Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Multiple Replies (Was: Re: Textual Criticism Theories)

Expand Messages
  • Mike Arcieri
    ... Exactly. ... Which simply translates into no proof whatsoever.. ;-) ;-) ... how ... If this is what Wallace said, he s wrong (again! What paper from
    Message 1 of 1714 , Oct 23, 1996
      >I suppose I should have been clearer: There is a legitimate textual scholar
      >(Hills) who supports the TR -- but his defense of the TR does not make use of
      >any sort of textual methodology.


      >Hills defends the TR in much the same way that I would defend the belief that
      >humans have free will: I can't offer any proof, but I just *know* it. :-)

      Which simply translates into no proof whatsoever.. ;-) ;-)

      >Sturz is, as far as I know, alone among moderns. However, his view of
      >text-types is actually quite similar to von Soden's, except that they differ in
      >positively they view the Byzantine text. Sturz is, in fact, half-way between
      >the Majority Text view and a Westcott-Hort view.

      >It seems to me (and realize that I am getting this second-hand, via Wallace)
      >that van Bruggen and Wisselink also fall into this camp.

      If this is what Wallace said, he's wrong (again! What paper from Wallace are you
      reading?? ;-)) ). Van Bruggen wrote a little book entitled "The Ancient Text of
      the New Testament" where he presents his case in favour of the Byz text. As for
      Wisselink, his thesis re. Assimilation gives good support for the Byz text. I
      don't remember if he comes out and says that he considers this text-type to be
      _the_ best, but he certainly presents a case against Fee et al as to the alleged
      inferiority of the Byz tradition

      >I would also argue that Scrivener came close to this view. Obviously Scrivener
      >was not a follower of Hort. But neither did he agree with Burgon. Scrivener
      >conceded the value of all text-types, and the various critical methods; he just
      >concluded that the Byzantine text was best.

      Actually, here is a good quote from Scrivener's letter (dated Nov. 18, 1889) re.
      his own position.:

      "I think Burgon's wholesale disparagement of Codex Vaticanus as 'the most
      corrupt of all copies' quite unreasonable. On this head we have held many a
      conflict, without either of us yeilding an inch. You will see that I stand
      midway between the two schools, inclining much more to Burgon than to Hort."

      This quote is from Burgon's biography by Edward M. Goulburn (which I may add was
      _not_ quoted by Wallace in his paper "Historical Revisionism and the Majority
      Text Theory: The Cases of F.H.A. Scrivener and H. C. Hoskier" in NTS 1995).

      I see now that Robinson has himself posted on the TC-LIST, so I will let him
      answer for his GNT.

      MIke A.
    • Julian Goldberg
      The complete Hebrew Scriptures (Hebrew Bible) or TANAKH (Torah-Law, Neviim-Prophets, Ketuvim-Writings) based on the Masoretic Hebrew text with vowels and
      Message 1714 of 1714 , Feb 4, 1997
        The complete Hebrew Scriptures (Hebrew Bible) or TANAKH (Torah-Law,
        Neviim-Prophets, Ketuvim-Writings) based on the Masoretic Hebrew text
        with vowels and cantillation marks in one complete compact black hard
        covered volume which measures 12 cm x 19 cm with over 1360 pages that
        have been arranged according to traditional chapter and verse divisions
        along with larger Hebrew letter printing and thicker paper pages for a
        volume of this size. Each book is $ 20.00 (U.S.) postpaid ($ 15.50 for
        the book plus $ 4.50 for postage) and can be ordered directly from:

        Julian Goldberg, 260 Adelaide St., E., # 215, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
        M5A 1N0.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.