<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: An Advertisement for their Greek Text
Review: I bought this book many years ago and read it through. I was quite disappointed by the treatment of textual criticism given. The book reads like an advertisement for the critical texts that they have put out. It did not provide solid scholarly arguments to support their choice of manuscripts and methodology in making their textual evaluations. Many papyri are listed and classified according to their accuracy but no explanation or justification for the supposed authority of these texts are supplied - apparantly you're just supposed to believe the Alands and not question it any further. This book left me the impression that modern critical textual scholarship is an arbitrary and subjective endeavor lacking firm, testable scientific premises and is driven rather by personal preference and prejudice.
Rating: 
Summary: Important for the Greek NT student
Review: Kurt Aland is second to none in his knowledge of the greek manuscripts. (although a case could be made for Bruce Metzger)I constantly use this book for reference. This book, and Metzger's "Text of the New Testament" are both top of the line books on textual criticism. If you're a serious Bible student, and want to know which manuscripts are the most "weighty", and why certain readings are chosen over other variant reading to go in the NT Text we have today....this is the book for you! Eric
Rating:
Summary: Great book!
Review: Kurt Aland is second to none in his knowledge of the greek manuscripts. (although a case could be made for Bruce Metzger) I constantly use this book for reference. This book, and Metzger's "Text of the New Testament" are both top of the line books on textual criticism. If you're a serious Bible student, and want to know which manuscripts are the most "weighty", and why certain readings are chosen over other variant reading to go in the NT Text we have today....this is the book for you! Eric
Rating: 
Summary: Helpful info, but wrong text is defended
Review: This book opens with the statement, "this book is designed as a college text or home study manual for students using the `Standard text' of the Greek New Testament..." (p.v). By "standard text" the Alands are referring to either the text they helped to edit, the Nestle-Aland text, or the text by the United Bible Societies. With their most recent editions, these two texts are now identical and can be referred to as the Critical Text (CT). This books provides a history of editions of the Greek NT, from Erasmus's text of the 1500's down to today's CT. This background information is helpful, but the discussion is obviously more favorably to the discoveries that led to the development of the CT than to those supporting the "Textus Receptus" (TR) and the more recent MT. Of these three texts, this writer prefers the MT or even the TR to the CT, so much so that I utilized the "Byzantine Majority Text" when I produced my "Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament." That said, the Alands then discuss what they believe was the history of the transmission of the NT in the earliest centuries. And once again, their theory in this regard favors the Alexandrian texts underlining the CT rather than the Byzantine texts underlining the TR and MT. In my book "Differences Between Bible Versions" I present an alternative theory of the transmission of the manuscripts, based on the work of Robinson and Pierpont, the producers of the "Byzantine Majority Text." The Alands then look in depth at the different kinds of manuscripts. Some of the information in this section is very helpful. For instance, they give detailed discussions on how the materials used by scribes were produced. I refer to this information in the chapter on "An Introduction to Textual Criticism" in my book. Also interesting in this section of the Alands' book are the pictures of early manuscripts. There are also extensive lists of manuscripts. But where I disagree with the Alands is in their evaluations of the reliability of different manuscripts. For instance, they consider Alexandrian texts to be the most reliable while Byzantine texts are said to "irrelevant for textual criticism" (p.155). In my book I argue for the exact opposite position. I believe the Alexandrian texts are more likely corrupted while the mass of Byzantine texts are more reliable. The Alands also look at early translations of the NT and provide information on using modern editions of the Greek NT, meaning the text they helped edit or the UBS text. The textual apparatuses in these Greek texts enable one to study the manuscript evidence behind textual variants, but they can be confusing. So an explanation on how to use the apparatuses is helpful. In the last chapter, the Alands present their "Twelve Basic Rules of Textual Criticism." I critique many of these "rules" in my book and show how they are not really that sound of rules. The book then closes with a look at verses with textual variants. I do the same in my book. But again, we come to opposite conclusions. So my recommendation on this book would be to go ahead and get it. It does provide helpful information on Greek manuscripts and today's published Greek texts. And it will give the reader one side of the textual debate, the pro-CT side. But before making a decision on this difficult subject, check out a book like mine for the pro-MT side.
Rating:
Summary: Important for the Greek NT student
Review: This book sets the scene for the New Testament text, its transmission and the extant manuscripts. The book is not quite as interesting a read as Metzger's book which is more readable. However this book benefits in a much higher level of detail regarding certain aspects of the mss, as well as giving a very detailed introduction to the use of the aparatus of the NA26 and UBS3 Greek New Testaments, which is no doubt essential for someone who desires to understand these in every detail. It also deals in much more detail with other modern editions of the Greek New Testament, their pros and cons. In response to the other commentators and the Alexandrian texts. It is not really in the scope of this book or Metzger's to really prove their opinions of various manuscripts and their individual value. That really becomes clear when the entire New Testament tradition is studied as a whole and entails considerable work. Those criticizing Aland and Metzger et. al. in my experience do so from a position of ignorance as armchair critics.
<< 1 >>
| 
