Subject: Mss vs. Eclectic Text

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:43:52 +0100

With all due respect, I would like to take issue with Mr. Evensen's
opinion that:

> None of the Nestle editions represent an unbroken tradition back to the
> time when many MSS still were handwritten, i.e. in the transition from
> handwritten to printed "transmission".
> The Nestle text is not a transmission, but is based on the decisions of
> three earlier editions, which in turn were constructed eclectically.
> Erasmus' edition was based on handwritten copies, for the most part.
> As I see it, the 1516 edition was a continuation of the MS tradition.

The view that an eclectic text is somehow inferior to the mss tradition
because nobody in the early church actually used a ms of the NT that
looked like the NA27 is a "red herring."

The church has used an "eclectic" text since the days of Jerome, whose
task it was to "clean up" the textual transmission in the latin
versions.  This involved a kind of reconstruction of the NT text.  The
edition of Erasmus, though based on a skimpy textual basis, was also an
"eclectic" text in the sense that its text was "reconstructed" [that's
putting it mildly for the last leaf of Revelation!].

Simply put, there is not one "providentially preserved" textform in the
NT, but several!  At the risk of drawing Bill Petersen's ire for
expressing a *faith conviction*, I see no necessary contradiction
between the recognition that the transmission of the NT text has
produced a variety of textforms and the conviction that, in all
essentials, God has preserved the text.

I rather think that one of the stature and learning of Erasmus would, if
he were here today, be an advocate of the NA27 rather than the TR.  The
NA27 represents the same effort to reconstruct the text, though with a
greatly expanded textual base.

-- 
H. Alan Brehm, Ph. D.			Assistant Professor of NT
3000 6th Avenue				Southwestern Baptist Theol. Sem.
Fort Worth, Texas 76110			P. O. Box 22000
817-923-3008				Ft. Worth, TX 76122
817-922-9005 FAX			817-923-1921, ext. 6800
[email-masked]			817-921-8760 FAX
					[email-masked]

Visit My Home
Page-->http://pw1.netcom.com/~habrehm/professor.html									

"The highest reward for man's toil is not what he earns for it but what
he becomes by it"	--John Ruskin

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 18:44:44 -0400 (EDT)

> greatly expanded textual base.

I appreciate Brehm's comments, though I would suggest that it would be
more likely that Erasmus even today would be more likely an advocate of
the text which was more "traditional" within the Greek church, though not
in regard to the early printed TR editions.  

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 21:11:42 +0100

> in regard to the early printed TR editions.

Fair enough!  No slam intended.  I didn't really intend to get into the
argument about eclectic vs. majority text methodology.  Even the
majority text is reconstructed.  I simply wanted to point out that 
Erasmus would have moved beyond the TR given the vastly increased amount
of evidence--he did after all utilize even Bezae, the text of which
seemed strange to him.  And I wanted to point out that even the TR was a
reconstructed text.

Visit My Home