Re: Textual Criticism.

From: Paul F. Evans (
Date: Thu Oct 23 1997 - 09:20:52 EDT

<html><html><head></head><BODY bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p><font size=2 color="#000000" face="Arial">Chris,<br><br>To take but one of your examples, Rom 5:1; this supports precisely the point I was seeking to make earlier. &nbsp;How are you going to decide the issue? &nbsp;Metzger in his critical commentary says that in spite of relatively stronger external support for ECWMEN, the committee opted for ECOMEN on internal grounds; because Paul appears to be stating facts not making an exhortation. &nbsp;The point is that the issue cannot be decided on purely text critical grounds but becomes a matter interpretation and context. &nbsp;<br><br>I suspect that we will have to look harder at this issue in the future with the resurgence of support for the Maj. Text, and suspicions that some of its readings are older than the so called better texts. &nbsp;Arguments are surfacing that the reason for the existence of earlier examples of the Alexandrian text type might have as much to do with climate as to actual proximity to t
he original. &nbsp;The full import of the evidence is not in. Indeed, it may not have all been taken into account.<br><br>It seems to me that we cannot make arguments about the intent of the author based upon substitution of variant readings. &nbsp;If we are not careful, it becomes a game of opting for what we want him to say and then arguing our case for it! &nbsp;For my money, this is where I see the circular reasoning thing coming in! &nbsp;Besides, unless we are full-time experts in the field, it is hard to argue against what experts have deemed is the more likely text, especially where they have a high degree of confidence. &nbsp;What's more, there is a vast amount of agreement in the overall text, that gives us a great deal of confidence in a vast majority of it. &nbsp;More than enough to keep us amply supplied with questions of grammar, linguistics and the like.<br><br>John Wenham notes that there are 100, 000 small variants in the NT text, which is only an embarrassment because of the volume of evide
nce available, more than any other ancient literature, with the oldest copies closer to the originals than any other ancient text. &nbsp;The variants, it would seem from his comments, account for only 0.01% of the known text.<br><br>Paul F. Evans<br>Pastor<br>Thunder Swamp Pentecostal Holiness Church<br>MT. Olive<br><br>E-mail:<br>Web-page:>----------<br>&gt; From: Chris and Julie Kavanagh &lt;<font color="#0000FF"><u></u><font color="#000000">&gt;<br>&gt; To: <font color="#0000FF"><u></u><font color="#000000"><br>&gt; Subject: Re: Textual Criticism.<br>&gt; Date: Thursday, October 23, 1997 3:48 AM<br>&gt; <br>&gt; A couple of textual variations which might also have some important<br>&gt; bearing could be Rom 5.1 (exomen or exwmen); and Matt 18.15 (the eis se<br>&gt; would make a difference in the practise of this verse).<br>&gt; <br>&gt; Chris Kavanagh<br>&gt; -- <br>&gt; ______________________________________________________
_____________<br>&gt; CJ and JM Kavanagh, 2 Christian Place, Palmerston North, New Zealand.<br>&gt; <font color="#0000FF"><u></u><font color="#000000"> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Phone: +64-6-354 5678.<br>&gt; ___________________________________________________________________<br>&gt; </p>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:34 EDT