Tue Jan 28 14:53:58 1997

From owner-tc-list  Tue Jan 28 14:53:58 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id OAA23930; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:53:16 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
 
References: 
 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:48:02 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: The most likely original reading
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1997

Maurice Robinson replied to, and quoted, Tim Finney:

>> > 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. :-) 

Shows how deeply some of the canons of criticism are driven into our
heads. Since "That reading is best which best explains the others"
is the *only* internal criterion I accept, naturally I read that
into any statement about readings giving rise to other readings.

BTW -- before anyone says anything, I maintain that all other
internal criteria derive from the one rule. So I'm not saying the
others are false; they just aren't primary.

Now that I've actually thought about what Tim says, though, it gets
me thinking about whether one can actually define a mathematical
function for this. But don't worry; I won't inflict that on you. :-)

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

Oh, that's obvious: To investigate an older manuscript. :-)

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         waltzmn@skypoint.com

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

Back