Jump to content


Best Resource (Book) for History of Bible texts and canons, etc

  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#21 Abram K-J

Abram K-J


  • Super Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,752 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greater Boston, MA
  • Accordance Version:12.x
  • Platforms:Mac OS X, iOS

Posted 13 March 2013 - 08:25 PM

Matthew, looks like I posted just after you did. Agreed--not all view conjectural emendation as a thing to avoid in a critical apparatus. When I reviewed the BHQ for Accordance, I found that John Hobbins did not appreciate the approach of the BHQ that I mentioned above. He has an interesting section called "In Defense of Conjectural Emendation" in his "Taking Stock of Biblia Hebraica Quinta" (pdf here).

Edited by AbramKJ, 13 March 2013 - 08:31 PM.

Abram K-J
Pastor, Writer, Editor, Blogger
Web: Words on the Word

#22 Matthew Burgess

Matthew Burgess


  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 131 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlottesville, VA
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 13 March 2013 - 08:45 PM

To give another practical example, Gordon Fee, a scholar many would consider to be a "moderate" or "conservative" textual critic, has argued that Paul's comments on women in 1 Corinthians 14 are a later interpolation, despite the fact that their omission is not strongly supported by the manuscript tradition.  (One Latin manuscript, Codex Fuldensis, may have lacked the verses originally; they are added in the margin.  All other surviving manuscripts contain the verses, albeit with some variations.)  At the very least, this is close to a conjectural emendation.    

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users