Quote:
Originally Posted by TsonMariytho  Can you give me an example of at least one reading derived from manuscript criticism that TR primacy advocates admit should override the TR? Or do you believe that neutral textual criticism of all available manuscripts is able to prove the TR's primacy? Or... ?
As far as I can tell, the science of textual criticism within TR primacy circles is fairly limited to recognizing the differences between TR editions, going on playful tangents like Scrivener's to make a TR that approximates the KJV, and cherry-picking manuscript references that support the TR (which are adjudged correct, as opposed to those that contradict the TR, which are adjudged incorrect). |
First, why should I be obliged to bring forth examples of variation where you yourself have recognised variants in the TR tradition, and Scrivener's work itself testifies of the need to clarify which form of the TR was employed by the translators of the AV? Supposing I came to the conclusion that Scrivener's TR provides the original reading, does that make it impossible to conclude that I have arrived at that decision by an exact discrimination of all the evidence which can be sifted? If so, then obviously there is prejudice from your side of the debate which refuses to examine the evidence in the remote possibility that the TR might be correct.
Secondly, this issue requires such a large induction of particulars that it is useless raising one or two readings which may or may not favour one textual theory over another. Such is the complexity of the different lines of evidence that one or two readings might count against a textual theory and yet the theory still stand on the basis of cumulative evidence.
Thirdly, Scrivener's work is deservedly entitled to be regarded as a piece of sound scholarship; your belittling of that scholarship either shows ignorance of his work or just plain ignorance.