The new issue of JETS has a long review by Dan Wallace on the ECM Revelation volumes. In my years of reading JETS, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a review longer than 5 pages. This one is 15! Needless to say, it’s a substantial review and you should read it.
Dan sets the context by going back to Hoskier’s edition and returns to Hoskier in his final paragraph. (An aside: PhD students, please take note. This is how you review a book well. You set the book and its argument/contribution in the context of the larger discussion, explaining how it fits, where it advances the conversation, and then offer critique.)
One really helpful thing the review does is survey the various parts of the ECM by tracing the change in Rev 21:6. This does several things. It offers a great illustration of how to use all the various pieces of the ECM to get the full editorial picture on a particular variant. It also illustrates how much information is in these four volumes—for good and bad. Having reviewed these volumes myself, I resonate with Dan’s comment that “The detailed analysis of so many aspects for this installment is a blessing and a curse.” Sometimes more is actually less and I felt that way at times (e.g., with the segmtenation information). It’s a lot of info. Much of it is great. Some of it is too much or spread out over too many volumes.
Another critique Dan offers is about the edition’s pursuit of the Ausgangstext. I’ve written enough myself on that topic, so I will just say I agree that the whole subject is very confusing to students and that the different statements from ECM editors or team members over the years have made it worse, not better. Dan sees in this confusion a deeper problem, however. He is worried that intrinsic evidence is being left behind. He goes so far as to say that “[t]his confusion about what the editors of the ECM mean by the Ausgangstext/initial text has become solidified, in the minds of many exegetes and textual critics, as a banishment of the author” (his emphasis). I can’t say I’ve seen that myself, but I will say I raise some of the same concerns in my dissertation (ch. 3) about how intrinsic evidence is off the table for those not pursuing the author’s text. I would like to see all ECM editions give a clearer statement about what the editors of that volume think their initial text is, historically. The Catholic Letters did this well, in my opinion, but later volumes have not been as clear.
I’ve just highlighted a few things from the review. It really should be read in full, especially for Dan’s thoughts on the reduction of solecisms. But, lest you think Dan focuses on critiques, let me leave you with some of his praise for the edition:
The greatest strength is the amazing and comprehensive amount of accurate, detailed work that went into this project. It is evident that this installment was years in the making, requiring many scholars. What is almost unbelievable is that the project was completed six years ahead of schedule. Textual criticism is based on accuracy and precision. As the saying goes, “scribes may make mistakes, but critics may not!” ... The many innovations in this project should set a precedent for future ECM iterations. Κῦδος to the team of scholars who dedicated themselves to complete the ECM Rev in record time while maintaining the high standards of INTF.
No comments
Post a Comment