# NA28 Method of Textual Criticism



## Taylor (Jan 27, 2016)

Hello, brothers and sisters.

Yesterday in my Greek exegesis class at TEDS, my professor talked briefly about the new method of textual criticism used for the general (or catholic) epistles in the New Testament in the NA[SUP]28[/SUP]. He mentioned that, whereas the NA[SUP]27[/SUP] was based upon "reasoned eclecticism" in its approach to criticism, the NA[SUP]28[/SUP], for the general epistles (we are studying 1 Peter right now), is utilizing a new computer-based statistical approach. Of course, my professor seemed unconvinced, since what brought the discussion was the interesting λυπηθέντας in 1 Peter 1:6, as opposed to the NA[SUP]27[/SUP] λυπηθέντες. Not only is λυπηθέντες much better attested externally, but it fits will with the context of the passage (it is an adverbial participle); λυπηθέντας, however, being accusative plural, is not very well attested externally and is also very difficult to fit grammatically in the context.

As anyone else familiar with this new methodology? I was troubled at the fact that such a seemingly simple problem with a textual variant was solved in such a puzzling way. I appreciate the work of dedicated scholars, and I do not mean to degrade them by saying this, but the way they solved the variant problem above just seems silly. I understand the belief that the harder reading has more weight, but I am beginning to wonder if that's really a legitimate claim, or if it puts to much faith in the faithfulness or competency of copyists.

Thoughts or resources?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 27, 2016)

Taylor Sexton said:


> He mentioned that, whereas the NA27 was based upon "reasoned eclecticism" in its approach to criticism, the NA28, for the general epistles (we are studying 1 Peter right now), is utilizing a new computer-based statistical approach



I wonder which method the 29th version might employ? It is difficult to place faith in that which is perpetually unsettled.


----------



## Taylor (Jan 27, 2016)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I wonder which method the 29th version might employ? It is difficult to place faith in that which is perpetually unsettled.



I am beginning to think the same thing, brother. I am still unsure, but I was bothered by this fact. I know that the example I gave is just one little letter. However, I find it uncomfortable that the committee would choose such a puzzling variant when it not only is not as well-attested as the NA[SUP]27[/SUP] reading, but even doesn't make sense grammatically.


----------



## MW (Jan 27, 2016)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Thoughts or resources?



The approach is going to suffer from the basic problems and limitations associated with statistics in general. To derive information from data one has to apply filters, so the bias is only moved one step further back behind the choice of filters from which information is derived. Moreover the information is target-specific, which means the person with any working knowledge of the field could fairly guesstimate the outcome. Finally, the whole approach begs the question as to the nature and function of the readings and the choice of their inclusion in the first place.


----------

