Subject: Majority text?

From: Jean VALENTIN <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 97 07:50:50 +0100

Incredible! 24 messages in one connection! These Americans are there 
again with their "Majority text"!
So typical...
Sorry friends, it was just a remark, I couldn't withhold it...

Peace to all!

_______________________________________________________________________
Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium

Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est 
inutilisable.
What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable.
Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 08:29:26 -0700

>Sorry friends, it was just a remark, I couldn't withhold it...

Conceding the humour, and the differences between American and European
opinions, I think this is slightly exaggerated.

Most American scholars do not believe the Byzantine text-type to
represent the original text. (And I agree with them.)

However, I believe that the Byzantine text *must* be studied,
because of the vast amount of influence it had on all manuscripts
after the fourth century. If it were up to me, I would like to
see a true edition of the Majority text, citing all the Byzantine
uncials, a selection of minuscules, and the various groups.

But no, I'm not going to edit it. Sorry. I have a ballad index
to use up the rest of my life.... :-)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]