Textual Critics' Report Card (Part 1)
Critical Editions of the NT can be rated on a variety of scales, and many of these measures are reasonably objective. For instance, some obvious and basic categories are:
(1) Completeness of Apparatus: In many cases, important variants can be left out of an apparatus. A recent trend has been to 'dumb down' the apparatus for students (and apparently translators!), including only those Variation Units deemed of use or relevance to translations.
(2) Accuracy of Apparatus: Historically, many a 'good' apparatus has turned out to be based on incomplete or inaccurate collations, which lowers reliability and confidence in support claims for readings.
(3) Accuracy of Reconstructed Text: The philosophy, theories and methods of, and the data available to various editors significantly affects their results, and this can mislead researchers hoping to use their findings.
Many such scales and ratings are straightforward, but rating the quality of textual reconstruction can be complex, and involve subjective components.
Reliable Subsets of Variation Units:
One can however turn to the more reliable and solid general data, such as studies of scribal habits and errors, to select Variation Units (VUs) that can be classed by identifiable physical features, such as probable homoeoteleuton errors (h.t.).
No solution to a Variation Unit can be absolutely certain, and all such evaluation must be based on probability. But scientific decision making in such cases can and will be based on reasonably objective probability estimates, independently of philosophies or personal preferences.
The great majority of special VUs with unique homoeoteleuton features will indeed be homoeoteleuton errors (h.t.). So, although we cannot know in any individual case its exact cause and transmission history, or even be absolutely certain of its correct identification as h.t., we can rely upon probability to make the reasonable assumption that the majority of VUs with homoeoteleuton features are in fact homoeoteleuton errors (h.t.).
For instance, although editorial glosses and marginal insertions sometimes happen, it is extremely implausible that the majority of such cases would have h.t. features. Glosses and insertions arise independently in many times, places, and circumstances, and there is no plausible mechanism that would justify any claim that any significant numbers of these would have such features.
Even marginal insertions would be accidental or naive in nature, and would not be deliberately given h.t. features in the process of incorporating them into the text.
Only a very sophisticated interpolator could deliberately incorporate h.t. features into an interpolation. But now the motive would be lacking. The majority of h.t. Variation Units have no theological or historical importance. They don't support orthodox or heretical doctrines, and they don't impart significant information to the story. Deliberate edits to the text invariably have doctrinal impact and political motive, but they are rarely disguised in any manner to appear to be something else. This level of sophistication is simply absent from cases currently known.
In a word, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck. This makes Variation Units with h.t. features ideal for testing reconstruction methodology.
Evaluating Critical Greek Texts:
Since it is extremely unlikely that the majority of h.t. errors would be anything else but h.t. errors, any method of reconstruction that fails to handle the majority of errors correctly must be considered a failure. This observation can form a basis for checking and evaluating various methods and attempts at NT textual reconstruction.
We have taken as a base the 15 probable h.t. errors found in Matthew, which have been taken seriously as possibly something else (i.e., they are included in most apparatus*).
13 Critical Greek Texts Evaluated: Click to Enlarge
Alongside each editor is his 'score', that is, his success-rate at correctly identifying h.t. errors and avoiding the mistake of incorporating the omissions into his text.
A word or two on each textual critic is appropriate here, by way of explanation for the scores.
nazaroo
* (Many other virtually certain h.t. errors are never noted or included in any apparatus, being unanimously recognized by all textual critics as h.t. errors, if for no other reason than that they are singular readings found only in one manuscript.)
Critical Editions of the NT can be rated on a variety of scales, and many of these measures are reasonably objective. For instance, some obvious and basic categories are:
(1) Completeness of Apparatus: In many cases, important variants can be left out of an apparatus. A recent trend has been to 'dumb down' the apparatus for students (and apparently translators!), including only those Variation Units deemed of use or relevance to translations.
(2) Accuracy of Apparatus: Historically, many a 'good' apparatus has turned out to be based on incomplete or inaccurate collations, which lowers reliability and confidence in support claims for readings.
(3) Accuracy of Reconstructed Text: The philosophy, theories and methods of, and the data available to various editors significantly affects their results, and this can mislead researchers hoping to use their findings.
Many such scales and ratings are straightforward, but rating the quality of textual reconstruction can be complex, and involve subjective components.
Reliable Subsets of Variation Units:
One can however turn to the more reliable and solid general data, such as studies of scribal habits and errors, to select Variation Units (VUs) that can be classed by identifiable physical features, such as probable homoeoteleuton errors (h.t.).
No solution to a Variation Unit can be absolutely certain, and all such evaluation must be based on probability. But scientific decision making in such cases can and will be based on reasonably objective probability estimates, independently of philosophies or personal preferences.
The great majority of special VUs with unique homoeoteleuton features will indeed be homoeoteleuton errors (h.t.). So, although we cannot know in any individual case its exact cause and transmission history, or even be absolutely certain of its correct identification as h.t., we can rely upon probability to make the reasonable assumption that the majority of VUs with homoeoteleuton features are in fact homoeoteleuton errors (h.t.).
For instance, although editorial glosses and marginal insertions sometimes happen, it is extremely implausible that the majority of such cases would have h.t. features. Glosses and insertions arise independently in many times, places, and circumstances, and there is no plausible mechanism that would justify any claim that any significant numbers of these would have such features.
Even marginal insertions would be accidental or naive in nature, and would not be deliberately given h.t. features in the process of incorporating them into the text.
Only a very sophisticated interpolator could deliberately incorporate h.t. features into an interpolation. But now the motive would be lacking. The majority of h.t. Variation Units have no theological or historical importance. They don't support orthodox or heretical doctrines, and they don't impart significant information to the story. Deliberate edits to the text invariably have doctrinal impact and political motive, but they are rarely disguised in any manner to appear to be something else. This level of sophistication is simply absent from cases currently known.
In a word, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck. This makes Variation Units with h.t. features ideal for testing reconstruction methodology.
Evaluating Critical Greek Texts:
Since it is extremely unlikely that the majority of h.t. errors would be anything else but h.t. errors, any method of reconstruction that fails to handle the majority of errors correctly must be considered a failure. This observation can form a basis for checking and evaluating various methods and attempts at NT textual reconstruction.
We have taken as a base the 15 probable h.t. errors found in Matthew, which have been taken seriously as possibly something else (i.e., they are included in most apparatus*).
13 Critical Greek Texts Evaluated: Click to Enlarge
Alongside each editor is his 'score', that is, his success-rate at correctly identifying h.t. errors and avoiding the mistake of incorporating the omissions into his text.
A word or two on each textual critic is appropriate here, by way of explanation for the scores.
nazaroo
* (Many other virtually certain h.t. errors are never noted or included in any apparatus, being unanimously recognized by all textual critics as h.t. errors, if for no other reason than that they are singular readings found only in one manuscript.)
