1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Luke 4:44

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Bluefalcon, Nov 6, 2004.

  1. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,162
    Likes Received:
    163
    Faith:
    Baptist
    CBS: "The word “scholarslop” was NOT a reference to your knowledge or application of the tenets of textual criticism, but exclusively to Bluefalcon’s scholastically inappropriate use of the word “definite” to describe the degree of certainty of his favored reading of the text."

    I obviously misunderstood, thank you for the correction.

    However, I fail to see the problem with the use of "definitely", presuming that someone has examined the variants and applied the various principles of NT textual criticism in order to arrive at a solid conclusion from within a particular text-critical theoretical perspective.

    The "{A}" readings in the UBS text certainly are considered "defniite" by those editors, who state dogmatically: "The letter A indicates that the text is certain".

    But if I or BF happen to apply the various principles of textual criticism to those UBS {A} readings and arrive at *different* conclusions, are we not justified in claiming that, from our theoretical perspective, there exists for our decision an "{A}" level of certainty? Fair is fair, and neither methodology should be summarily dismissed as "scholarslop".
     
  2. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    CORRECTION:

    "The letter A indicates that the text is virtually certain". (The emphasis using bold type is mine, but the word "virtually is right there for all to see!)

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    Dear Sir,

    I did indeed misconstrue your sentence and it was my fault because your sentence was clearly worded.

    Personally, I would reword this sentence:

    “The point is that ‘Judea’ appears from the Greek manuscripts and Versions involved to be a very localized reading.”

    Before my career change I was a biologist and I was taught to be very careful about using adjectives and adverbs like definitely, always, never, every, none, etc. Perhaps this training has caused be to be overly cautious in using these adjective and adverbs . . . and a little too critical of others who use them more freely than I believe to be appropriate.

    [​IMG]
     
  4. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,162
    Likes Received:
    163
    Faith:
    Baptist
    CBS: "CORRECTION: "The letter A indicates that the text is virtually certain". (The emphasis using bold type is mine, but the word "virtually is right there for all to see!)"

    CORRECTION TO CORRECTION: UBS 4th ed., p.3*, line 15: "The letter A indicates that the text is certain."

    That statement is there for all to read. very clearly. It is followed by "The letter B indicates that the text is almost certain."

    I suspect you were citing the wording of an earlier edition?
     
  5. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    Yes I was, the third edition; in the fourth edition the word “virtually” was accidentally omitted (at least I hope it was an accident! If it was not an accident, that is NOT good!).

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    Yes I was, the third edition; in the fourth edition the word “virtually” was accidentally omitted (at least I hope it was an accident! If it was not an accident, that is NOT good!).

    [​IMG]
     
  7. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,162
    Likes Received:
    163
    Faith:
    Baptist
    CBS: "Yes I was, the third edition; in the fourth edition the word “virtually” was accidentally omitted (at least I hope it was an accident! If it was not an accident, that is NOT good!)."

    Most assuredly, it was not an accident (this on the authority of the editors themselves). Such a claim was in part responsible for Kent Clarke's book critiquing the changes from UBS3 to UBS4 (Clarke, "Textual Optimism:A Critique of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament," Sheffield Academic Press, c1997).

    On the other hand, *I* have no objection to *any* Greek NT editors claiming that, from within their theoretical perspective, a particular reading happens to be "certain", so long as such is consistent with their theory and methodology, and so long as admission is made that some other readings lack the same degree of certainty (i.e. no "TR by fiat" claim).

    My primary objection to NA27/UBS4 is that their theory and method too often involves matters of preference and points of validation that internally contradict one another (one illustration of such conflict concerns the strong Alexandrian support for the longer reading in Mt 27:49; this will be discussed in a presentation by Abidan Shah at ETS, San Antonio, next week).
     
Loading...