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

Re: Textual Criticism Theories

Expand Messages
  • rachel@ms1.hinet.net
    In , on 10/22/96 ... Hey! Do not leave this lurker out either..... Altho I am not a heavyweight in this
    Message 1 of 1714 , Apr 17, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      In <v03007800ae9334672618@[]>, on 10/22/96
      at 07:54 PM, "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@...> said:

      >On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, Hubert Arthur Bahr III <hbahr3@...>
      >>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).

      Hey! Do not leave this lurker out either..... <grin>
      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.
      >>coments anyone?

      >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.

      >Bob Waltz

    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        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.