Tue Jan 28 13:52:31 1997

From owner-tc-list  Tue Jan 28 13:52:31 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id NAA23156; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:51:02 -0500
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:46:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: The most likely original reading
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 930



On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Timothy John Finney wrote:

> > Here it is: 1) If there is no variation of a word in any ms, then that is
> > original. 2) If there is variation, then the certainty of any particular
> > reading is inversely proportional to the extent to which it can be
> > demonstrated to give rise to the others.
> 
> It should have read, 2) if there is variation, then the certainty of any
> particular reading is directly proportional to the extent to which it can
> be demonstrated to give rise to the others. 
> 
> The interesting thing is that Bob Waltz and Maurice Robinson both seem to
> have known what I meant and replied accordingly, possibly without
> realising that what was written was incorrect. 

That I did indeed. Obviously a case of scribal parablepsis and memtally
seeing the correct reading even in the presence of an incorrect one. :-) 

Just don't ask why the textual critic crossed the road..... 

Back