You are absolutely correct about the disciplines overlapping. One must be
aware of the textual traditions of the Fathers before conclusions about
their New Testament text(s) can be made. (This, of course, was one of
Burgon's problems, although not necessarily his fault due to the lack of
critical editions). Marcovich's interest is not in the biblical text. Some
of his discussions include allusions to biblical material, but not citations
(as far as I can remember). Although I have not had the time to thoroughly
investigate his critical edition of Hippolytus' Refutatio, I have noticed
several places where he "restores" a NT quotation by making it more
Alexandrian (i.e. conforms it to the Nestle text) apparently without any
manuscript evidence (at least he supplies none in the aparatus).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TOMMY MARKANZIA REKLAM HB
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 1:31 PM
> To: tc-list@...
> Subject: Re: tc-list Text of the Church Fathers
> Curt Niccum wrote:
> > This book is about the practice of textual criticism on Patristic texts.
> > [BTW, Marcovich has received some criticism (justly in my opinion) for
> > palmary emendations.] I believe Denny was searching for material on the
> > Testament text found in the Church Fathers.
> Okey Curt, but I just thought that the quotations from NT used by the
> Fathers and perhaps edited by later scribes, was an area where the
> disciplines overlap - the quotations being part of the patristic text,
> and at the same time part of the NT textual tradition (correct me if I´m
> wrong - I am just an amateur). But perhaps the book of Marcovich doesn´t
> deal too much with the quotations as such.
> Tommy Wasserman
> Swedish student of theology