Re: tc-list N.T. Graece Inquiry
- On 7/1/99, Pappyhays@... wrote:
>Oops -- forgot which sig to use on this list. :-) Got it right this
> These two points being so (including the one on history), should one
>consider seriously their text at all?
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
Robert B. Waltz
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)
- Reply to: Re: tc-list N.T. Graece Inquiry
sorry, i've come into this discussion about mid-stream (i'm not sure which UBS variants originally prompted this discussion), but i would like to mention Kent Clarke's Textual Optimism in the UBS GNT which offers a critique of the general upgrading of variants in the ubsgnt fourth edition. one of clarke's most forceful criticisms is that the committee has failed to provide information for this general upgrade (ie. increase of A readings and decrease of D readings), though clarke himself suggests it has to do generally with the rising stock of the alexandrian text type among the new committee. the commentary on this point does little to help since as far as i can tell, the comments in the second edition are essentially the same and even where the ratings go from c (or in a couple of cases d) to a, there is no revised note in the textual commentary. clarke does discuss a couple of variants and the presumed reasoning by the ubs committee which stood behind the decisions. Most helpful are his statistical tables which trace the history of individual variants throughtout the various ubs editions. my review of clarke's work is to be published in the Bible Translator sometime this summer (perhaps the editor Harold Scanlin can be more precise :-)
Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>On 6/30/99, Pappyhays@... wrote:
>> Bob Waltz replied to my original question with (in part):
>>"It is not, of course, KNOWN. A better statement would be that the
>>committee is certain that these are additions"
>> Which of course prompts me to ask," How, were they "certain" of this? I >>am not asking anyone to defend their decision, but if possible to help >>provide me with the rationale for it. I cannot ask the commitee members, now >>can I? I certainly hope that you gentlemen can help, as this is a serious >>issue that needs to be resolved, in my own mind anyway. Are there any >>rescources that you know of that might help?
>This really is the wrong question. How were the UBS editors sure
>about *anything*? If you look at the margin of the UBS text, there
>are hundreds of "A" variants (readings where they are certain of
>the text), and tens of thousands more which they don't even bother
>to note. From the standpoint of *criticism*, these six or so passages
>are just additional instances of "A" readings -- i.e. readings where
>the text is certain.
>So how did the UBS editors decide anything? The basic answer is,
>of course, that certain readings were found in the Alexandrian text,
>and others weren't. The UBS text is the most Alexandrian of the
>modern editions, with the sole exception of Westcott & Hort.)
>You can find their official answers in their _Textual Commentary_.
>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.)
>"The one thing we learn from history --
> is that no one ever learns from history."
>Received: from ccis08.baylor.edu (ccis08.baylor.edu [188.8.131.52])
> by ccis01.baylor.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA29195
> for <Mike_Parsons@...>; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:06:06 -0500 (CDT)
>Received: from graf.cc.emory.edu by baylor.edu (PMDF V5.1-10 #27028)
> with ESMTP id <01JD1MCP45Z4AB23GS@...> for
> Mike_Parsons@...; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:06:13 CDT
>Received: from shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
> (shemesh.scholar.emory.edu [184.108.40.206])
> by graf.cc.emory.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA25182; Thu,
> 01 Jul 1999 08:42:41 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA18833; Thu,
> 01 Jul 1999 08:36:04 -0400
>Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 07:41:34 -0500
>From: "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@...>
>Subject: Re: tc-list N.T. Graece Inquiry
>Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"