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!

Textual Criticism - Canon 3

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Dec 21, 2003.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,589
    Likes Received:
    95
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Canon Three: The shorter reading is generally preferred over the longer one.

    Reason: Copyists are more inclined to amplify or insert additional material for the purpose of clarification or embellishment than they are to leave out words already appearing in the text from which they are copying.

    Caveat: This does NOT apply to obvious haplography (writing once what should have been written twice) or homoeoteleuton (jumping over a section and omitting it to start again at another identical word).

    Thoughts?
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,589
    Likes Received:
    95
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A good example of such is often the basis for criticism of modern versions.

    If a synoptic text has "Lord Jesus Christ" in Matthew and Mark, and the copyist knows the passage well, he would then come to Luke that said only "Jesus Christ" and probably without thinking ADD the extra embellishment "Lord".

    Especially those in the 3-6th Century in Byzantium where the battle was over the Deity of Christ - those extra "lord" here or adding a "Christ" to Lord Jesus there were not evil.

    What is evil is saying that other texts REMOVED these words from the perfect original that ALWAYS said Lord Jesus Christ. Right.
     
  3. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    18,754
    Likes Received:
    848
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Whether words were added or taken out it was evil if it was intentional and the scribe was copying from the original writings.

    However, a scribe making what he believed to be an honest correction from copy to copy was not evil in any family of manuscripts or crossing over in families of manuscripts.

    Intent has to be the basis of "evil".
    Personally I don't believe it was a good thing to for a scribe to tamper with the text (copy to copy) based on doctrinal prejudice alone.

    The choice of textual criticism today based upon the Wescott and Hort hypothesis or the Burgon-Scrivener point of view is just that, a matter of choice, interpretation of the historical evidence and prejudice. In the final analysis either side must use the words "subjective" and "unprovable" and NOT condemn each other.

    My opinion of course.

    HankD
     
Loading...