Subject: Re: Textbooks?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 14:39:20 -7000

Bob Waltz wrote in part:
> * Kenyon (_Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts_) has a lot of
>   good material but is not a TC textbook

It's also quite dated.  A.T. Robertson wrote one too; one of the more 
fascinating phenomena of this century is the way that, right after 
Hort's book gained acceptance, everybody else wrote one that 
basically parroted Hort.  Kenyon did write a TC textbook, by the way, 
but I've only seen one copy of it in all my travels.

[snip]
> 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 is the best idea I've seen yet.  If a bunch of us (yes, I'd be 
interested in participating) could get together and write such a 
book, and perhaps the professors on this list commit to using it to 
help it gain a foothold, some really good things could happen.

[snip]
> Or am I crazy? (Don't answer that.)

You say that as though being crazy is a bad thing :-)

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

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 17:04:54 -0700

Amid all this flap about who is or is not qualified to participate
on this list, I've done an update to my web site. Every article
has been revised (read: had at least a few typos removed -- though
I doubt not that many more remain). Over half (including my
pride and joy, the article on text-types) contain new material
of some sort. There is also one new article: A catalog of gospel
manuscripts similar to those I did earlier for Paul and the
Catholics. (Though this one has fewer remarks from me, since
I don't know the Gospels as well.)

Given the discussion about my (lack of) qualifications, I am
no longer claiming the site is affiliated with the Encyclopedia
of NTTC. I still admit to inspiration -- but will admit that
everything currently posted there is mine, and based on my
ideas.

Just a notice: The article on Family 1739 is incomplete
(though the article on 1739 itself is fine). I will be
expanding it as time permits.

Thanks to the several hundred of you who have visited
the page. I hope you will continue to find it useful.

Notice the new sig:

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

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

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

---

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 19:43:43 -0400 (EDT)

I should say that one of the reasons Mike Holmes and I structured _The
Text of the NT in Contemporary Research_ the way we did (with essays
giving the state of the question for the major areas of ongoing research
in the field, written by recognized scholars of each area) was precisely
to facilitate its use in the classroom.

   I've used it this term with my graduate seminar in textual criticism
with, I think, good success (then again, my students aren't likely to
trash it).  The books I used were:

	-- Alands
	-- Metzger
	-- Ehrman and Holmes
	-- "My" (!) Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (I'm not urging this
as a textbook, but I thought it would be crazy for me personally not to
use it) 
	-- Westcott and Hort
	-- Sundry articles, esp. by Colwell, Epp, and Fee.

    Let me say with respect to Hort, that he seems to be getting a lot of
bad press on this list.  Even though I disagree with a lot of what he said
(e.g. about a "neutral" text -- the meaning he ascribed to this term, by
the way, does not seem to be generally understood -- and its
differentiation from an Alexandrian text), I have to say that in my
judgment it is hands down the most brilliant book in the field ever
produced, and that everyone in the field should read it *carefully*.  I
had my students produce a 10-page single-space summary (they've yet to
forgive me), and I think it's the most important assignment I give in any
of my seminars.  The clarity and persuasiveness of the position -- easily
discounted by summarizing it -- is completely compelling in many respects.
And Hort's recognition of such things as the (OK, poorly named) Western
non-interpolations, the least tendentious thing about his analysis of the
tradition (tho frequently maligned and treated as if it were outdated by
the discovery of the papyri) (which of course is simply untrue, as anyone
who reads the discussion itself will realize) (it's too easy to kick a
dead hort), was, IMHO, completely inspired.  But that's a minor point,
really; the entire system was quickly parrotted by so many brilliant and
impressive scholars simply because they could recognize it for what it
was, the most important analysis of the textual tradition ever produced.

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

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 23:28:37 -0500

> everything currently posted there is mine, and based on my

Your "lack of qualifications??"  Bob, I am not a textual critic
but I have found the field fascinating for over 40 years.  On the
other hand, I am not a neophyte either.  I don't know what the
"qualifications" of a textual critic are supposed to be but if
the WORTH of a TCer is assessed on what he teaches and imparts
to others, you are numero uno in my multiply redacted text type.

Jack

Jack Kilmon
Houston, Tx
[email-masked]

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 12:47:12 +000

If readers of this list will check the exchanges, they will confirm 
that nothing has been said about anyone's "qualifications" (by which 
I presume those alleging otherwise mean formal training in the 
field).  I (and other working scholars in the field) have asked 
repeatedly for provision of evidence & argument in support of claims, 
and have asked it to be provided in a form such that it can be 
analyzed and considered.  Thus, short summaries of one's views in a 
dictionary article (Web sit or otherwise) offer only summary 
statements, not defenses and justifications sufficient to establish a 
new or controversial view.  So, nobody is asked Mr. Waltz or anyone 
else to enter some further degree programme.  What I'm asking is that 
anyone seeking to engage in scholarly debate and controversy should 
do so in a scholarly manner:  which means submitting full data and 
analysis in a form accessible to others, preferably "refereed" 
publication (which means a couple of scholars have given a 
preliminary judgment that a piece is worth the attention of busy 
scholars, which is a criterion all publishing scholars have to meet 
regularly).
I'm also interested in knowing where Maurice Robinson's firmly held 
theory(ies?) about the early history of the text are likewise 
available for analysis.  It's the *lack* of such availability that 
makes for scholars not taking notice of such views.  How *can* one 
take notice when the theory is not published and available in a form 
one can evaluate?  Now, sometimes things are so new that they haven't 
appeared yet.  But such things get presented as conf. papers, and 
circulated among other scholars for preliminary assessment.  Are such 
presentations of your views available, Dr. Robinson?  Till a view has 
been circulated in some accessible form, and till it has been 
assessed by scholarly peers, a view has no status in scholarship.  
Nothing personal; it's just what we call scholarship instead of other 
forms of communication, such as rumor, unsupported assertions, trial 
balloons, whatever.  Is that any clearer to all those souls about 
mean old scholars beating up on certain people?  No conspiracy.  Just 
a demand for ordinary scholarly standards and procedures to be met.
]
L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]