Subject: tc-list help on an article by E.J. Epp

From: "Thomas J. Kraus" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:10:54 -0400

Dear TC-ers,

fortunately I made an excerpt of an article by E.J. Epp with the titel 
*Toward the Clarification of the Term "Textual Variant" (published in: 
E.J. Epp and G.D. Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament 
Textual Criticism (Studies and Documents 45; Grand Rapids 1993)), but 
unfortunately, I did not copy of how many pages this study is made up. I 
know that it was published in J. K. Elliott, ed., Studies in the New 
Testament Language and Text. Essays in Honor of G.D. Kilpatrick (NT.S 44; 
Leiden 1976) pp. 153-173, but for a citation I need its correct place in 
Epp's and Fee's *Studies*.
Please, can anybody help me on this?
By the way: what sounds very plausible and absolutely necessary in theory 
might cause problems in practice. Can we be certain to distinguish between 
nonsense readings, singular readings, and the like on the one hand and 
textual variants worth being discussed on a broader scale on the other? 
Principally, I think E.C. Colwell (Scribal Habits, in: NTTS 9, 106-124) 
and Epp are right. But nevertheless, practice brought me in a kind of 
hustle: when are readings singular ones (even a variant witnessed by only 
one manuscript can be correct according to Kilpatrick/Elliott)? When do we 
have an intentional and an unintentional error, when only the language 
used in dialects (itacisms)? Any notions out there on the whole of that?
Best wishes,
Thomas J. Kraus
Universitaet Regensburg
Kath.-theol. Fakultaet
Universitaetsstr. 31
D-93053 Regensburg
Federal Republic of Germany

Tel. + 49 941 943 36 90
Fax. + 49 941 943 19 86
[email-masked]

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 14:25:23 +000

The Epp article =
E.J.Epp, "Toward the Clarification of the Term 'Textual Variant'," in 
Epp & G. D. Fee, _Studies in the Theory & Method of NT Textual 
Criticism_ (SD 45; Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1993), 47-61.
"Nonesense readings" and "singular readings" and "non-significant" 
readings all require judgement of specific cases. "Nonesense" 
must be not simply awkward but so obviously impossible as real 
Greek as to be obvious to other readers as well that it is a scribal 
error.
"Singular" in pratice means a reading/variant that you can't find in 
any other ms using the tools available (e.g., Tischendorf, other 
apparati, published/collate mss,etc.).  I.e., "singular" to be the best 
of your knowledge.  To judge something as "singular" does not 
automatically mean it cannot be original.  But collections of 
singular readings of individual mss *collectively* form a data set 
from which to make inferences about the scribal *tendencies* and 
preferences of the ms.

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]