From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed Sep 13 1995 - 20:04:31 EDT
Mark O'brien wrote,
>As I understand it, no one has ever put together a clear and >consistent
methodology for dealing with internal evidence
>in the same way that Westcott and Hort did with external >evidence.<
That's probably because internal considerations have to be applied more
subjectively. I assumed at first that your original question focused on
style. However, "internal evidence" would include much more than style.
There have been canons of criticism drawn up for the broader area of
"internal evidence." These would also include transcriptional probabilities,
the author's style, content, theology, etc., and matters of language usage
both of the original author as well as groups of scribes who tended to
correct grammar or update the language. Surely there is still room for
refining methodologies in all these areas. Papers in the SBL NT Textual
Criticism Section have focused sometimes on these questions. Someone else
has suggested Nigel Turner's work. It is still, in my opinion a good work on
style.
Carlton Winbery
LA College, Pineville, LA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:27 EDT