tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post8605230269935304032..comments2024-03-20T12:35:12.828-04:00Comments on The Text of the Gospels: The Kloha-Montgomery Debate - Some ThoughtsJames Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-710473095874413122016-12-07T15:33:49.486-05:002016-12-07T15:33:49.486-05:00Yes, I would still say it is problematic; less so,... Yes, I would still say it is problematic; less so, to the degree that such a restriction limits the possibilities. But any approach to textual criticism has its problems. I prefer to take the larger view, and consider how each perspective would approach a problem. Take Luke 1:46 for example. It's impossible to make a informed decision about this variant without taking into account at least two demonstrated tendencies of the early church:<br /><br /> 1) Scribes tended to make the implicit or ambiguous explicit by adding names. This is well demonstrated by singular readings, not even taking into account the alleged tendency of Byzantine scribes to do this with divine names. Thus the presence of a name here could well be attributed to this tendency.<br /><br /> 2) A veneration of Mary took hold very early on, and this had an effect on the transmission of the text. This can be seen in variants such as those in Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:22. This veneration could have driven the specific insertion of Mary's name in order to attribute this eloquent magnificat directly to the Theotokos.<br /><br /> These two tendencies work together to make a strong case for the original omission of 'Mary'. At this particular variant, the thoroughgoing eclectics may well have the strongest case, able as they are to seriously consider evidence from outside the Greek corpus. Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-39504442743552599002016-10-28T13:46:46.948-04:002016-10-28T13:46:46.948-04:00Daniel Buck,
Would you say that thoroughgoing ecl...Daniel Buck, <br />Would you say that thoroughgoing eclecticism is problematic even when practiced with a guideline in place that precludes the adoption of readings that do not have Greek manuscript support?James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-66306756765778608162016-10-27T11:51:57.335-04:002016-10-27T11:51:57.335-04:00This approach to textual criticism is problematic ...This approach to textual criticism is problematic in that it opens a Pandora's box of possible emendations. What if we didn't have these few ancient Latin mss? Suddenly support for Elizabeth would be restricted to patristic evidence. Are we willing to conclude that a reading current in the 2nd or 3rd century, that has gone completely extinct in every NT ms of every language, could be original? If so, we have several to choose from, such as a nontrinitarian Matthew 28:19. <br /><br />But where do we stop?Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-27857730095110328712016-10-25T23:48:03.837-04:002016-10-25T23:48:03.837-04:00So appreciate your evaluation and attention to thi...So appreciate your evaluation and attention to this debate!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07776093479474025306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-20459098261510959692016-10-25T23:47:28.819-04:002016-10-25T23:47:28.819-04:00Here is an archived version of the debate: https:/...Here is an archived version of the debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqrZ62-jHDo.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07776093479474025306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-30286745012543013622016-10-25T14:15:43.218-04:002016-10-25T14:15:43.218-04:00Thank you for this!! Excellent comments & help...Thank you for this!! Excellent comments & helpful references. Looking forward to your thoughts on thoroughgoing eclecticism. Blessings from the God of all grace.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15247304601184640021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-24276536355007254192016-10-25T10:18:34.665-04:002016-10-25T10:18:34.665-04:00Nice article, sir. I think we have communicated be...Nice article, sir. I think we have communicated before. Where else do you write?elderdxchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18071222328972267419noreply@blogger.com