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

Re: [textualcriticism] Hoskier

Expand Messages
  • Daniel B. Wallace
    Hoskier was no friend of Hort, that s for sure! But regarding the collating base as the TR, that has been a tried and true approach for a long time, since it
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 16, 2006
      Hoskier was no friend of Hort, that's for sure! But regarding the collating base as the TR, that has been a tried and true approach for a long time, since it alleviates the apparatus via subtractio princeps. I personally prefer using the majority text as a collating base, since it involves overall 1838 differences from the TR and thus gives a consistently inferior text as the basis. See my NTS article, "The Majority Text: A New Collating Base?" New Testament Studies 35 (1989) 609-618. This method also has the distinct advantage of readily isolating Byzantine reading, while the TR (at least in the Gospels) involved some Caesarean mixture.

      Daniel B. Wallace
      Executive Director
      Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts

      ----- Start Original Message -----
      From: "Jan Krans" <jlhkrans@...>
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Hoskier

      > Daniel Wallace wrote:
      > > I'm not sure I would classify Hoskier as either TR or majority text.
      > > [snip]
      >
      > Thanks for the reference to your NTS article. It is a healthy antidote to
      > some popular misconceptions on Scrivener and Hoskier.
      >
      > However, when I used the words "'majority text' type", I was only
      > referring to what Hoskier intended to do with the text of Revelation;
      > apparently, it is a special case. I may quote once again his _Apocalypse_
      > (1, p. xxxvi): "The important part [of studying (what Hoskier calls) the
      > 'B recension' of Rev] perhaps is the _establishing_ of many readings on a
      > firm basis by the consistent testimony of all five uncials [Aleph]CABP and
      > the mass of cursives, as opposed to the readings which have crept down to
      > us through the original editors, Erasmus and Stephen, who relied on but a
      > few mss., faulty in certain particulars." The problem remains that he took
      > the TR as his point of departure; he thus seems the have fallen victim of
      > an all too well-known practical decision, to wit choosing the TR as his
      > collation base.
      >
      > Greetings,
      > Jan Krans
      > Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >

      ----- End Original Message -----
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.