Re: Textual Criticism Theories
- In <firstname.lastname@example.org>, on 10/22/96
at 07:54 PM, "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@...> said:
>On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, Hubert Arthur Bahr III <hbahr3@...>Hey! Do not leave this lurker out either..... <grin>
>>I am also confused as to why those who prefer the Byzantine text type
>>should be a seperate group from those who prefer a particular text type.
>There is a similarity between the two classes, but there is also a
>difference. Two differences, in fact.
>First, the majority of those who prefer the Byzantine text prefer it on
>theological grounds ("God must consider the Byzantine text right, of
>(s)he would not have made so many copies") or on numerical grounds ("it's
>the majority; it must be right"). There are, of course, exceptions (so
>don't say it, Maurice), but this is how most Byzantine prioritists feel.
>The proponents of the other text, by contrast, make their choice based on
>some perceived "inner excellence" (obviously a subjective matter).
Altho I am not a heavyweight in this discussion I still have done some
reading ya know..... <grin>
I certainly do not accept the Byz priority due to theological grounds!! I
started reading Kurt Aland material and Weiss <sp?> material and started
in on other material until it started getting too time consuming and over
my head ..... Then I met Maurice Robinson and started corresponding with
him. He gave me some extremely valuable suggestions and ideas. I concur
that most of the TC theories are a matter of subjectivity since most of
the data is interpreted in different fashions according to their
respective theories much like that done in Biblical debates. BUT I do not
intend to mean that all of the scholarship and study is by nature
subjective. No not at all. It is just that I personally contend that each
theory has it's own sphere of influence. After reading Maurice Robinson's
material and discussing some points with him I decided that it made the
most reasonable case...... <big grin> Now obviously I can not hold a
candle to most if not all of the great people on this list!! And should
someone want to challenge my post --
Oh Woe is me...... What can I do?????? <grin>
Each of us makes our decisions based upon many factors, right??
Therefore until something comes along that makes better sense than
Maurice Robinson's viewpoint then I will continue to support his position.
Subjective ? some..... <but then aren't most opinions that way? <grin>
Lurk mode on ....
>Second, the fact that Byzantine texts are so numerous forces a change in--
>approach. Unlike the other text-types, it is possible to do stemmatic
>work, and certainly historical work, on the Byzantine text. This
>inevitably will affect the final text (note the differences between
>Hodges & Farstad and Robinson on this very point).
>>perhaps we could group scholars into 3 groups
>> 1. Textually uncritical.
>> 2. Champions of a particular text type.
>> 3. Eclectics.
>Does group 1 really qualify as "scholarly"? :-)
>Seriously, I don't think this division is fair. Eclecticism *must* be
>categorized. My approach, based strongly on text-types, is very distinct
>from Kilpatrick and Elliot, whose approach is based on internal evidence.
>I'm willing to lump it as 3a (internal
>eclecticism), 3b (external eclecticism), and 3c (mixed) -- but if my
>choices are to be an internal eclectic or to choose to always follow the
>text of family 1739, I'll take 1739 any day.
>jgvalentin@... (Jean Valentin) wrote:
>>Another way of classifying, probably complementary, is:
>>1. Those who have something to say about a global history of the text.
>>2. Those who have no hypothesis about the relation of text-types to one
>This strikes me as a much more important way of doing things. (My
>opinion, obviously.) It strikes me that I could much more easily work
>with a person whose theory of the text disagreed with mine than with
>someone who had no theory of the text. As witness the fact that I have
>learned from Maurice Robinson, whereas that person -- whoever it was --
>who preferred the TR was beyond my comprehension. By my standards,
>Robinson's text and the TR are almost equally bad -- but Robinson himself
>is a knowledgeable and insightful scholar.
>My two cents. Now back to our regularly scheduled lives.
- 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