tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post112984459400548037..comments2024-03-28T15:48:18.205+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: ‘Western Non-Interpolation’ in Luke 24:51-52 as haplographyP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1130016247452001702005-10-22T22:24:00.000+01:002005-10-22T22:24:00.000+01:00Peter is right that a global theory is needed to d...Peter is right that a global theory is needed to deal with the similarity of witnesses for the various 'Western Non-Interpolations'. Specific mechanical explanations do not suggest themselves for most. However in Luke 24:52 we can explain the omission of PROSJUNHSANTES AUTON by parablepsis from AUTO to AUTO. Note that the first AUTO is followed by I, and the second by N (whose first upright stroke looks lik I). In hearing people read modern texts I note that parablepsis sometimes occurs without any specific letter repetitions, i.e. without a specific mechanical explanation. I guess this also occurred in antiquity, though I'd be at a loss to know how often.P.J. Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1129963087403433082005-10-22T07:38:00.000+01:002005-10-22T07:38:00.000+01:00I agree with Peter - the mechanical explanation MA...I agree with Peter - the mechanical explanation MAY be the issue in Lk 24:51-2, and I want to add another well-known point: Things are different in the letters of the NT. In my daily reading, I am just in 1Corinthians, and it seems quite easy to recognize the "orthodox corruption" in passages like 1Cor 11:24-34. Passages which underwent a lively discussion in the early church history seem to have been "guarded" by scribes or church fathers or whatever against the "wrong" understanding or misuse. Also, the letters of the NT were not copied and circulated that much as the gospels, so that mechanical errors are more apt to be found in the latter ones.Martin Heidehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05997094949839188321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1129963037672301862005-10-22T07:37:00.000+01:002005-10-22T07:37:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Martin Heidehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05997094949839188321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1129890054805062962005-10-21T11:20:00.000+01:002005-10-21T11:20:00.000+01:00I would think that a sensible approach involves we...I would think that a sensible approach involves weighing up all the possible/potential factors in the light of known scribal habits. <BR/>A 'mechanical' explanation MAY help explain the origin of a reading (say this one), but one would definitely also need to factor in the theological/rhetorical/canonical issues involved in it. <BR/>Since there are a whole group of readings with broadly similar support in the final chapters of Luke a global theory would also be useful.<BR/><BR/>PetePeter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1129882938429733342005-10-21T09:22:00.000+01:002005-10-21T09:22:00.000+01:00Ehrman wrote: 'My thesis can be stated simply: scr...Ehrman wrote: 'My thesis can be stated simply: scribes occasionally altered the words of their sacred texts to make them more patently orthodox and to prevent their misuse by Christians who espoused aberrant views' (p. xi). I agree with the phrase 'scribes occasionally altered the words of their sacred texts', but don't know as much about the scribes and their motivations as he knows. It seems also that he and I would understand different things by 'occasionally' :-). Of course the attempt to define theology on the basis of variants is not unique to Ehrman. One particular scholar who strikes me as pursuing this route in a major way is Epp.P.J. Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.com