Subject: Re: tc-list N.T. Graece Inquiry

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:47:26 EDT

In a message dated 99-07-01 08:43:15 EDT, you write:

<< But the point I am making is that they judged these readings by
 the same internal and external criteria that they judged all others.
 They were placed in double brackets simply because they are well-known
 and unusually long. (Interestingly, they also tend to make Jesus
 what we would consider a better person: He was forgiving, and he
 had true human emotions.)
 Bob Waltz
 [email-masked]
 
 "The one thing we learn from history --
    is that no one ever learns from history."

     These two points being so (including the one on history), should one 
consider seriously their text at all?

Mark Hays

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:43:08 -0500

>consider seriously their text at all?

Oops -- forgot which sig to use on this list. :-) Got it right this
time. :-)

But to answer the question: Sure, why not? I'm not saying it's perfect;
I doubt anyone on this list would consider it the best possible text.
But every edition ever prepared conforms to *someone's* biases.
The UBS edition is strongly Alexandrian, but consider the "competition":
Many would consider Von Soden's text too Byzantine. The text of Vogels
is even more Byzantine. The texts of Merk and Bover are more eclectic,
but this also makes them unpredictable. Tischendorf follows Aleph
too closely. The Majority Text editions are Majority Text editions. :-)

In addition, the UBS text is the only one to truly take the Bodmer
papyri (or even the Beatty papyri) into account.

If someone would pay the cost, I would happily produce a "better"
edition than the UBS text. I'm sure most on this list would do
the same. But there isn't much demand at this time. :-)

The UBS text is not perfect. No text is perfect. That's why we still
study textual criticism. :-) But if the time comes when you start
trying to determine what *you* think are the best readings, the
UBS text, and associated commentary, offer ideas that are worth
considering.

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

                        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)