From: Jim West (jwest@highland.net)
Date: Mon Dec 06 1999 - 22:25:32 EST
At 09:58 PM 12/6/99 +0000, you wrote:
>To C. W. Conrad and others,
>
>Textual critics come in two primary flavors: those who follow the herd, and
>those who have independent minds. I hope I am amongst the latter.
What Gary doesn't tell you here is that just as manuscripts should be
weighed and not counted, so too the truth or falsity of a reading isnt
guaranteed either by being followed by a majority OR a minority of scholars.
Each variant requires its own attestation.
>
>The Greek texts produced by the Munster Institute favor the oldest MSS. The
>oldest NT MSS are almost all exclusively from one locale-- Egypt. Myself I
>favor examining all of the evidence, as we know the oldest reading is not
>always the best, and we know that the Egyptian text-type may be a local
>one, and may itself have been a modified one.
As those trained in TC know, this is patently absurd. It implies that
Muenster blindly adopts readings because they are of the Alexandrian type.
However, our colleagues there (and they are actually trained in TC and are
not merely self taught on the subject) have very studiously examined mss for
decades and decades and decades to arrive at what they believe to be the
best readings. The dismissal of their work is unfortunate as there is no
need to reinvent the wheel each time one climbs into the car.
>
>As you point out, two (actually one) old papyri support the aorist tense
>form of the word in question. And hence the German editions follow suit.
Note carefully the subliminal anti-german polemic latent in this remark. A
glance at Gary's website will reinforce this impression. One (at least this
one) gets the distinct impression that in Gary's mind German = inaccurate.
>And it is well known that the NA editions (Nestle/Aland) are full of
>numerous errors in their apparatuses. They need to be first validated.
There are errors in every edition. Even Swanson. Even in the oldest mss!
Errors do not make the stunning accomplishments of Eberhard and his
followers null and void. In fact, may I be so bold as to suggest that gary
produce his own edition of the NT and allow it to be examined by
professional text critics before he denigrates what others have done.
>
>Here is a list of MSS which do support the perfect tense form (of "keep"):
>
>codex 02 (A)
hmm- what is the provenance of this text?
>codex 039
>minuscules 1 and 2 (at Basle)
>minuscule 1424
>minuscule 1071
>the majority text (several hundred minuscules)
So what? mss are weighed not counted.
>families 1 and 13
>codices 021, 030, 037
>western flavored MSS, 28, 565 and others
"flavored"? A term I have seen in NO manual of TC.
>
>-- Latin MSS vary also, most have "servet" a present tense form
>-- Some Syriac texts support the perfect (others an imperfect)
>-- Papyrus P75 is a conjecture here
>-- codex 044 supports the aorist form, BUT it has AFETE (a present
>imperative) in the first portion of our passage.
>
>I can check the Bohairic and other versions as well, if needed.
And to what end?
>
>But, I believe I have supported my supposition: that the perfect tense form
>has GOOD support. MOST Greek witnesses read the perfect tense, AND
>a wide geographical distribution exists. The perfect tense may be the
>easier reading, but this canon of textual criticism (that the easier
>reading is secondary) is not always true.
And it is not necessarily false either. A reading CANNOT be established on
one criterion alone.
>
>For the reading of Aleph and B, you have good additional support with codex
>05 (D) and W, along with the papyrus P66 -- these form good support for the
>aorist form. D and W add a wider geographical base.
Your TC presuppositions are based squarely on the principles taught by Aland
and the rest of the "germans". If you think their conclusions are wrong,
why do you employ their methods???? Shouldn't you have your own developed
(and published) methodology?
>
>So Both forms are well supported. And if given a week or so, I could really
>get specific with the MS evidence.
Again, using the tools provided you by your German forebears.
>
>To be more positive, one should examine EACH of John's usages of the
>aorist/aorist -- aorist/perfect juxtapositions, this would take some time,
>but it may shed light on style (I assume someone has already done this--
>but many search engines use the NA text!!, which can give erroneous
>results!!) I suggest also searching the TR as well.
>
And may be completely meaningless. Just because John uses the aorist or the
perfect in one way in one place does not mean he will in another way in
another place- or that he will NOT use them differently.
>It is popular to just blindly follow the popular text of Nestle/Aland, but
>this is a very narrow means, and could be error laden. Swanson's work is
>very useful here. I hope this clarifies my statements.
Swanson is useful. Aland is useful. Merk is useful. And a whole lot of
others are as well. What we have yet to see is your method spelled out and
your critical text offered for review. I for one look forward to it with
great anticipation.
>
Jim
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
jwest@highland.net
http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
"This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put." Winston Churchill
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:48 EDT