From: Bob Wilkin (ges@faithalone.org)
Date: Tue Dec 07 1999 - 12:14:31 EST
On 12/07/99, ""Mr. Gary S. Dykes" <yhwh3in1@lightspeed.net>" wrote:
> This concerns Dr. West's reply to a post I made concerning John 12:7.
...
My TC views are not mainstream, and are apparent in Swanson's work (as I
was privileged to work with him in numerous ways). My web site also makes
clear many of my basic principles, for those who can see. I am not bound
to
one text-type, I am basically eclectic.
I advocate going directly to the MSS for critical evaluations, and my
evaluations are not based upon my "German forebears". They are based upon
my original research. And yes, Dr. West you too can do original work, you
need not follow the herd. But do expect attacks from those like yourself.
First, I found Gary's first post, Jim's reply, and Gary's second post, to
be very interesting. I have a real interest in TC and enjoy reading about
it.
Second, I am relatively new to B-Greek. I get all of the daily postings by
email and read as many as time permits.
Third, my initial training in TC at Dallas Seminary was called Eclectic,
but it was essentially the Critical Text position. We were taught to use
the various canons of TC, but when all was said and done we most often
picked whatever reading was supported by at least two of big three
manuscripts.
Later in seminary, I studied TC under Zane Hodges, a textual critic of the
Majority Text persuasion. He and the later Dr. Art Farstad have their own
edition of the GNT. In converted to the Majority Text position.
Fourth, I was surprised to see the "heat" in the response of Jim West and
the surrejoinder by Gary Dykes.
Fifth, in my estimation the statement that "we weigh manuscripts, we don't
count them" sounds like a statement of absolute truth. Yet I am
unconvinced. Why do we "weigh" manuscripts? Indeed, HOW do we weigh
manuscripts? Is it true that aleph, A, and B are truly neutral? When two of
those three agree do we truly have the correct reading? I remain
unconvinced. Why go with two manuscripts against hundreds? I prefer to
count rather than weigh, with the proviso that the Majority Text is not
always united, and when it is divided other factors need to be considered.
Jakob Van Bruggen in his booklet, The Ancient Text of the New Testament,
makes an interesting observation. When the team of scholars working on the
UBS text could not agree on a reading, they determined the correct reading
based on a majority vote.
Why didn't they "weigh" the scholars, not count them?
If we base the correct reading on the majority vote of scholars, why not
base it on the majority vote of mss?
In my own experience I found the canons of TC to be subjective and
contradictory. The only way I found to reduce subjectivity is to assume
that God has a hand in preserving the text of the NT and that the majority
of surviving manuscripts represents the best reading. Van Bruggen put it
this way, "One could consider allowing the majority of manuscripts to
decide the matter" (p. 17).
--- 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