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?
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?
Last edited: