Afbeelding auteur
1 werk(en) 80 Leden 5 Besprekingen

Werken van Harry A Sturz

Tagged

Algemene kennis

Er zijn nog geen Algemene Kennis-gegevens over deze auteur. Je kunt helpen.

Leden

Besprekingen

Scholarly work graced by a well organized examination and argumentation of his position. The appendices are full of documentation of the independent nature of the Byzantine-Text Type.
I had the wonderful experience of sitting and hearing him explain his thesis. He was gracious, humble and intelligent. Was at a presentation of the NKJV New Testament prior to Its release of which he was a contributor.
These past Forty years I have been sadden by the fact I did not take the opportunity to Marticulate to Biola University to take advantage of his classes there. Oh such blindness of my youth.… (meer)
 
Gemarkeerd
rbcarver | 4 andere besprekingen | Feb 20, 2024 |
We also have a 1976 copy and the 1079 3rd edition
 
Gemarkeerd
randyandjane | 4 andere besprekingen | May 13, 2017 |
Based on his Th.D. dissertation of 1967 at Grace Theological Seminary.
We also have 1972 & 1976 editions.
 
Gemarkeerd
randyandjane | 4 andere besprekingen | May 13, 2017 |
If you're going to attack someone, it's usually better if he is there to attack.

Harry Sturz's book seems to have two purposes. One is to attack the position underlying the Westcott and Hort text of the New Testament, the other is to magnify the significance of the manuscripts which form the Byzantine text.

Unfortunately, the first of these activities is silly -- effectively no one still holds to the position of Hort exactly as stated. So attacking it serves little purpose but to earn some cheap "scholarship points"; it doesn't actually do anything to advance the subject of textual criticism.

Sturz's other task, of trying to show that the Byzantine text is important and valuable, is worth doing -- but his methodology is all wrong. Hort claimed that the Byzantine text as a whole was late -- which Sturz, perversely, interprets to mean that all readings of the Byzantine text are late. He therefore sets out to show that some readings of the Byzantine text are early -- which, to him, means that it is valuable and should be given greater weight in textual decisions.

But this completely misses the point. No one has ever denied that the Byzantine text has early readings; the contention of Hort was that the Byzantine text had many, many early readings which it derived from earlier types. The only way that Sturz can prove his point is by showing that the Byzantine text as a whole is early -- and this he fails to do, because he insists on looking at a reading here, and a reading there, and treating them as the entirety of the Byzantine text.

We need people like Sturz who bring up ideas to challenge orthodoxy. But we need them to do it right. Otherwise, he might as well go back to attacking positions that no one holds.
… (meer)
 
Gemarkeerd
waltzmn | 4 andere besprekingen | Dec 2, 2013 |

Statistieken

Werken
1
Leden
80
Populariteit
#224,854
Waardering
4.0
Besprekingen
5
ISBNs
3

Tabellen & Grafieken