Subject: Re: The new TR

From: "DC PARKER" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 09:58:43 GMT

Dear Mr Evensen

I can answer your query about a 'new TR' rather more succinctly than 
your other correspondents.

Readers of the Greek NT at large tend to 
be rather lacking in curiosity, and often seem to assume that their 
printed text is, if not infallible, at least as close to the 
'original' as one can get.  Perhaps they by lack of knowledge or lack 
of interest accord some sort of status to the UBS/NA27 text, simply 
because it is the one most widely used.

But I have never met a _text critic_ who was 
satisfied with a printed edition.  That includes the editors of the 
UBS/NA27 texts.  If you read the Introduction to NA27, you will see 
it described as 'not to be considered as definitive, but as a 
stimulus to further efforts...'  There is a similar statement in the 
UBS 4th revised edition.

I know of no contemporary textual critic who treats this text as 'a 
new TR'.

David Parker

DC PARKER
DEPT OF THEOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
TEL. 0121-414 3613
FAX  0121-414 6866
E-MAIL [email-masked]

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 16:17:42 -0700

> I know of no contemporary textual critic who treats this text as 'a

Thanks your your comments, Mr. Parker.

Just one clarification: My point was not that scholars treated some *printed* edition as a 
"new TR", but that modern textual criticism largely has "canonized" the Alexandrian text 
and the textcritical canon "oldest is more likely original".

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen