Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5441Re: [textualcriticism] Re: M. A. Robinson's recent article

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Buck
    Dec 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      One reading that's clearly right on internal grounds is QS in i Timothy 3:16. The most common and widespread alternative, OS, is easily explained as a deletion of the jot and tittle either through wear, scribal oversight, or theological motive. Besides, it's not even grammatically correct, leaving the sentence without a subject. QS, on the other hand, fits perfectly. There's no reason whatsoever why Paul wouldn't have written "God" when he clearly meant "God."
       
      But against the clear internal evidence for QS is the paucity of external evidence. IIRC there is absolutely no evidence for QS in the first three centuries of extant Gk or versional mss (leaving aside the patristic evidence for the moment). It's hard to imagine that QS could have so universally replaced by OS before being brought back into the ms stream centuries later.
      Rule Number Nine should guard against things like reading QS on internal grounds, or just because it's found later on in a ms stream that was faithfully copied for centuries. But it we are allowed to throw out rule number nine whenever it gets in our way, QS should be one of the first readings to benefit.
       
      Daniel Buck


      From: Wieland Willker <wie@...>
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tue, December 1, 2009 6:06:13 AM
      Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: M. A. Robinson's recent article

       

      Stephen Carlson:

      > Some readings are more clearly right or wrong on internal
      > grounds than others. The idea is to use our knowledge
      > about the variation units where the application of internal
      > criteria is clear to identify which witnesses to use in
      > conjunction with the external evidence for when the
      > internal evidence is not so clear.

      I think the method as described by Carlson is sound. It is used for
      generations already. There is no other choice than work like this, IMO.
      But in the CBGM, they enter the external evidence, process again, from this
      get new external evidence, process again and so on. This is circular.

      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      ------------ --------- -----
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:wie@uni-bremen. de
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/


    • Show all 12 messages in this topic