Subject: Words of Jesus - My final Words on the thread

From: [email-masked] (U. Schmid)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:56:37 +0100

For some reason I initially thought there was something to learn in this
discussion. Now I have to admit that I was wrong.

For sure, everyone is free to think what he or she wants. No censorship
intended. But I'm simply not curious enough to wrestle with a case that is
build on:
a) a "source" like the Talmud of Jmmanuel that the scholarly community
universally dismisses, apparently used in an English translation taken from
a German translation taken from a now lost Vorlage that noone will ever be
able to assess; this is even worse than the Book of Mormon.
b) the use of the ANF, a dated English translation of Greek and Latin
sources, apparently not reliable when it comes to close arguments and
certainly not reliable when it comes to its apparatus.
c) a, in my view, notoriously anachronistic reading of ancient texts.

This is it.

My apologizes to the list for bothering it with fruitless discussions.

Ulrich Schmid,
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 08:28:25 -0500 (CDT)

>discussion. Now I have to admit that I was wrong.

This should tell us something, when someone as open-minded and
knowledgeable as Ulrich Schmid gives up on a subject. :-) If he's
giving up on it, I'll get off the topic also.

[ ... ]

>certainly not reliable when it comes to its apparatus.

Having frequently been forced to use this series, for lack of access
to anything better, I should note its various defects:

1. It is translated from 19th century editions of the Fathers --
   which were, almost without exception, uncritical editions. And,
   of course, many important documents have been found since then.
2. For the most part, there *is* no apparatus.
3. Even if the above were not true, they are hard to use; the style
   of translation is very uneven, and many of the translations lack
   scripture indices.

I would say that these volumes can be used to learn about an author's
style, but should never be relied on for detail. It's too bad,
because such a series would be very helpful if it were reliable.
It would be nice if someone would produce a modern version. But
such a series probably represents a lot of work for relatively
modest sales. Sigh!

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

                        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: Jim Deardorff <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:43:01 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, U. Schmid wrote:

> able to assess...

But it is much closer to its source, which itself is the source for the
Gospels, than are any of the mss available to TC to the earliest Gospels.

> certainly not reliable when it comes to its apparatus. ...

You're no doubt correct there.  When one starts out in NT studies, the ANF
is the prime text one sees referenced over and over in the literature, and
is what a colleague recommended to me.  However he was no text critic. 

Jim Deardorff