THE VARIANT THAT BEST EXPLAINS --> MIND-READING THE SCRIBES
One of the weirdest, wildest and wackiest analysis explanations in modern textcrit was summarized by Gordon Fee:
"One criterion above all others superintends the scholar's choice at any point of textual variation: the variant that best explains the origin of all the others is most likely original. In order to "best explain the origin of the others,"
You can be forgiven for being confused by his documentation, but the reason he cut the sentence short here is because Fee modifies his original comment with "there are two factors that scholars must consider: external evidence (the MSS themselves) and internal evidence (having to do with the authors or scribes)."
What Fee is saying here is simply standard TC.
Starting around 1995, this got big play in all the textual books.
Yes, folks, a standard of TC since 1734 is the fault of a guy in 1993....
Looking for the origin of this nonsensical "superintends", we notice that Fee points the finger at Greenlee and Metzger.
1) A person using inflammatory language like "points the finger" is not someone really interested in learning anything or having a discussion; it's someone spoiling for a fight. Furthermore, all Fee said was to read their books - he did not say "they started it."
2) If Avery would simply have read the VERY BOOK HE WAS CITING, he would have learned on page 146 that it was Bengel who said this.
The people whom Avery was asking were too kind to mock him with this, but all of them who knew the resource he was citing also knew the book he was claiming to have read answered his question.
Today this has become the keynote for mind-reading the scribes and special pleading, as well as many logical fails, such as not even seeing when there is a symmetry in how variants can arise.
Good luck following this level of nonsense. Nobody is talking about mind-reading scribes in a vacuum. (Bear in mind - Avery HIMSELF has no problem mind-reading Augustine and suggesting that he actually had the Comma Johanneum in his text but intentionally didn't quote it).
So my question is .. when and by whom did this concept begin?
On page 146 of the book you cite, it says Bengel. GORDON FEE HIMSELF says Bengel.
Metzger? And was it an extrapolation from an earlier construction?
If you had read the book you claim elicited the question, you'd know the answer.
Why didn't you finish reading the book first?
Possibly this is a takeoff from other theories like: "prociivi scripioni pracsiat ardua (the harder reading is to be preferred). And "lectio brevior lectio potior" (the shorter reading is more probable.)
I'm not sure why you said this other than to demonstrate how little you know about the subject.
Where, telephone style one garble leads to more mangling.
1) LIBERALS use the argument you're using here - not conservatives - because liberals want to make the claim all these changes happened.
2) There is no "telephone style" given the multiple lines of transmission.
However, where and how did this arise as a fundamental concept.
For the third time, it was Bengel in 1734. And for the third time, it's on page 146 of the work you're citing.
I've found that confused textcrits (like a gentleman who studied under Daniel Wallace) often fall back on this over all real evidences.
1) That's impossible because the quotation very explicitly MENTIONS both internal and external evidence.
2) If you're referring to me - I at least have enough brains to read the book before I post on the internet and make a fool of myself.