Steven Avery
Administrator
Mark Randall James
For memory variants, see K. Junack, ‘Abschreibpraktiken und Schreibergewohnheiten in ihrer Auswirkung auf die Textüberlieferung’, in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce Metzger,ed. E. J. Epp and G. D. Fee (Oxford: Clarenden, 1981), 277-95, esp. 287-92. In criticizing Skeat’s ‘dictation theory’, Junack insists that nearly all reading in the ancient world involved pronouncing the text aloud. Errors that Skeat regards as evidence of dictation are perfectly consistent with an individual scribe reading aloud while copying his own text. Following A. Dain, Les Manuscrits, Collections des Etudes Anciennes (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1964), 41-46, Junack offers a model of copying in four stages: 1) the reading of the original, 2) the retention of the text in memory, 3) the interior dictation, and 4) the play of the hand. Memory variants of the sort we see here arise in steps 2 and 3.
For memory variants, see K. Junack, ‘Abschreibpraktiken und Schreibergewohnheiten in ihrer Auswirkung auf die Textüberlieferung’, in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce Metzger,ed. E. J. Epp and G. D. Fee (Oxford: Clarenden, 1981), 277-95, esp. 287-92. In criticizing Skeat’s ‘dictation theory’, Junack insists that nearly all reading in the ancient world involved pronouncing the text aloud. Errors that Skeat regards as evidence of dictation are perfectly consistent with an individual scribe reading aloud while copying his own text. Following A. Dain, Les Manuscrits, Collections des Etudes Anciennes (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1964), 41-46, Junack offers a model of copying in four stages: 1) the reading of the original, 2) the retention of the text in memory, 3) the interior dictation, and 4) the play of the hand. Memory variants of the sort we see here arise in steps 2 and 3.
Last edited: