- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Wieland Willker"
> >> Not even Origen was really interested in preserving a pure lineWhat do we know about what text he used in Caesaria?
> >> of the NT text.
> > What makes you say that?
> This is my impression from what I have read from Origen. Just take
>the fact that he used a different text in Caesarea without
> He of course is interested in variant readings, but his discussionBecause he doesn't use modern text critical insight? Which of the
>of variants is quite different from ours.
> Of course we don't know for sure: We have NO INDICATION thatWell, we don't really have any insight about any of the ancients do
>Origen was really interested in preserving a pure line of the NT
>text. Perhaps he was interested and we just don't know.
we? Why did you single out Origen?
- On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 07:49:17AM -0000, Frederick wrote:
> > He of course is interested in variant readings, but his discussionISTR that the classical Alexandrian scholars managed rather a lot
> >of variants is quite different from ours.
> Because he doesn't use modern text critical insight? Which of the
> ancients did?
of textual studies, though perhaps not with the full modern
apparatus (then again, they working on Homer rather than the Bible).
In the medieval period, Lupus of Ferrieres gathered and noted
textual variants, though you'd probably have to compare him to
(say) a very junior version of Jeremy Bentham, rather than
Lachmann or Westcott.
Reading bad criticism is, of course, like reading Basque
computer manuals while chewing broken glass, only less useful.
--Kenneth Hite, LHN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Zbaraschuk" <tonyz@...>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Origen
> In the medieval period, Lupus of Ferrieres gathered and noted
> textual variants, though you'd probably have to compare him to
> (say) a very junior version of Jeremy Bentham, rather than
> Lachmann or Westcott.
IMHO you mean Richard Bentley not Jeremy Bentham.