W. Larry Richards
Autor von Read New Testament Greek in 30 Days [or less]
Werke von W. Larry Richards
Getagged
Wissenswertes
Für diesen Autor liegen noch keine Einträge mit "Wissenswertem" vor. Sie können helfen.
Mitglieder
Rezensionen
Read New Testament Greek in 30 Days [or less] von W. Larry Richards
I feel like I got a slightly better grasp on NT Greek now, so I doesn't seem quite as scary. I think this would also make a good book for reviewing NT Greek. 30 Days is a bit ambitious though! (Perhaps I'll review this again, once I've actually master NT Greek!)
There seems to be an unwritten law that says that no Biblical scholar is allowed to be mathematically competent.
In most fields of Biblical study, this makes little difference. Unfortunately, textual criticism -- the study of the manuscript copies of the Bible -- is an exception. There are thousands of Greek copies of portions of the New Testament (and thousands more in Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and so forth). These manuscripts must be examined, organized, compared, and collated to produce the best and most accurate possible Greek text of the Bible. On this, all scholars are agreed.
They aren't agreed on how to do it.
Without getting into the controversy, it is generally accepted that there must be a method for classification of manuscripts. One tool that has been evolved is the so-called Claremont Profile Method. This turns out to have some substantial defects, but it has also succeeded in sorting out thousands of Gospel manuscripts, determining which need further examination and which don't.
Larry Richards tried to apply this method to the Epistles of John. Unfortunately, he took most of the weaknesses of the method and amplified them. The result is a strange mix of the very useful and the highly confused. Richards, for instance, verified the existence of what is generally known as the Byzantine text, and also showed that there were several groups of manuscripts not part of the Byzantine text. But he labelled these three types "Alexandrian," when in fact it is quite clear that they are not all the same type. This is the muddled part of the study, and because it is muddled, it added to the fog generated by the initial publications on the Claremont Profile Method. Also, Richards failed to examine a number of very important manuscripts of the Johannine Epistles which might have altered his conclusions.
Still, the results are valid if properly interpreted (i.e. if you understand his A1, A2, and A3 groups not as subgroups of the Alexandrian text but as three independent text-types.)
None of this makes the book fun to read. It is littered with tables, most not very useful. The text itself is not a particularly good read. And it is not a typeset book; it is copied from a set of 1970s-style computer printouts. In other words, it can easily strain the eyes.
Final conclusion: If you are a textual critic working on the Johannine Epistles, yes, you need this book. You also need to be careful with it. If you are anyone else -- it will either bore you if you are a non-mathematician or it will irritate you if you are a mathematician.… (mehr)
In most fields of Biblical study, this makes little difference. Unfortunately, textual criticism -- the study of the manuscript copies of the Bible -- is an exception. There are thousands of Greek copies of portions of the New Testament (and thousands more in Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and so forth). These manuscripts must be examined, organized, compared, and collated to produce the best and most accurate possible Greek text of the Bible. On this, all scholars are agreed.
They aren't agreed on how to do it.
Without getting into the controversy, it is generally accepted that there must be a method for classification of manuscripts. One tool that has been evolved is the so-called Claremont Profile Method. This turns out to have some substantial defects, but it has also succeeded in sorting out thousands of Gospel manuscripts, determining which need further examination and which don't.
Larry Richards tried to apply this method to the Epistles of John. Unfortunately, he took most of the weaknesses of the method and amplified them. The result is a strange mix of the very useful and the highly confused. Richards, for instance, verified the existence of what is generally known as the Byzantine text, and also showed that there were several groups of manuscripts not part of the Byzantine text. But he labelled these three types "Alexandrian," when in fact it is quite clear that they are not all the same type. This is the muddled part of the study, and because it is muddled, it added to the fog generated by the initial publications on the Claremont Profile Method. Also, Richards failed to examine a number of very important manuscripts of the Johannine Epistles which might have altered his conclusions.
Still, the results are valid if properly interpreted (i.e. if you understand his A1, A2, and A3 groups not as subgroups of the Alexandrian text but as three independent text-types.)
None of this makes the book fun to read. It is littered with tables, most not very useful. The text itself is not a particularly good read. And it is not a typeset book; it is copied from a set of 1970s-style computer printouts. In other words, it can easily strain the eyes.
Final conclusion: If you are a textual critic working on the Johannine Epistles, yes, you need this book. You also need to be careful with it. If you are anyone else -- it will either bore you if you are a non-mathematician or it will irritate you if you are a mathematician.… (mehr)
Statistikseite
- Werke
- 5
- Mitglieder
- 44
- Beliebtheit
- #346,250
- Bewertung
- 2.5
- Rezensionen
- 2
- ISBNs
- 6