Continued from last post above ↑
Continuation of excerpts from "The Textual Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black:
To be continued...
Continuation of excerpts from "The Textual Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black:
Westcott and Hort's views of the primitive Greek text of the Gospels did not exercise so great an influence on continental scholarship as they did on that of England and America. This recent statement of Kenyon's confirms the critical judgment of scholars such as, most notably, Julius Wellhausen. Unlike Westcott and Hort, who stood at the one extreme in their valuation of D and Lagarde at the other (the latter would have made Codex Bezae the basis of a critical edition of the Gospels and Acts), Wellhausen recognized the claims of both texts, Bא and D, to be representative of the primitive text, wherever either had preserved unrevised and uncorrected the textual tradition of the earliest period. Each text was the result of an independent recension or of different recensions of earlier texts: each could therefore supplement the other; D's text had frequently escaped revision where the text of Bא had not, and vice versa. But the claims of the Bezan text to represent, and not infrequently, the primitive Apostolic text, in its purity, or more correctly in its impurity, were in every way as respectable as those of Bא.
To be continued...
Comment