From: Eric B. Sowell (bradyman@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Jul 28 2001 - 04:06:56 EDT
> Could you, please, explain why the more difficult reading would
necessarily
> be more likely the original? I vaguely remember hearing the argument, but
> don't remember at all an acceptable reason for it. I can't imagine why the
> ease of reading, or lack thereof, might be used as evidence of its
> antiquity. Perhaps of a manuscript family line, ergo a date range, but not
> by itself as a fact. I mean, if that is right, then there are some posters
> here who must not have touched a keyboard since before the things were
> invented. ;)
The argument comes from analyzing the transmission of the NT text. It is
noted that at times readings that seem earlier are changed to different
readings later for various reasons. As examples, a scribe might find a
grammatical structure awkward or a theological point unusual. If, for
example (as might be the case in IgnEph), a scribe were to come across this
text and see what might seem to be a grammatical blunder (whether or not it
was is irrelevant), he might be tempted to fix it (change the number, case,
etc., to produce grammatical harmony). Now, there is also no observable
reason to think that the scribe would change a reading to one which is more
grammatically questionable, so this would argue for the more difficult
reading as the original. This is an observable occurrence in the
transmission of the NT text...it could also be the same for patristic
textual criticism.
So, in other words, when a person looks at a reading in the 21st century, it
makes sense to take the more difficult reading rather than the easier, more
sensible reading. And, of course, other factors play in to this. If the
more difficult reading came from a 17th century manuscript and the easier
reading from a 2nd century manuscript, one could just assume it was
scribal/printer error or something like that. And there are other factors.
However, as a general rule, the principle makes great sense.
> Anyway, since Goold (1912) references Lightfoot's work (19th Century, I
> believe), I have to accept Goold (my text) as being more likely correct.
The
> apparatus would be more authoritative than that known and easily available
> in the prior century, and the state of scholarship would be more
developed.
You don't have to accept that. Granted, TC has advanced a great deal in the
past few centuries. How much and in what areas I do not know. Also, just
because more advancements have been made does not mean that Goold is
particularly good at TC. Lightfoot was a master; I do not know Goold.
However, Goold might have been quite good. I frankly just don't know. What
we cannot assume, though, is that since the discipline has advanced, the
conclusions arrived at now must be better. That is not necessarily true at
all.
> This "text critical" notion sounds to me, with all apologies if I am
wrong,
> like a sneak attack on the source. It seems to be an assumption that puts
> the burden of proof where it does not belong. If a text even contains a
> "booboo," it is on the text critic to prove who made it. Putting the
burden
> of proof anywhere else is unfair and unscientific, so unacceptable. There
> are many factors, besides, that could explain our difficulty in reading
it.
> For instance, the original author may have been following the rules
exactly
> as everybody was taught them in his time and place, ergo no "booboo" by
> definition. While that may seem far fetched, it is a valid explanation
until
> shown to be otherwise.
>
Of course, I could be misunderstanding the grammar here. There might not be
a problem. I am open to grammatical explanation from anyone on this point.
If this is a normal grammatical structure, then the argument from difficulty
is useless here.
The burden of proof is on both readings. I'm not saying that the accusative
reading is true unless proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. All I am
saying is that particular argument here makes good sense and is quite
strong. I'm very open to the other reading. However, since I'm not sure
how to use the apparatus in my text, I can't really say what the external
(manuscript) evidence is and can only rely on what is often called internal
evidence (of which the argument from difficulty is a part).
Since this is a TC discussion, it might be better to do it off list. I'm
not sure if the moderators would like a full-blown textual discussion,
though I don't mind having one off list.
Eric B. Sowell
Dallas, TX
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:02 EDT