. circularity the jewel . The gross logical deficiency and circularity of modern textual scholars can waver from the humorous to the absurd. James Ronald Royse, Juan Hernández and others have shown, in scribal habits studies, that omission is the more common scribal habit than addition (no surprise there for anyone with common sense.) Contra hortian textual theories behind the Critical Text. . So here is an evaluation from the textual academy, from the director of the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in in Münster. . =================================== . Scribal Practices and the Transmission of Biblical Texts: New Insights from the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method Holger Strutwolf https://books.google/books?id=P4F_DJw9rDwC&pg=PA143 . But there is still another— and I think even more fundamental—problem in the argument of Royse using the singular readings of certain early manuscripts not only to determine the special character of that manuscript and the individual scribal habits of its copyist, but also to reconsider and reformulate the rules of textual criticism. His argumentation for the reversing of the traditional rule of lectio brevior est potior—according to my point of view—depends on a category mistake. As we said, Royse tries to determine the way the scribes of the early papyri worked in copying the text of their model by evaluating the singular readings of the manuscripts they created in this act of copying. On the basis of this study of the singular readings, he comes to the conclusion that the scribes of these early papyri tended to omit far more than they added to the text. So he concludes that for the early papyri the rule of lectio brevior is proved to be wrong. Now a recent study by Juan Hernandez Jr. on the scribal habits in the Apocalypse came to a similar result concerning the great uncials. In his discussion of the singular readings of Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, he shows that the scribes of these three manuscripts also omitted more often than they added to their texts. So the traditional view that the text of the New Testament is growing in the course of its transmission rather than shrinking would not be valid in the later times either. But here lies a problem revealing that this theory cannot be correct. For if we look at the material available now in the Edith Critica Maior of the Catholic Epistles we can make two interesting observations. . The first observation is that the vast majority of the omissions of single words or short expressions testified in the apparatus are singular readings or are supported by only a few manuscripts. This indicates clearly that the erroneous omission of words is the most frequent source of variation in the individual manuscripts. .... the textual history as a whole shows us that in fact the text grew over time. If we compare the initial text of the transmission of the Greek New Testament with the majority text, we certainly find that this late text form is much longer than the initial text. Text and Textwert shows that there are far more additions than omissions in the Byzantine text as compared with earlier text forms. . =================================== . So this textual idiot declares that he can not: . reconsider and reformulate the rules of textual criticism . because the text that is the result of the junk and bogus rules does not agree with the science. Ergo, the science must be rejected. . How do these types of non-thinkers make it through the gymnasium? . =================================== . (Note: arguments can be made against the methodology, e.g. of Royse. That is not my point here. It is simply that the hortian fog has made the academy writers into weak, uncritical thinkers who flunk elementary logic. And they get a free pass on nonsense, time and again.) . =================================== , Steven Avery
Posted on: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 05:19:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015