11-29-2007, 12:30 AM
|
 | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Escondido, CA
Posts: 2,008
Thanks: 13
Thanked 750 Times in 265 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer  Sorry Prof. Clark, I hadn't seen your post when I wrote mine. I was responding to an earlier statement about an English translation being a pure text. Hence my reference to ad fontes. Sorry for any confusion. Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer Wouldn't Tholuck's Latin edition be the pure text? Ad fontes. For English translations, the 1561 (authorised) version must have some claim on the purists. Nevertheless, I would say Beveridge is best for reliability and Battles for readability and scholarly notes. | Well, Tholuck's is easier to use but I don't know why a 19th century critical text is more ad fontes than an early 20th century criticial text. The OS has line numbers and that's the edn that most scholars cite most frequently for the '59 Latin text.
If one wants to go ad fontes then one wants to use one of the 16th century editions. I'm not sure it's worth the effort, but Muller argues in his 2000 Calvin volume (a must read) that this is the way Calvin scholars should read Calvin. For most of us that means rolling through microfiche or print outs from fiche readers and the like.
rsc | | Got it.
Misunderstood.
Sorry.
rsc
|