Subject: tc-list J. K. Elliott review of ECM

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 20:50:25 -0500 (EST)

J. K. Elliott has written a review of the _Novum Testamentum Graecum
Editio Critica Maior_, vol. IV, installment 1: _James_, edited by Barbara
Aland, Kurt Aland, Klaus Wachtel, and Gerd Mink, the first review to
appear in TC 3 (1998).  For those who don't know, Elliott is the leading
proponent of the school of New Testament textual criticism known variously
as rigorous or thoroughgoing eclecticism, so his comments on the volume
(produced by reasoned eclectics) should provoke some comment on this list. 

At a meeting of the New Testament Textual Criticism section of the Society
of Biblical Literature at the recent annual meeting in San Francisco, this
critical edition of James was officially presented by the editors, and
several critiques/responses to the volume were offered.  Both the
presentations by the editors and the critiques offered in response to the
volume will appear shortly in TC 3. 

As always, members of this list, and others interested in textual
criticism, are invited to submit articles to me for possible inclusion in
TC.

Jimmy Adair
General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism
-------------------> http://purl.org/TC <--------------------

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:32:50 -0600

>(produced by reasoned eclectics) should provoke some comment on this list. 

A good prediction. :-)

I'm going to comment on some of Elliot's main points.

1. Elliot observes that there is no introduction to explain the
principles on which the text was determined. This is a fair criticism,
although the nature of the text and its editors allow us to make a
fair guess.

It should be remembered, though, that this is only the first volume.
One may hope we will see a better introduction once the volumes on
the Catholic Epistles are finished.

2. Elliot also observes that this supposedly new text is in fact
almost identical to the UBS/GNT/NA text. This, again, is a fair
criticism; for a text that is allegedly of high value, I would
like to see more differences from UBS. (At least the changes are
reasonable; I think ECM is correct in James 2:3, and a good case
can be made for the reading in 1:22.)

On the other hand, how important is the *text* of ECM? Does anyone
still consult the text of Tishchendorf or von Soden? For a volume
that is primarily a collection of variants, a critical text almost
does more harm than good; it can bias the reader. I think the IGNTP
policy of printing a non-critical text has merit (though I might
be tempted to print the reading found in the majority of manuscripts
cited, so as to reduce the size of the apparatus).

I am more concerned that Elliot goes off on a "tangent" to criticise
the letter ratings ({A}, {B}, {C}, {D}) used in the UBS edition. While
I agree with his thesis that these are not actual indicators of the
certainty of the text (in at least one case -- Jude 1 -- I personally
have adopted a reading the UBS committee rated {A}), they *are* useful
as an insight into the minds of the committee. This can be helpful
to us in making our own critical decisions. In any case, how is the
apparatus of UBS4 relevant to the ECM?

At the same time, Elliot praises the elimination of the square brackets
around doubtful readings. With this I generally agree; I think the
brackets are a bad way to indicate doubt. However, I think something
should be done to indicate where the editors think a variant has
equal or significant value. WH did this in the margin; ECM marks
such readings with a bullet. Despite what Elliot seems to think,
I consider this a valuable notation. (In fact, in my own work I go
even farther: One bullet indicates a variant with a significant
likelihood of being original; two bullets indicates a reading where
text and margin have effectively equal value.)

3. At no point does Elliot tell us anything about the apparatus
of the edition. His entire attention is devoted to the text. But
the text is the *least* important part of this edition to scholars.
What I want to know is, How useful is the apparatus? What manuscripts
are cited? What versions? What fathers, and with how much detail?
How easy is it to use the apparatus?

Sigh... Gripe mode off. :-)

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

                        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)