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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 97 18:18:23 +0100

On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote:

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

>> 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.  

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

>> 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?  

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

>> That being the case, I do 
>> wonder how many teachers of TC would be willing to adopt a textbook 
>> that goes against the flow.  

>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...... 

I really would love to be "fair" when teaching NTTC. However, at present there 
are two basic withdrawls:
a) Lack of a teaching position (subjective perspective);
b) lack of Maurices's TC textbook (objective perspective).

To Maurice, Washburn and Evensen: Please do not complain in advance for not 
being read as long as the objective perspective is still lacking.

To Maurice: I really would love to see a book out there from your pen on the 
Byzantine priority hypotheses. I'm pretty sure that it will be free from 
theologically biased assertions solely relying on your interpretation of the 
evidence within a scholarly framework as you repeatedly ascertain.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 14:27:36 -0700

It's interesting to see all the people saying that they would use a
textbook from Maurice Robinson if they could. I wonder, though, if
that really solves the problem. Adding another textbook to a course
that already uses two or three is not my idea of helpful.

As someone who lived through ten semesters of college math and
thirteen of physics, I think I can safely say I know bad textbooks.
(Believe me, you don't know bad until you've seen a bad Advanced
Calculus book....)

It seems to me that there is a desperate need for a good *general*
textbook on textual criticism. I look at what's on my shelf, and
it's not a pretty list:

* Metzger. Good on principles and history, but very weak on the
  manuscripts. Also, it's very "Hortian."
* Aland & Aland: The manuscript lists are nice (though it would
  be even nicer if it told the nature of the manuscripts' texts,
  not just how Byzantine they are), but the actual practice of
  criticism gets very little coverage.
* Greelee: Nice supplementary features (how to collate a manuscript,
  how to read a critical apparatus), but the manuscript lists are
  badly in error and there isn't much coverage of practice.
* Vaganay & Amphoux: Spends more time complaining than teaching.
  Unorthodox theories are presented without much support. Few
  examples.
* Kenyon (_Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts_) has a lot of
  good material but is not a TC textbook
* Hammond (the first manual I saw) is ninety-four years out of date
* Hort is more than twenty years older than that
* Black is too short (and the manuscript lists are bad)
* Lake is even shorter
* The less said about Comfort, the better....

Have I forgotten anyone? I realize that omits Elliot (I don't have that
one yet), but it's a pretty undistinguished list. To get a reasonably
complete picture even of the modern eclectic viewpoint takes about
four books, which is too many.

Is it not time to create a balanced textbook? A collaborative effort
might be best. That would let all the various sorts of practitioners
(Robinson, Elliot, perhaps Ehrman or Holmes, West or Comfort, maybe
even a historical critic like myself if we can find one with a
relevant degree) could write about how *they* practice the discipline.
This might also let a manuscript expert describe the texts of the
various manuscripts, and a historical expert write the history of
the printed text.

The net result, if we could find the right editor (I would suggest
Epp, who is even a fairly good writer) could be by far the best
textbook available in the field.

Or am I crazy? (Don't answer that.)

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

                            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)