Steven Avery
Administrator
variant that best explains the origin of all the others - most likely original
Last edited:
variant that best explains the origin of all the others - most likely original
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
Facebook - NT Textual Criticism
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/847249988695336/
THE VARIANT THAT BEST EXPLAINS --> MIND-READING THE SCRIBES
.
One of the weirdest, wildest and wackiest analysis explanations in modern textcrit was summarized by Gordon Fee:
.
Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (1993)
Textual Criticism in the New Testament
http://books.google.com/books?id=XCCfBCdQT3wC&pg=PA14
.
"One criterion above all others superintends the scholar's choice at any point of textual variation: the variant that best explains the origin of all the others is most likely original. In order to "best explain the origin of the others,"
.
Starting around 1995, this got big play in all the textual books. Looking for the origin of this nonsensical "superintends", we notice that Fee points the finger at Greenlee and Metzger.
.
Today this has become the keynote for mind-reading the scribes and special pleading, as well as many logical fails, such as not even seeing when there is a symmetry in how variants can arise.
.
So my question is .. when and by whom did this concept begin?
Metzger? And was it an extrapolation from an earlier construction?
.
=========================
.
Possibly this is a takeoff from other theories like: "prociivi scripioni pracsiat ardua (the harder reading is to be preferred). And "lectio brevior lectio potior" (the shorter reading is more probable.) Where, telephone style one garble leads to more mangling.
.
However, where and how did this arise as a fundamental concept. I've found that confused textcrits (like a gentleman who studied under Daniel Wallace) often fall back on this over all real evidences.
.
==========================
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/847249988695336/
THE VARIANT THAT BEST EXPLAINS --> MIND-READING THE SCRIBES
.
One of the weirdest, wildest and wackiest analysis explanations in modern textcrit was summarized by Gordon Fee:
.
Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (1993)
Textual Criticism in the New Testament
http://books.google.com/books?id=XCCfBCdQT3wC&pg=PA14
.
"One criterion above all others superintends the scholar's choice at any point of textual variation: the variant that best explains the origin of all the others is most likely original. In order to "best explain the origin of the others,"
.
Starting around 1995, this got big play in all the textual books. Looking for the origin of this nonsensical "superintends", we notice that Fee points the finger at Greenlee and Metzger.
.
Today this has become the keynote for mind-reading the scribes and special pleading, as well as many logical fails, such as not even seeing when there is a symmetry in how variants can arise.
.
So my question is .. when and by whom did this concept begin?
Metzger? And was it an extrapolation from an earlier construction?
.
=========================
.
Possibly this is a takeoff from other theories like: "prociivi scripioni pracsiat ardua (the harder reading is to be preferred). And "lectio brevior lectio potior" (the shorter reading is more probable.) Where, telephone style one garble leads to more mangling.
.
However, where and how did this arise as a fundamental concept. I've found that confused textcrits (like a gentleman who studied under Daniel Wallace) often fall back on this over all real evidences.
.
==========================
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Facebook - Pure Bible
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/633656526726240/
Textual Criticism's 3 blind mice - lectio difficilior, lectio brevior, best explains
Hi,
.
From CARM (my post was deleted however you can see it here).
.
Textual Criticism's Bogus and Abused Textual Theories.
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php...
.
=============================
.
The argument is made that there are various philosophies of textual criticism. Yet for the most part today, in their application, they all give an essentially hortian Vaticanus-primacy text. (Excepting the semi-acceptance of the Byzantine position as a tolerated fringe element. The far more robust Received Text is not tolerated .) And most still work with a trifecta of Bible text abuse.
.
This nonsense is given in summary form by DTS writer C. Michael Patton, so that you easily can how they brainwash their seminary students with false maxims.
.
=============================
.
Text Criticism in a Nutshell
C. Michael Patton
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blo...ichael-patton/
.
1. The harder reading is usually closer to the original.
.
In the Critical Text, lectio difficilior is used to defend junque variants that are errant (like Herod's daughter) or obvious text losses (ending of Mark, Pericope Adultera, Acts 8:37) or ultra-dubious errors of various types (including the ungrammatical ὅς == who in 1 Timothy 3:16.)
.
Since the "easier" reading is often the pure apostolic expression from the Holy Spirit, lucid, clear, sound, and true ... this maxim often works as the spearhead of an attack on the excellence and majesty of the word of God.
.
2. The shorter reading is usually closer to the original.
.
Today, this is even refuted by the studies of Royse, Head and others. The real truth is actually the opposite, the longer reading should be preferred. And, to the extent lectio brevior has any purpose, it has been grossly abused from the time of Tischendorf and Hort. This was essentially made a principle by Griesbach, although he placed with it a number of hedges and cautions that Hort ran over like a Mack Truck.
.
3. The reading that best explains the rise of the other reading(s) is preferred:
.
This adds the fallacies of bogus analysis of supposed transcriptional probability (see above for one major blunder fallacy, the inability to understand transmission symmetry.)
.
Consider also the tendency of selective and special pleading application, where transcriptional probability arguments could even be raised from different sides. Yet the one chosen by Metzger, Wallace and the parrots is the one that supports the minority Vaticanus text.
.
================
.
C. Michael Patton shows you, in a nutshell, some of the essentials of how to get duped into accepting grossly inferior versions, full of corruptions and errors (including the NETBible), by learning about your Bible text at DTS.
================
The fallacy aspect is covered here:
Logic 101, 1 Timothy 3:6, three variants and scribal mind-reading
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/630616347030258/
Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/633656526726240/
Textual Criticism's 3 blind mice - lectio difficilior, lectio brevior, best explains
Hi,
.
From CARM (my post was deleted however you can see it here).
.
Textual Criticism's Bogus and Abused Textual Theories.
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php...
.
=============================
.
The argument is made that there are various philosophies of textual criticism. Yet for the most part today, in their application, they all give an essentially hortian Vaticanus-primacy text. (Excepting the semi-acceptance of the Byzantine position as a tolerated fringe element. The far more robust Received Text is not tolerated .) And most still work with a trifecta of Bible text abuse.
.
This nonsense is given in summary form by DTS writer C. Michael Patton, so that you easily can how they brainwash their seminary students with false maxims.
.
=============================
.
Text Criticism in a Nutshell
C. Michael Patton
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blo...ichael-patton/
.
1. The harder reading is usually closer to the original.
.
In the Critical Text, lectio difficilior is used to defend junque variants that are errant (like Herod's daughter) or obvious text losses (ending of Mark, Pericope Adultera, Acts 8:37) or ultra-dubious errors of various types (including the ungrammatical ὅς == who in 1 Timothy 3:16.)
.
Since the "easier" reading is often the pure apostolic expression from the Holy Spirit, lucid, clear, sound, and true ... this maxim often works as the spearhead of an attack on the excellence and majesty of the word of God.
.
2. The shorter reading is usually closer to the original.
.
Today, this is even refuted by the studies of Royse, Head and others. The real truth is actually the opposite, the longer reading should be preferred. And, to the extent lectio brevior has any purpose, it has been grossly abused from the time of Tischendorf and Hort. This was essentially made a principle by Griesbach, although he placed with it a number of hedges and cautions that Hort ran over like a Mack Truck.
.
3. The reading that best explains the rise of the other reading(s) is preferred:
.
This adds the fallacies of bogus analysis of supposed transcriptional probability (see above for one major blunder fallacy, the inability to understand transmission symmetry.)
.
Consider also the tendency of selective and special pleading application, where transcriptional probability arguments could even be raised from different sides. Yet the one chosen by Metzger, Wallace and the parrots is the one that supports the minority Vaticanus text.
.
================
.
C. Michael Patton shows you, in a nutshell, some of the essentials of how to get duped into accepting grossly inferior versions, full of corruptions and errors (including the NETBible), by learning about your Bible text at DTS.
================
The fallacy aspect is covered here:
Logic 101, 1 Timothy 3:6, three variants and scribal mind-reading
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/630616347030258/
Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
Steven Avery
Administrator
Facebook - New Testament Textual Criticism
https://www.facebook.com/groups/114...3&offset=0&total_comments=7&comment_tracking={"tn"%3A"R5"}
https://www.facebook.com/groups/114...3&offset=0&total_comments=7&comment_tracking={"tn"%3A"R5"}