Equitable Eclecticism by James Snapp Jr. (part 3)

 

EQUITABLE ECLECTICISM

The Future of New Testament Textual Criticism

___________________________________________________________________

Part three of a five part series. See the entire series here.

Competing Greek New Testaments

In the late 1800’s, Westcott & Hort’s Greek text of the New Testament faced several obstacles. First was the popularity of the Textus Receptus, which, as the base-text of the King James Version, had the status of an ancient landmark in English-speaking countries, regardless of how carefully attempts were made to demonstrate that its Reformation-era compilers, or some stealthy editors in ancient times, were the real landmark-movers. This obstacle was cleverly surmounted by Eberhard Nestle. In 1898, the Würrtemburg Bible Society published the first edition of Novum Testamentum Graece, an inexpensive Greek New Testament which was designed to compete with the edition of the Textus Receptus which was being widely disseminated by the British and Foreign Bible Society. The leaders of BFBS apparently had not been fully convinced by Hort’s 1881 Introduction. The Greek text of Novum Testamentum Graece was based on the revised Greek New Testaments which had been compiled by Westcott & Hort, by Constantine von Tischendorf, and by Richard Weymouth.

Nestle wrote an enthusiastic recommendation of this handy Greek New Testament; his brief review appeared in the Expository Times in June of 1898. He pointed out how “disgraceful” it would be to continue to circulate Erasmus’ errors in Rev. 17:8 and Rev. 22:19-21. He invited the British and Foreign Bible Society to begin to circulate Novum Testamentum Graece instead of the Textus Receptus. In 1904 the British and Foreign Bible Society began circulating the fourth edition of Novum Testamentum Graece. By that time, it became known that the editor of the 1898 edition had been none other than Eberhard Nestle.

As that was happening, a scholar named Hermann von Soden was in the process of compiling a grand edition of the Greek New Testament which textual scholars expected to become definitive, superseding all previous editions. But when von Soden’s Greek New Testament was released in 1902-1911, it was found to be extremely cumbersome, and it was flawed in various ways. Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece was on hand to fill the vacuum, so to speak, and it has done so ever since.

But should it? According to Kurt and Barbara Aland, the 27th edition of NTG differs from the early text compiled by Eberhard Nestle “in merely 700 passages.”11 Considering the high number of variant-units involved, this implies that the text of the Gospels in NA-27 and UBS-4 is essentially the same text that was published by Eberhard Nestle in the early 1900’s. It is as if the papyri and the implications of their contents (not to mention the research into early versions, the revisions of patristic writings, and other significant discoveries and research undertaken in the 1900’s) have been treated as if they did little but confirm the revised text, whereas in reality they shook the foundational premises that had been used by Westcott and Hort.

The marketplace for Greek New Testaments in the early 1900’s rapidly became crowded: Bernard Weiss, Alexander Souter, and J. M. S. Baljon made compilations which rivaled Nestle’s.12 F. H. A. Scrivener’s editions of the Textus Receptus remained in circulation. Thomas Newberry’s 1870 Englishman’s Greek New Testament – a fine interlinear edition of the Textus Receptus which featured a presentation of variants adopted by textual critics prior to Westcott & Hort (Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford, and Wordsworth) – also remained in print. The public generally had to choose between either a Greek text similar to the 1881 revision of Westcott & Hort, or the Textus Receptus. Greek New Testaments which were used as the base-texts for English translations tended to have the highest and longest-lasting popularity in English-speaking countries.

In 1982, Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad published a compilation called The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. As its name implies, this text was intended to consist of the readings shared by the majority of Greek MSS. Hodges and Farstad proposed that the Alexandrian Text is a heavily edited, pruned form of the text, while the Majority Text is much better, inasmuch as “In any tradition where there are not major disruptions in the transmissional history, the individual reading which has the earliest beginning is the one most likely to survive in a majority of documents.”13 The work of Hodges and Farstad was the basis for many text-critical footnotes in the New Testament in the New King James Version, which was published around the same time under Dr. Farstad’s supervision.

A similar work was released in 1991 by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont, called The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform. A second edition was published in 2005. Rejecting any notion of defending the Textus Receptus (which differs from the Byzantine Text at over 1,800 points, about 1,000 of which are translatable), Robinson and Pierpont regarded the Byzantine Text as virtually congruent to the original text. A disadvantage of the Byzantine Text is that its component readings are whatever the majority of Byzantine MSS support; almost no analytical attempts to reconstruct the relationships of variants within the Byzantine tradition are undertaken since the question is usually settled by a numerical count.

In some respects, Hodges & Farstad and Robinson & Pierpont have paved a trail that was blazed in the 1800’s by John Burgon, who opposed the text of Westcott & Hort. Burgon’s aggressive writing-style sometimes overshadowed his argumentation; nevertheless some of his views were vindicated by subsequent research. For example, Hort asserted that “even among the numerous unquestionably spurious readings of the New Testament there are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes,”14 but Burgon insisted that the opposite was true. Burgon’s posthumously published Causes of Corruption (1896) even included a sub-chapter titled “Corruption by the Orthodox.” Almost a century later in 1993, a variation on Burgon’s theme was upheld by Bart Ehrman in the similarly titled book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. As a result, though Ehrman exaggerated his case in many respects, no textual critics now consider Hort’s assertion to be correct.

Many scholars and interested bystanders, noticing that the weaknesses of several of Hort’s key premises and assertions have been exposed, have been willing to consider the model of transmission-history proposed by the supporters of the Byzantine Textform – but not many have decided to embrace it. Some have irresponsibly associated it with the novel American fundamentalist doctrine of King James Onlyism. Others have rejected it because, despite detailed lists of principles of internal and external evidence in Dr. Robinson’s essay The Case for Byzantine Priority,15 the quality which usually determines the adoption of a variant in the approach advocated by Robinson is its attestation in over 80% of the Greek MSS. Patristic evidence and the testimony of early versions are not included in the equation of what constitutes the majority reading. Distinctive Alexandrian variants, Western variants, Caesarean variants, and even minority readings attested by the oldest Byzantine witnesses (such as parts of Codices A and W) have no chance of being adopted; generally, whenever a variant is supported by over 80% of the Greek MSS, it is adopted.

The validity of such an approach depends upon the validity of the premise that the transmission of the text of the Gospels was free from “major disruptions.” However, major disruptions have had enormous impacts upon the transmission of the text. Roman persecutions and Roman sponsorship, wartime and peacetime, dark ages and golden ages – all these things, plus innovations and inventions related to the copying of MSS, drastically changed the circumstances in which the text was transmitted, and while all text-types were affected by them, they were not all affected to

the same extent, as a review of history will show.16 Greek fell into relative disuse in Western Europe; Constantinople became the center of eastern Greek-speaking Christendom; Islamic conquests squelched the vitality of the transmission-streams in regions where Islamic rule was imposed; copyists in or near Constantinople invented more efficient ways to copy the text. Such historical events completely invalidate results that are based on a transmission-model that assumes the non-existence of such disruptions.

_______________
Footnotes:
11 – p. 20, The Text of the New Testament: “In its 657 printed pages the early Nestle differs from the new text in merely seven hundred passages.” This is comparable to the difference between the 25th and 27th editions of NTG, which differ in the Gospels at over 400 places.

12 – After the publication of Weiss’ Greek text, Nestle used it instead of Weymouth’s to arbitrate between the texts of Westcott & Hort and Tischendorf.

13 – p. xi-xii, Hodges & Farstad’s Introduction, 2nd ed.

14 – p. 282, § 369, Hort’s Introduction.

15 – Robinson’s essay serves as an appendix in the second edition of the Robinson-Pierpont text.

16 – As Kirsopp Lake wrote in his little book The Text of the New Testament, the ideal textual critic must possess “a complete knowledge of all the bypaths of Church history.”

Author:
James Snapp, Jr. preaches and ministers at Curtisville Christian Church in central Indiana. The church’s website includes an introduction to textual criticism and links to other resources, including a detailed defense of Mark 16:9-20. A graduate of Cincinnati Christian University (B.A., 1990), where his professors included Lewis Foster, Tom Friskney, and Reuben Bullard, James has studied New Testament textual criticism for over 20 years.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Equitable Eclecticism by James Snapp Jr. (part 3)

  1. Bob Hayton October 22, 2010 / 10:53 am

    I am enjoying Snapp’s series. This one particularly is interesting. I’m not so sure there is only 700 differences between the NA27 and Hort. It’d be interesting to see some more corroboration on this. Also I’m not following footnote 11 there. Is it that the 27th edition reverted back more to line up with Hort? If 27 and 25 differ so much with each other how can 27 differ so little with Hort? Could it be that 700 passages includes a lot more differences than just 700? Or is it that the source referenced for the 700 number is just off?

    • Bob Hayton October 22, 2010 / 4:39 pm

      Dr. Maurice Robinson responded by email to me on this point and said I could post this to the blog. It is quite insightful so I’ll share his repsonse below.

      Bob,

      (Feel free to print any part of this on the blog if desired):

      You commented on Snapp pt. 3 as follows:

      >I’m not so sure there is only 700 differences between the NA27 and Hort. It’d be interesting to see some more corroboration on this.

      Do note that Snapp was *not* referring to differences between WH and NA27, but between the early 1904 Nestle/BFBS edition and the NA27, with the totals coming from the NA27 chief editors themselves (Aland and Aland). I see no reason not to accept these data.

      For the record, the WH text differs from NA27 in (by my rough count) 1628 instances, with some 384 of these merely involving the presence or absence of brackets [ ], thus only some 1244 “real” differences since WH in 1881 (some of these involve more than one word, but in any case, no one should suggest that there is more than about 1% difference between WH and NA27 — and that difference would be even less by about some 500 readings if a Nestle edition 25 or earlier were used as the standard of comparison.

      >Also I’m not following footnote 11 there. Is it that the 27th edition reverted back more to line up with Hort?

      The opposite: the 25th edition and earlier were closer to WH; the 26th and 27th editions reflect about 500 changes away from WH, usually toward a Byzantine reading now supported by earlier papyri or the like.

      >If 27 and 25 differ so much with each other how can 27 differ so little with Hort?

      Remembering the stats: 700 difference between early 1904 Nestle and current NA27; 1628 differences (or if brackets are not counted, 1244 differences) between WH and current NA27.

      >Could it be that 700 passages includes a lot more differences than just 700?

      In all these cases, one word or several may be in view. It would take a different tabulation to get it to a word number comparison as opposed to a variant unit based comparison.

      Also, as an addendum to Mr Snapp’s presentation: the first published “edition” of the RP Byzantine text actually appeared in 1979, in collation note form as an appendix to Jay Green’s Interlinear Bible, vol.4, New Testament — thus predating the appearance of the Hodges-Farstad edition by 2 years.

      MAR

  2. Nazaroo October 23, 2010 / 6:01 pm

    Dear James: Once again you have very effectively summed up the recent history of critical editions.

    It is however with the last paragraph that we feel we must object to. This paragraph is essentially a summary of the longer argument made in 1993 (updated from 1979) by Gordon D. Fee, in his article on the Majority Text, the core of which was just recently posted on the PA Website:

    http://adultera.awardspace.com/AG/Fee-MajorityText.html

    Readers will find there a fuller statement of this argument.

    We only want to point out here that it is completely unsubstantiated and scientifically invalid.

    (1) No one has shown that any “disruption” of any nature (except deliberate tampering or recension) would have the effect on the purity of the various streams of transmission that is claimed.

    (2) Certainly the three example “disruptions” would normally have no effect on the text spread across the Roman Empire and independently copied for the key period (300-700 A.D.). By that time, the Majority Text would already be in full swing, if not dominant.

    (3) The kind of “disruptions” described, that would have an accidental or undesirable or unforeseen effect on the text would have to have taken place prior to the formation of the major text-types, which is acknowledged to have taken place in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Fee acknowledges for instance that the Byzantine (Majority) Text had already come into circulation by 350 A.D.:

    http://adultera.awardspace.com/AG/Fee-MajorityText.html#r03

    (4) That the Greek could very gradually “drift away” from the Latin is a reasonable possibility, with some acknowledgement that the drift would be a combination of “random” (local grammatical corrections and language updates, smoothing), and deliberate (adoption of readings favouring theological ideas in circulation at various times). But in this case, the variants would be relatively few, and relatively insignificant most of the time.

    http://adultera.awardspace.com/AA/Strange-Western.html

    (5) It could also be conceived that a very “special” catastrophe could have taken place very early in the history (circa 100 A.D.) to cause both loss of data (text) and bifurcation into more than one “text-type”. For instance, a massive pogrom or persecution in which 99% of MSS were destroyed, and a new copying stream was started based on a peculiar and faulty MS, and this stream in turn being left to develop in isolation from other Christians in the Empire. Something like this might explain the peculiarities of the early Alexandrian text(s), full of errors. But in that case, we can also expect that gradually, as Christianity in that area recovered, and grew to connect with other Christian groups and churches in the Empire, the text would be corrected and eventually abandoned, just as the “Alexandrian” has.

    http://adultera.awardspace.com/AA/Martini-Alexandrian.html

    (6) It is also possible that a deliberate large-scale and organized “correction” or recension of the text could result in a “new” text synthesized from existing variants, and taking on a uniformity as a result of organized and imposed structure in manufacturing. But in this case, we should assume that those in charge had at least some common sense and skills/training to carry out the task reasonably well, and that they also had at their disposal far better resources than those now extant and available to us. This is why Dean Burgon practically gloated at Hort‘s suggestion of a “Syrian Recension” organized and adopted by the Church at large. He saw its priceless value if only it were true. The scarce evidence of such a thorough-going recension did not bother him, because the result would be the same in the end. The best possible overall text would be found in that recension, barring a theological catastrophe or hostile takeover of the church by heretics.

    http://adultera.awardspace.com/AC/Burgon-SyrianTT.html

    Peace in Christ,
    Nazaroo

  3. James Snapp, Jr. October 25, 2010 / 8:21 pm

    Nazaroo:

    Regarding your first point: the hypothesis is not that disruption was the mechanism which caused the Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Egyptian (P45/part-of-W) texts to develop; the idea is that disruption caused them to be transmitted at different rates than the Byzantine Text.

    Regarding your second point: I would agree that by 700, Greek Gospels-MSS characterized by Byzantine readings were more numerous than other kinds of Greek Gospels-MSS, but that is not the same as saying that the Majority Text as we know it was then dominant. Some disagreements might appear if one were to construct a sort of Uncial Byzantine Text (consisting formulaically of majority-readings of Byzantine uncials) as opposed to a Majority Text that usually defined by the minuscules. I would not argue that the disruptions which caused the decline of non-Byz text-types caused new readings to arise in Byz.

    Your third point does not target the hypothesis I’m proposing, which is not that the disruptions had a strong effect on the contents of any text-type or text-types, but that they had a strong effect upon their relative popularity (with Byz becoming popular, and the rest gradually dying out, as far as Greek copies were concerned, except in some isolated cases).

    Point 4 seems peripheral, so in the interest of brevity I will not comment on it here for the time being.

    In Point 5 you’ve pictured a scenario similar to what Streeter proposed to account for local texts: isolated customization followed by collisions (mixture) followed by conformation to the Byz standard.

    As for Point 6, yes, Burgon (and not only Burgon) saw that if Byz is the result of a scholarly recension carried out before 312 by an influential bishop who possessed MSS of divergent kinds, and that Byz can be accurately reconstructed, then virtually all of its component parts must be regarded as more ancient than any MS known to exist in Burgon’s day. But this is only relevant if one accepts the premise that the contents of Byz were defined by such a recension.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

    • Nazaroo October 26, 2010 / 9:09 am

      dear James: Thank you for your thoughtful reply:

      On (1), I am glad you sensibly agree that the supposed mechanisms proposed by Fee do not and cannot account for “text-types”. The lesser and more limited claim that they could have taken existed “text-types”, and unevenly promoted them needs more careful consideration, for it appears tantamount to claiming that again these “mechanisms” (supposing they existed in the degree claimed) were indeed responsible for the subsequent behaviour of the transmission streams.

      Personally, I don’t see them as significant, but I would think that (5), the idea you attribute to Streeter might better account for the attrition of both potential “text-types” and wild copying resulting in the appearance of ‘text-types’.

      ——————-

      For (2) you propose a method for constructing a “Majority Text” based on older Byzantine MSS only (Uncials). This methodology appears hopelessly flawed, for the following reasons:

      (a) Definition of Majority: Normally, newer MSS will outnumber older MSS, and if we had access to the earlier MSS we could have an effective sample, but it wouldn’t be the majority of MSS, except of a certain sub-period (say 400-600 A.D.), which is a moving of the goal-posts re: “Majority of MSS”. But that is probably insignificant compared to other problems with the method:

      (b) We don’t have an appropriate sample of MSS from the earlier periods. Only a handful of MSS dated in the critical period exist, and these would not properly represent the state of the text between 400-800 A.D. It can’t be done by using the date of manufacture of MSS.

      (c) Selecting only Uncials is inappropriate for this early period, because as Uncials were being simultaneously phased out (but still made up to 900 A.D.), Miniscules were being manufactured alongside them, as early as say 600-700, and then we also have “transition” style MSS with ‘mini-Uncials’, slanted (e.g. cod.W) and other bridge-styles. All these would need to be incorporated into any “majority of MSS” method for the first half of the period (say 400-800 A.D.).

      (d) Many late MSS are copies of ancient texts. It is well-known that the age of the text is different than the date of the MS, and very often the most ancient reliable texts would be chosen as a master-copies in organized scriptoriums. The result is that the Majority of late MSS will represent copies far earlier than their contemporaries. If the survival and condition of Uncials is any guide, good copies are likely to have been made from MSS some 500 years or more older than themselves. The kind of nuancing you are hoping for by selecting Uncials will not adequately filter older texts from newer, since it merely excludes the majority of 1st generation copies of the older (Byzantine) text.

      (e) There is no way to identify and separate MSS having only newer texts, except by genealogical methods. Even when a few cases can be done, such as Family 1 and Family 13, we can’t date the age of the text itself. Typically, these are assigned a nebulous date “sometime before the 9th century” or some such, but in your method they would eliminated.

      (f) Thus, your ‘Maj’ method (Uncials only) would not adequately nuance the interesting and significant differences, which indicate early abberant text-types or strains within the Byzantine tradition.

      (g) I think you are going to find that any method of handling the Byzantine MSS which successfully eliminates the later texts (and their errors) will still result in essentially the current Majority Text. There will only be a few variants (say for instance Joh.Comm) that will distinguish it from any suggested later Byzantine text(s) (Lectionaries aside).

      ———————–

      On (3) & (5), see (1) above.

      ———————–

      On (6), I am still having difficulty with your nuancing of whether the “change” (invention/adoption of a Byzantine text-type) having occurred as a singular “event” (“official recension”) or as a result of a process (improved, stricter copying standards) makes any difference at all, to us or to Burgon.

      Whatever that ‘process’ was, it seems to me that fundamentally it can only have either:

      (1) reigned in a wild group of texts and replaced them with a more accurate and dependable standard, or

      (2) introduced an artificial text that had no pre-existance before this, and which contains significant innovations that also did not exist before, even among the ‘wild copies’ running rampant.

      But it seems plausible that whoever is responsible for the Byzantine text, it would have been manufactured from existing variants (rightly or wrongly), and not innovative in nature at all, this being contrary to the very ethos and purpose at hand, which could not have been merely to standardize the text (a byproduct), but to correct it.

      Whether the process that created the Byzantine text-type is a slow one operating over centuries (gradual dominance), or a rapid one supervised by an individual (Lucian, Eusebius etc.) what does it matter? The intent of those doing the work was the same: correcting the text as best as knowledge and skill allowed, and the result by nature was not “innovative” (prone to generating new readings).

      Whatever the cause and timing, the process could have produced an artificial “text-type” never before in existance per se, but this text-type would be made up almost entirely of pre-existing readings.

      The conclusion is inescapable that this text-type would be a rich source of the earliest readings, and indespensible to reconstructing the original text.

      peace
      Nazaroo

  4. Nazaroo June 5, 2011 / 9:51 pm

    Majority Text: (XI): What Jerome described
    Previously, we looked at D. A. Carson’s arguments against the Majority text Probability model. These ideas I think originally came from G.D. Fee or Epp, but have also recently been restated by Daniel Wallace.

    These arguments still seem to have a psychological hold on various textual critics today, even defenders of traditional readings. For instance, James Snapp Jr. offers a variation on D.A. Carson’s argument in his proposal for an “Equitable Criticism”. Here is his statement from Part 3:

    “Many scholars and interested bystanders, noticing that the weaknesses of several of Hort’s key premises and assertions have been exposed, have been willing to consider the model of transmission-history proposed by the supporters of the Byzantine Textform – but not many have decided to embrace it. Some have irresponsibly associated it with the novel American fundamentalist doctrine of King James Onlyism.

    Others have rejected it because, despite detailed lists of principles of internal and external evidence in Dr. Robinson’s essay The Case for Byzantine Priority,15 the quality which usually determines the adoption of a variant in the approach advocated by Robinson is its attestation in over 80% of the Greek MSS. Patristic evidence and the testimony of early versions are not included in the equation of what constitutes the majority reading. Distinctive Alexandrian variants, Western variants, Caesarean variants, and even minority readings attested by the oldest Byzantine witnesses (such as parts of Codices A and W) have no chance of being adopted; generally, whenever a variant is supported by over 80% of the Greek MSS, it is adopted.

    The validity of such an approach depends upon the validity of the premise that the transmission of the text of the Gospels was free from “major disruptions.” However, major disruptions have had enormous impacts upon the transmission of the text. Roman persecutions and Roman sponsorship, wartime and peacetime, dark ages and golden ages – all these things, plus innovations and inventions related to the copying of MSS, drastically changed the circumstances in which the text was transmitted, and while all text-types were affected by them, they were not all affected to the same extent, as a review of history will show.16

    Greek fell into relative disuse in Western Europe; Constantinople became the center of eastern Greek-speaking Christendom; Islamic conquests squelched the vitality of the transmission-streams in regions where Islamic rule was imposed; copyists in or near Constantinople invented more efficient ways to copy the text. Such historical events completely invalidate results that are based on a transmission-model that assumes the non-existence of such disruptions.”

    ( – James Snapp Jr. , Equitable Eclecticism, Pt 3)

    As much as we like James’ clarity and integrity regarding many issues, we feel that here he has dropped the ball:

    In fact, not only does the Majority Reading Probability Model survive the impact of transmission anomalies, the model itself invalidates these very objections. We have previously demonstrated that imbalances in the copying quantities of various transmission lines and master-copies has no real effect on the essential outcome. We only want to underline again here, that there is no plausible mechanism or genealogical stemma that can reverse the majority of readings, causing them to switch places.

    Again, the point is, yes: one very specific and unique “major disruption” could cause the majority of majority readings to be false. We have shown precisely the model stemma required. But there is no known point in the history of the text where this could have taken place. This is because of the very evidence which survives. Two things are required:

    (1) All previous copies would have had to have been all but wiped out for a ‘false’ text to usurp the real text.
    (2) A deliberately false or bad text would have to have been substituted. A mere sample text from one or another textual line will not do. That would only favour a few errors from that line, but it could not create a significantly different text than the true one, or one based on some other impoverished but random sample.

    But this is demonstrably false. Not only are both circumstances required, but both can be shown to have never occurred.

    James gives a vague list of events supposed to have created the potential circumstances for minority and majority readings to reverse themselves. Lets look at them again:

    (1) Roman persecutions
    (2) Roman sponsorship
    (3) wartime and peacetime
    (4) Dark Ages and Golden Ages
    (5) Innovations and inventions re: copying methods
    (6) Disuse of Greek language
    (7) Constantinople becomes center of Eastern Empire
    (8) Islamic Conquests destroy textual lines
    (9) Copying efficiency significantly improves

    This is list is James’ supposed “magic bullet” that inverts majority and minority readings. The problem is, none of these separately or even all together create a any kind of plausible mechanism whereby the majority of majority readings could become minority readings, and the majority of minority readings could become majority readings.

    On the face of it, and in the deepest analysis, the list is a demonstrable failure, because it neither provides a mechanism, nor coincides with the known history of the text. We must stress this last point: its not enough, even if one can create a plausible historical mechanism that could supplant the true for the false: we ourselves have done that. You must also show that it could plausibly have happened at some specific and unique point in history, supportable by historical evidence of a very unambiguous and specific kind.

    The onus must remain on the person claiming that any of these factors, (or combination) could reverse minority and majority readings, to show how it could happen.

    The further onus must remain on that same person, also to show how it could have happened historically, either in harmony with existing evidence, or unobserved in spite of normal existing evidences.

Comments are closed.