From: owner-tc-list
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 00:42:31 -0500

We had an extended discussion of the need for emendation of the NT text, 
either theoretically or in actual practice, last April, and newcomers to 
the list who want to see that discussion can send the message
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [email-masked]

get tc-list tc-list.9604

to [email-masked].  DON'T SEND IT TO THE LIST ITSELF!

I continue to believe, in agreement with Mike Holmes, that emendation has 
a vital role to play in the NT textual criticism, even if 99.9% of all 
the original readings are preserved somewhere in the manuscript 
tradition.  Westcott and Hort's list of suspected readings--i.e., those 
readings which they thought probably contained some "primitive error"--is 
a good place to start.  For those who don't have access to this list, I 
will list the passages below (maybe some enterprising person would like 
to enter the actual suspected readings and share them with the list):

Matt 15:30; 21:28-31; 28:7
Mark 4:28
Luke 11:35
John 4:1; 6:4; (8:9)
Acts 4:25; 7:46; 12:25; 13:32, 42; 16:12; 19:40; 20:28; 25:13; 26:28
1 Pet 1:7; 3:21
2 Pet 3:10, 12
1 John 5:10
Jude 1, 5, 22-23
Rom 1:32; 4:12; 5:6; 8:2; 13:3; 15:32
1 Cor 12:2
2 Cor 3:3, 17; 7:8; 12:7
Gal 4:31-5:1
Col 2:2, 18 (bis), 23
2 Thes 1:10
Heb 4:2; 10:1; 11:4, 37; 12:11; 13:21
1 Tim 4:3; 6:7
2 Tim 1:13
Phlm 9
Rev 1:20; 2:12; 3:1, 7, 13, 14; 9:10; 11:3; 13:10, 15, 16; 18:12; 19:13

I think the model of OT textual critics, who routinely consider the 
possibility of primitive corruption and thus the need for conjectural 
emendation, can inform NT critics, even if we allow for the substantial 
differences in the quality of the data available to OT and NT critics, 
respectively.

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------