Subject: Re: Academic Imperialism (An Outsider's View)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 07:27:22 -7000

Mr. Helge Evensen wrote, responding to Matthew's comments:
[snip]
> > It is a topic more proper for elementary TC textbooks than
> > for the list.
> 
> This is, of course, simply _not true_!! The tc-list is the place for such discussions. The 
> problem with textbooks is that most of them dismiss the Byzantine text without giving it a fair 
> chance! Maybe some of the Byzantine priority advocates should publish elementary TC textbooks, 
> so that we could have an even balance in the field! Most textbooks are in serious lack of 
> objectivity, not to mention the lack of giving the Byzantine text a fair consideration!

I agree, and would dearly love to see such a textbook.  I frankly 
find Hort's assertions to be more than a little arrogant, and based 
on slim evidence indeed.  I find Robinson's theory to be at least as 
plausible as Metzger's; I confess I don't usually read Maurice's 
posts all the way through simply because of their (general) length 
and my lack of time to give them the attention they deserve.  The 
fact that a TC scholar such as Metzger can do no better than to 
parrot Hort's ideas about the Byzantine textform simply shows a lack 
of balanced scholarship for the past 100 years or so.  This should be 
cause for alarm, if not a little shamefacedness.

At the same time, I can't help but wonder: if someone such as Maurice 
did publish a TC textbook of the type Mr. Evensen describes, how many 
institutions would adopt it and use it?  The Hort-Metzger theories 
are too often elevated to the status of established fact, as 
Matthew's grossly uninformed post shows.  That being the case, I do 
wonder how many teachers of TC would be willing to adopt a textbook 
that goes against the flow.  

Since I am not a professional text critic either, and do other things 
besides teaching these topics to earn my daily bread, I'd be 
interested in the opinions of those who are on the "front lines"...

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html
"You're so open-minded that your brain leaked out."
                                 -Steve Taylor

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 11:29:11 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 21 Apr 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

> I confess I don't usually read Maurice's 
> and my lack of time to give them the attention they deserve.  

This one is mercifully short, just for you, Dave. :-)

> institutions would adopt it and use it?  

Rough estimate off the top of my head: none whose professors are of the
modern eclectic variety.

> That being the case, I do 

Just in the interest of "fairness", I am teaching NTTC on the M.Div. 
classroom and Ph.D. seminar level this semester.  The two primary
textbooks are Metzger and Aland & Aland.  This should not be surprising, I
would think, and I certainly would consider this "fair" by any estimation. 
Of course, reciprocity in some degree might also be a nice idea...... 

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

---

From: kdlitwak <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 12:16:31 -0700

Given that even within a given MS, the "text type" may vary, I'd
like to ask a question about versions.  My area of focus, atleast for my
doctoral study, is Luke=Acts.  Obviously, an acquaintance with D in
Greek is important for that.  Beyond Greek MSS, however, which langauge
would be next of importance? Latin, Syriac? Or am I mistaken in thinking
that the particular text might determine which version(s) would be of
most value? 

   Going back to D, I know the question of the text of Acts is very
complex, based on what readng I've done.  I'd be interested in what
othes think the most likely "solution" to this problem might be.  Since
trying to find Lukanisms in D seems to have not borne adequate fruit,
some other approach to assessing the value of the readings of D seems in
order but I haven't figured out a way, though I'm interested in
Osborne's view (I think that's the right name).  Thanks.

Ken Litwak
Graduate Theological Union
Berkeley, CA

---

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 15:32:43 -0400 (EDT)

Ken,

   If you're interested in Bezae in Acts, then Latin is obviously a sine
qua non.  On the surrounding relevant questions, for my money the best
ever and destined to be so for a long time (that's one adjective) study is
David Parker, _Codex Bezae_.  It's an amazing book.  Also, of course, is
the volume of essays edited by Parker and Amphoux in New Testament Tools
and Studies, vol. 22 (1996): _Codex Bezae: Studies from the Lunel
Colloquium June 1994_.

-- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 14:38:46 -0700

>Osborne's view (I think that's the right name).  Thanks.

Personal opinions only, of course, but I would say that the most important
version(s) for Acts is (are) the Old Latin. This goes back to the problem
of D. (I've said this before, but I'll say it again.) The reasons is that
D contains at least one reading which is the result of editing: In Luke
3, it uses Matthew's genealogy of Jesus.

Now one edited reading does not an edited text make -- but it means
we have to be cautious with D. The Old Latin is very important as
a control on the "Western" text.

As for what is next on the list, I would seriously argue for the
Armenian and the Georgian. Yes, they are later than the Coptic and
the Syriac -- but the Coptic represents the Alexandrian text so
well represented by B Aleph A etc., while the most important
Syriac version (the Harklean) parallels family 2138. The
Armenian and the Georgian, by contrast, *may* represent something
new and different.

Having said that, I should point out that I know relatively little
about the text of Acts; about 75% of my studies have been devoted to
Paul and the Catholics, and most of the rest to the Gospels....

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

                            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: Vincent Broman <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Apr 1997 20:20:57 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Ken,

Make sure you check out this one:

   Le texte occidental des actes des apotres : reconstitution et
 rehabilitation / M.E. Boismard et A. Lamouille.  Paris : Editions Recherche
 sur les civilisations, 1984.
   Series title:  Synthese (Editions Recherche sur les civilisations) ; no 17.
     GTU   Library   BS2621.3 .B65 1984
     UCB   Main      BS2621.3 .B65 1984 t. 1-2 (1984)
     UCLA  URL       BS 2621.3 B65 1984
     UCSB  Main Lib  BS2621.3 .B65 1984

I cannot remember whether I skimmed parts of this years ago, or just read
someone quoting from it;  I did read a favorable review of it in JBL.
It seems to be quite comprehensive in its view of the textual resources
related to the Western text: MSS, versions, patristic citations.
You should get a good idea of where the most ore to be mined is.

Vincent Broman