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

8335Re: [textualcriticism] 1 Pet 4:16 TWi MEREI TOUTWi

Expand Messages
  • David Palmer
    Jun 19, 2014
      Daniel Buck wrote: <<
      It shouldn't be so incredible that a reading inextant in any Gk mss earlier than the 9th century would be accepted. Most readings in any printed edition of the Old Testament are inextant in any Hebrew or Aramaic mss earlier than the 9th century, and no one gets alarmed. >>

      But we all agree that there was a recension of the Hebrew text do we not?

      I understand the concept of which reading would lead to the others, best explain the others, and the hardest reading etc.  I am not in disagreement with those principles.

      I admit that it is *possible* that a reading of the original NT Greek text disappeared in the manuscript record and re-appeared in the 9th century.  But I think that is very improbable.  I think that any other reasonable person would also call that very improbable.
      But, what would make that far *more* possible, is that a Byzantine recension occurred.  In fact, I would say that I do not accept the NA28 reading of MEREI without believing there was a significant Byzantine recension.

      In the last couple weeks I got tired of reading my own TC critical apparatus footnotes because of the overwhelming amount of numbers and data.  I decided to cut out all witnesses after the 8th century.  Wow, what a clear picture that makes.

      What you then see is that MANY Byz readings do not appear until the 9th century.  Now why is that?  Without a major recension, I don't know of any other explanation.   It just seems impossible that a reading suddenly appears in the 9th century without previously showing up in Old Latin, or Coptic, or Syriac, or any early church writer whatsoever, UNLESS there was a major recension right around the 8th or 9th century.
       
      David Robert Palmer
      http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/


      On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 1:02 PM, "'Dr. Don Wilkins' drdwilkins@... [textualcriticism]" wrote:


       
      It's possible to get a detailed answer from the source, so to speak, because Gerd Mink discusses the choice both in his online presentation of the CBGM (egora.uni-muenster.de/intf/service/downloads_en.shtml) pp. 205 ff. and in his "Problems of a highly contaminated tradition" article.

      I'm doing an article and book chapter on the CBGM, so I have been learning about it as I'm sure many others have. I think it may be fair to put the method in the "thoroughgoing eclecticism" category although Mink views it as "reasoned" eclecticism, because the date, quality etc. of individual manuscripts are ignored, at least initially. That's why you (David) find the choice "amazing," and I don't think that's an unreasonable reaction. But there is much to be said for the method as well IMO, and I'm old-school. Like most other TC practitioners, I think, I have always found the harder reading preferable and for the most part decisive, and certainly μερει is the harder reading. One of the elements of the CBGM that might strike you as unacceptable is the assumption of a hypothetical "initial" text from which all others descended, a text created by Mink and his colleagues following the standard rules of internal criticism. Basically, Mink assumes that in this case μερει was in the initial text and was changed to ονοματι in very early mss that did not survive. He points out in a number of places that most of the early mss were lost, and common sense would support this conclusion even if the findings did not (which of course they do).

      Probably the reason that Mink considers the CBGM to be "reasoned" eclecticism is that readings are meticulously traced in all extant, useful mss in order to determine genealogical relationships between the texts contained in the mss. The genealogical relationships arguably are better than manuscript-dating etc. to establish the value of texts and ultimately the initial readings. It's worth noting that in the CBGM Vaticanus clearly comes out on top, and Byzantine readings do not rank well, so the choice in this case is not an indication of a Byzantine revival. Standard internal criteria assure these results.

      I could say a great deal more about the method but I don't know how much has already been discussed, and in any case you should probably look at Mink's materials first-hand if you want a full account. The presentation is free, however you may have some trouble tracking down the article.

      Don Wilkins
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic