tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post6123721960670345106..comments2024-03-28T19:21:17.654+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: David Parker: "Textual Criticism and Theology"P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-24508321327049539952012-02-28T17:39:14.187+00:002012-02-28T17:39:14.187+00:00Hello,
I was hoping to get either a brief explanat...Hello,<br />I was hoping to get either a brief explanation or some reading recommendations with respect to a comment you made in the course of responding to D.C. Parker's article ("Textual Criticism and Theology," in ExpTim 118 no. 12 (2007): 583-589), <br /><br />"There are some doctrines of Scripture that would fall apart if they ever came into contact with the Septuagint."Truth Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786844757672182664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-47338078825607314802007-10-18T21:24:00.000+01:002007-10-18T21:24:00.000+01:00Well said Dr. Head. Well done.:-)Yes Parker, like ...Well said Dr. Head. Well done.<BR/>:-)<BR/><BR/>Yes Parker, like Swanson and Sanders (of OT fame, and probably Tov) fail to realize the validity of seeking to establish or attempt to maintain what must be scientifically our best attempt of an ORIGINAL composition. It is a worthy endeavor. My heart goes out to those of Dr. Parker's stance, how they must flounder in their faith (though they may not admit such)!<BR/><BR/>I also support Ehrman and Koester's views, to a certain point, but not to the point of frustration. <BR/><BR/>Gary DykesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-75765594429832480392007-10-18T16:35:00.000+01:002007-10-18T16:35:00.000+01:00This is another example of the great division betw...This is another example of the great division between "language" and "literature" studies that has marred so much of the twentieth century... glad to see someone is calling for the literature people to pay attention to the language.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Tony ZbaraschukAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-89218067048576261222007-10-18T15:04:00.000+01:002007-10-18T15:04:00.000+01:00MR: "and most likely by the Münster editors themse...MR: "and most likely by the Münster editors themselves."<BR/><BR/>Especially if sen against the backround of Aland & Aland's introduction to The Text of the New Testament, specifically the discussion about the different categories of witnesses.Tommy Wassermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10674769923361035721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-59835518270503350072007-10-18T14:57:00.000+01:002007-10-18T14:57:00.000+01:00Whether the editors or users of the NA27 consider ...Whether the editors or users of the NA27 consider it to most closely reflect the autograph, this most clearly is <I>not</I> what is stated in its Introduction. <BR/><BR/>Rather, as Parker correctly notes, the NA27 text <I>is</I> stated by its editors actually to be a "working text", NA27 Introduction, 45*-46*:<BR/><BR/>"It intends to provide the user with a well-founded working text ["einen begründeten Arbeitstext"] together with the means of verifying it or alternatively of correcting it."<BR/><BR/>Yet Dr Head is also quite correct in that -- <I>de facto</I> -- the NA27/UBS4 text <I>is</I> basically considered equivalent to the autograph by most eclectic students and scholars, and most likely by the Münster editors themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-69914465562038882982007-10-18T12:20:00.000+01:002007-10-18T12:20:00.000+01:00Thanks Mike,That is a helpful note, I hadn't notic...Thanks Mike,<BR/>That is a helpful note, I hadn't noticed this article before. It is well worth reading the article which raises loads of interesting issues which would be well worth discussing more fully. Failing that (for the moment), I noticed some particular problems: <BR/>p. 584: Mill's NT was published in 1707 (not 1704);<BR/>p. 586: he states that NA27 is 'described by its editors as representing a "working text", and in no way as something believed by its editors to represent the autograph text' (ref NA27 p. 45*) It seems to me that Parker is quite wrong here and is imputing to a previous generation of textual critics a position that he now takes for granted. Of course there is some ambiguity in the word "represent"; but even so one can hardly read through Metzger's Commentary (produced to reflect the thought of these editors) and not think that they thought they were working on establishing (inasmuch as it is possible) the original (autograph) text.<BR/>p. 588f. Parker states that 'the base text even in the Muenster Editio Critica Maior functions mostly as a series of pegs on which to hang a critical apparatus.' Again I don't see this. The ECM primary line text is basically the earliest form of the text ascertainable by current methods, the initial text, the Ausgangstext.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.com