Hi Steven,
Thanks for sharing your views about the use of the terms "diplomatic" and "eclectic." But I think I will respectfully still have to disagree with you, for two reasons. (1) In my reading in the literature, the terms "diplomatic" and "eclectic" do not have to do with general textual background, but indeed with particular manuscripts. Perhaps I am not as well acquainted with the literature as you are, but it seems to me that the primary referents are to manuscripts and not text traditions. (2) Further to this point, these terms have definitely been employed to characterize the difference between the respective standard text-critical editions for the NT and OT. Thus, the UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek NT is an eclectic text, not dedicated to any one manuscript. By contrast, *BHS* is a diplomatic text, almost slavishly following B 19a. This terminology also serves to distinguish *BHS* from, e.g., Snaith and Koren. So despite the homogeneity of the Masoretic texts, I think the terms still preserve significant distinctions. Blessings, Jerry Jerry Shepherd Taylor Seminary Edmonton, Alberta [email protected]
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
