text is the best
in the Gospels (though not in Paul; I would rate both 1739 and
p46/B higher). But that doesn't mean it can be relied on absolutely.

To repeat an analogy I've used before: Tischendorf and Hort were
both great names in TC. But they were great for different reasons:
Tischendorf for his work with manuscripts, and Hort for his theoretical
work. Aland was another Tischendorf: He did great work with manuscripts.
But I do not think his textual theories will stand. He was not a Hort.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:36:23 -0600 (CST)

> that any other type or mixture of types is superior to it, it has failed to

Jim, I agree that he was capable.  I depend on him often.  Sorry if you 
were offended  :)
I did give him due credit.  As for "excellent," I prefer other more 
objective terms like very old and valuable.  Aland's work has shown 
enough diversity in the best Alex mss to make me avoid terms like excellent. 

--
Prof. Ron Minton: [email-masked]   W (417)268-6053  H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803