PDA

View Full Version : Textual Criticism



Noel Fitzpatrick
04-29-2006, 12:49 AM
In considering textual criticism, is it considered that Tischendorf is obsolete (19th century)?

The NET notes were published in 2005, while Metzger's 'Textual Commentary of the GNT' (2nd Ed., a companion volume to the UBS GNT, 4th revised edition) is dated 1994.

However Metzger seems preferable, since (e.g) 1Pe 1:8 is considered by Metzger, but not by NET.

Would you agree?

In Christ

Noel.

Michael Hanel
04-29-2006, 01:20 AM
The problem is that all of those sources are good, but none would be sufficient for stand-alone use. Metzger is nice because he goes into detail on a number of textual "problems," but he himself says look this is by no means thorough. Tischendorf does have a lot of information in it and in some cases I would say is more valuable than Metzger and NET, but it would lack newer discoveries in the text crit. field. NET again would be like Metzger in that it by no means covers every textual problem, but does give a few short arguments on rather exegetically significant (in the opinion of the editors) passages.

The Text Of The Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts module is valuable for its contents of early papyri.

There are two up and coming modules that will no doubt be invaluable additions to BW, check them out at http://store.bibleworks.com/modules.html. Specifically I mean the New Testament Greek Manuscripts module and the Center for New Testament Textual Studies Textual Database/Critical Apparatus. Both of these are new text crit databases that will perhaps not stand alone, but will greatly enhance anyone's quest into the field of text criticism

Adelphos
04-29-2006, 01:36 AM
In considering textual criticism, is it considered that Tischendorf is obsolete (19th century)?

This is a whole other can of worms and is not really appropriate for this forum, but in short...

For sheer number of citations, Tischendorf will remain invaluable. Even though this is the age of computers, no modern productions have even come close to Tischendorf's mass of concentrated information.

However, there are numerous errors of fact and reams of subjectivism in his edition, but then, that's equally true of the other editions you mentioned as well. It is also true of the popular critical apparatusus, NA27/UBS4.

In short, it is scholastic suicide to trust solely in any appartus in print today, for the errors are legion -- that is not an exaggeration -- and the subjectivism that goes into formulating the citations makes it utterly impossible to get a sound and comprehensive view on any particular reading.

That leaves you with two choices:

1) Collate the manuscripts and patristic and versional citations yourself, or...

2) Collate and compare the numerous apparatusus and collations available to see which ones testify to a paticular reading and which don't.

Either way, this also includes consulting the apparatusus and collations of previous generations, such as Hoskier, whose work on Revelation has never even been remotely approached, and the many others who have likewise produced detailed collations and apparatusus throughout the past four or five hundred years, like Tischendorf. If you want to insure accuracy, this is the bare minimun that's required.

In a nutshell, if you rely on any single apparatus you are without a doubt going to find yourself enveloped in false and misleading information. You can safely bet all the farms on the planet on that.

You might want to take a look at Wieland's textual criticism discussion forum here --

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/

And if you want an idea of how fickle critical apparatusus are, you may want to consult my short article here --

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/false_citations.htm

Noel Fitzpatrick
04-30-2006, 04:55 AM
Hi Scott

I am very grateful to you for your thoughtful reply to my query about TC.

My principal interest is the use of the LXX by the author of 1 Clement. I am also interested in comparing the First Letters of Paul and Clement to the Corinthians. However first I want to become familiar with BW.

Recently as many texts have been discovered, I consider Tischendorf to be obsolete. You have clearly and cogently shown, in your study of 1 Tim, the weakness of Metzger's TC.

However given the limitations of time and ability, and as TC is not my primary aim per se, I will not have the opportunity to criitically analyse all possible variants. I intend to focus on APM and BGM.

In the past I have referred to the website of Wieland Willker. I admire the Germanic excellence shown in his work. He interests me, as like me, he is an academic chemist.

I am also hugely impressed with 'Lamb Lion Net'. It contains so much instructive and cogently expresssed material.

I am also very grateful to you for your interest in and help with my Biblical studies.

In Christ,

Noel.

Noel Fitzpatrick
04-30-2006, 08:51 AM
Hi Michael

many thanks for your reply to my query about TC.

I am grateful to you for your answer to me on this question and on other questions I have asked. I also appreciate your other contributions to the forums.

I now find the forums and the BW Help features, especially the videos, very useful as they are clear and well produced. However one must spend some time to get familiar with them before getting the full benefit.

You write:



The Text Of The Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts module is valuable for its contents of early papyri.

There are two up and coming modules that will no doubt be invaluable additions to BW, check them out at http://store.bibleworks.com/modules.html.
However as my principal interests focus on 1 Clement I want to concentrate on APM and BGM. I feel excessive concentration on TC would divert me from my main topic.

Once again, thank you.

Regards,

Noel.

Steve Watkins
04-30-2006, 01:43 PM
you may want to consult my short article here --

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/false_citations.htm

Great article, Scott - very convincing.