- Welcome to this list!
It is meant as a temporary replacement for the TC-list, which is not
working properly anymore.
I invite you all to contribute interesting things in matters textual
criticism of the Bible.
To make thinks short, there will be only one rule: If something
escalates I will intervene.
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
- On 2004.4.25, at 05:01 PM, Wieland Willker wrote:
> I invite you all to contribute interesting things in matters textualI have only recently started studying textual criticism seriously and
> criticism of the Bible.
am looking forward to learning from those in the list. I recently read
D.A. Carson's "The King James Version Debate" and it has pretty much
convinced me concerning the superiority of the "Critical Text"
approach. Before reading Carson I was a TR/MT advocate -- a position I
held due to having been influenced by popular presentations of the
"theology of preservation" of the Greek Scriptures in the Majority Text
tradition, and the alleged corruption of the Alexandrian text type by
the likes of Origen (who was supposedly an Arian) etc. Carson's book
dealt briefly with the "Origen as the source of the Alexandrian text"
argument. I've also found articles by Dan Wallace in www.bible.org on
textual criticism helpful in dealing with the "theology of
preservation" argument. Next on my reading list is J. Harold
Greenlee's "Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism". Of
course I still have questions, my views are far from settled and that
is one reason I joined this list. One thing I feel I really have to
look into is the pro-MT view of Pierpont and Robinson, which is said to
be a more reasoned and scholarly defense of the MT position than what
is commonly available from the popular literature on the subject. So,
if I may, I'd like to pose a question or rather a request to the list
that perhaps someone familiar with Pierpont/Robinson could summarize
their view for our benefit. Thank you.