Is the entire Critical Text reconstructed or is a portion of it reconstructed?

[Logos1560]

Preserved vs Reconstructed. Traditional Text vs Critical Text.

Anthony Pritchard, do you claim the entire or whole Critical Text is reconstructed?

What is your definition of the term reconstructed in relationship to the text of the New Testament?

If your term reconstructed does not concern the whole or entire Critical text, what portion, part, or percentage of the Critical Text do you claim to be reconstructed?

What portion, part, or percentage of a text has to have been reconstructed for you to identify or label it as reconstructed?

Why do you seem to suggest that there are only two options?

 

[Logos1560]

Readers of this forum, Anthony has claimed that his position is clear, and he seems to be unwilling to clarify it. To me, his position on the Critical Text is not clear.

Readers, do you understand Anthony to be suggesting that the entire or whole Critical Text should be considered "reconstructed," or do you think he means that only an unspecified portion or percentage of the Critical Text should be considered "reconstructed"?

 

[Deacon]

Re: the doctrine of Preservation: "Preservation is God's work, not man's performance." © Anthony Pritchard.
The problem is that God does not define how (or even where) his word is preserved.

It's presumptive to assume that God has preserved a particular line of manuscripts,
...during a particular time period,
....for a particular people.

Reconstruction means to re-build something. In this case to re-build a Greek text that has subtly changed through the ages of hand-written transmission. No manuscript of significant length is the same.

Reconstruction is work and means systematically comparing surviving manuscripts
...and applying textual-critical principles,
...and selecting the most probable original readings
...to form a critical text of the New Testament that otherwise has never existed.

Every printed Greek text today has been reconstructed from a variety of different manuscripts (that includes the line of the TR).

• Editors collate readings from the manuscripts at hand at the time.
• They resolve conflicts using a variety of textual rules.
• The result is a text that differs from any single surviving manuscript.

Tony's use of the term "reconstructed text" therefore is threatening and provocative - a flame.

In his thread, "The Extent of Corruption in Modern Versions from the Reconstructed Text," I simply asked, "Are you calling my Bible corrupt?" - and he failed to respond.

What does this tell me? He's playing a game.
He's intentionally using provocative language to illicit a response and unwilling to address issues that point to weaknesses in his own position.

I have friends here on the BB and among those I study with that use the KJV and NKJV as their primary Bible.
Generally, these versions use different words to convey the same message... and where they differ, as a group we might discuss the different meanings without much judgement.
Among scholars that use the various Greek texts, debate is usually quite cordial, even while each strongly maintain their own opinions.

Rob

 

[Logos1560]

Re: the doctrine of Preservation: "Preservation is God's work, not man's performance." © Anthony Pritchard.
The problem is that God does not define how (or even where) his word is preserved.

It's presumptive to assume that God has preserved a particular line of manuscripts,
...during a particular time period,
....for a particular people.

Reconstruction means to re-build something. In this case to re-build a Greek text that has subtly changed through the ages of hand-written transmission. No manuscript of significant length is the same.

Reconstruction is work and means systematically comparing surviving manuscripts
...and applying textual-critical principles,
...and selecting the most probable original readings
...to form a critical text of the New Testament that otherwise has never existed.

Every printed Greek text today has been reconstructed from a variety of different manuscripts (that includes the line of the TR).

• Editors collate readings from the manuscripts at hand at the time.
• They resolve conflicts using a variety of textual rules.
• The result is a text that differs from any single surviving manuscript.

Tony's use of the term "reconstructed text" therefore is threatening and provocative - a flame.

Anthony Pritchard does seem to try to reframe the practice of textual criticism into something negative. His position is not clear since he has not defined and clarified what he means by reconstruction.

Did he also try to reframe the matter of preservation into all two possibilities: Preserved vs Reconstructed. Traditional Text vs Critical Text?

 

[Logos1560]

He's intentionally using provocative language to illicit a response and unwilling to address issues that point to weaknesses in his own position.

It is possible to overgeneralize when using adjectives to describe a Bible text, Bible translation or one edition of it. An original-language text or a translation can still be considered overall accurate even when it has a few individual inaccurate renderings, a few inconsistencies, impurities, or imperfections, or a few printing errors.

Jason Lisle noted: “The sweeping generalization is taking a principle that is true most of the time and applying it as if it had no exceptions or qualification” (Understanding, p. 153). What may be true of a few individual renderings may not be true of the whole overall text, translation, or edition just as what may be considered generally true or true overall of the whole text or translation may not be true of each and every individual reading or rendering.

Henry Virkler noted: “The fallacy of composition occurs when someone assumes that what is true of the individual members of a class is true of the entire class” (Christian’s Guide to Critical Thinking, p. 202). In the glossary, Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks defined the fallacy of composition as “fallacy that assumes that what is true of the parts is true of the whole” (Come, Let Us Reason, p. 190). Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks asserted: “You cannot logically conclude anything about a whole group from something you only know about part of it, even if it looks right” (p. 82). Joshua Rasmussen observed: “It is false that whatever is true of the parts is automatically also true of the whole” (How Reason, p. 38). Joshua Rasmussen added: “Arguments that rely on the Parts to Whole principle are fallacious. They commit the fallacy of composition: they assume that the whole has all the same properties as its parts” (Ibid.). In his glossary, Gordon Clark defined composition as “an informal logical fallacy in which the characteristic of the part is attributed to the whole” (Logic, p. 134). Gordon Clark noted: “This argument is called the fallacy of composition. The logical reason is that the characteristics of components are not necessarily, nor even usually, the characteristics of the compound” (p. 13).

Use of an adjective to describe the whole text of a text or translation can involve use of the fallacy of composition when or if it is assumed that what is true of a few individual renderings, of many individual renderings, or even of a great majority of the individual renderings is true of all the renderings in that text or translation. There is an important major difference in use of an adjective to describe overall a Bible text or Bible translation and use of an adjective to describe every reading/rendering of a Bible text or translation.

Does Anthony Pritchard seem to be using "sweeping generalization" or the fallacy of composition in his identification of the Critical Text as "reconstructed"?