tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post2729984075021989956..comments2024-03-29T07:11:17.775+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: A Similarity between Reasoned Eclecticism & Byzantine PriorityP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-21162499810954637842016-06-08T10:09:31.118+01:002016-06-08T10:09:31.118+01:00From Westcott and Hort in the intro to their 1871 ...From Westcott and Hort in the intro to their 1871 fascicle of the Gospels: “But if some exercise of personal judgment remains always indispensable, on the other hand the possibility of sound textual criticism is destroyed by the crude premature use of what is called internal evidence” (p. xix).Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-3701955188025874602016-06-03T12:34:53.013+01:002016-06-03T12:34:53.013+01:00I have tended to treat external evidence prior to ...I have tended to treat external evidence prior to the internal evidence (see e.g. <a href="https://www.academia.edu/1175075/A_Text-Critical_Study_of_Mark_1.1_The_Beginning_of_the_Gospel_of_Jesus_Christ._New_Testament_Studies_37_1991_621-629" rel="nofollow"> from 1991 on Mark 1.1</a> or <a href="https://www.academia.edu/8615203/_Tychicus_and_the_Colossian_Christians_A_Reconsideration_of_the_text_of_Colossians_4.8_Texts_and_Traditions_Essays_in_Honour_of_J_Keith_Elliott_ed._J._Kloha_and_P._Doble_NTTSD_47_Leiden_Brill_2014_303-315" rel="nofollow">from 2014 on Col 4.8</a>); and also generally teach that this order of treatment is the best/simplest approach. <br />I think the first issue is simply that without treating the external evidence you don't know what all the readings actually are. For students the process of deciphering the apparatus gets the readings clear, and can sometimes point to issues relating to internal evidence. <br />In general I try to get students to present the external and internal aspects of the investigation separately and then evaluate the implications for the overall argument/local stemma. On the basis that they can be done independently I don't suppose that it should make much difference in the order in which the investigation is undertaken and/or presented. Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-70609322520290288172016-06-03T10:42:29.811+01:002016-06-03T10:42:29.811+01:00I would be very interested to see how many (and wh...I would be very interested to see how many (and which) NT textual critics actually agree that external evidence should be considered prior to internal. I remember Epp distinguishing between different types of reasond eclectics, at least some of which tend to weigh internal evidence more heavily. I for one have great problems with saying that consideration of external evidence is methodologically prior. External evidence is only helpful insofar as you have some conception of the history of the text in mind, and the only way to arrive at such a history is by evaluating the readings and manuscript relations primarily based on internal evidence. Maybe practically, after a couple centuries of text-critical research, NT scholars feel confident enough about their knowledge of the history of the text to weed out late readings (which I am fine with), but surely internal evidence has to be the methodological starting point of any iterative process and the deciding factor in evaluating many variation units. No?<br /><br />-Drew LongacreAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com