From: turquoyz (turquoyz@databank.com)
Date: Mon Oct 02 1995 - 17:06:54 EDT
What Sturz is doing is asking why those that adulate the Egyptian text-type
still prefer the WH/Nestle readings when there are Byzantine readings in
P46. When confronted with a Byzantine reading, Black, Aland, Metzger &
company still prefer Codex Sinaiticus/ Vaticanus readings. Sturz' conclusion
from bits and pieces of Byzantine text in "supposedly" neutral texts, is
that the Byzantine text-type is as old, if not older than the Western &
Egyptian texts, and therefore not a conflation. Sturz has done much work in
this area. Also Farstad & Hodges on their Majority Text.
Warm regards,
Jim Williams
-----------------------------------------------------------
>I have been doing a little work lately in trying to understand the
>Independent Text-type theory for evaluating textual problems.
>Although I understand what Harry Sturz is doing with keeping the
>text-types independent and of equal value, and his pushing back of the
>Byzantine type to a much earlier and respectable date, I am curious
>as to exactly what he does with internal evidence in his evaluations.
>How does he deal with conflations or readings that appear to be
>mixtures? Perhaps the simplest answer is that he doesn't consider
>them to be conflations or mixtures, but I was interested in seeing
>whether any of you NTTC folks had any insights into the strengths and
>weaknesses of this method. Thanks.
>
>Mark O'Brien
>----
>"I'm going somewhere where the unexceptional are not expected to excel beyond
>all expectations." -- Piglet
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:28 EDT