Subject: Re: Cesarean text - thank you

From: Michael Holmes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 17:39:25 -0500 (CDT)

Jean Valentin wrote:

>This raises even another question. In the past, many such works for the 
>use of Greek NT scholars have been presented in the form of a collation 
>against one form of the Greek text - sometimes with a few notes. Do you 
>think such things can be usable, and which text should be used as a base 
>for collation? NA, WH, TR?
>
>What are the pros and cons of all these methods? Of both methods, whoch 
>is the best suited, and what text(s) are the most required?
>
The starting point for answering your question ought perhaps to be the essay
by Tj. Baarda, "What Kind of Critical Apparatus for the New Testament Do We
Need? The Case of Luke 23:48," in _New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis
and Church History_, ed. B. Aland and J. Delobel (Kampen: Kok Pharos,1994),
37-97, esp. pp. 60-61 and p. 77.  True, he discusses the apparatus for a
full critical edition, but the principles he spells out would apply to your
question, I think, as a contribution of information towards a full edition.

In brief, he calls for a four-level critical apparatus:
I.   Greek MSS
II.  Patristic testimony
III. Conjectural emendations
IV.  Versional evidence

The versional evidence, he argues, must be presented in a way that
distinguishes for the user between versional readings that represent genuine
variations in the textual tradition of the document and readings that do
not.  This suggests that a simple collation may not be sufficient for the task.

Hope this is helpful,

Mike Holmes
Bethel College