Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Anyone reading the conference papers? I want to discuss age of reconstructed Mk

Expand Messages
  • Tim.Lewis
    This apparently never arrived...I ll try again... Given that most of the conference papers are to be found uploaded at:
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 10, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      This apparently never arrived...I'll try again...
      Given that most of the conference papers are to be found uploaded at:
      http://users.ox.ac.uk/~rege0695/papers.htm
      (main page: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~rege0695/index.htm)
      we could easily discuss here many of the points discussed at the conference.

      I've just finished reading Tuckett's "Current State of the Synoptic Problem" and Foster's "The M-Source: Its History and Demise in Biblical Studies." I'm currently wondering about the relative age of our respective recontructed Gospels, i.e. Isn't our recontructed text of Mark later than that for Matthew and/or Luke? I have yet to see any discussion of this but I'm about to read Boring's paper ("The 'minor agreements' and their bearing on the synoptic problem") which hopefully discusses it.

      It was Randall Buth's recent post which caught my attention:
      "Textual Criticism and Synoptics, the Case of EUQUS"
      http://alefandomega.blogspot.com/2008/04/textual-criticism-and-synoptics-case-of.html
      a slightly shorter version is found at:
      http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2008/04/textual-criticism-and-synoptics-case-of.html

      Tim
      http://sourcetheory.blogspot.com/

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... Peter Head has a paper on Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem, but I m not sure he discusses the relative ages of the reconstructed texts of Mark,
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 10, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        "Tim.Lewis" <tim.lewis.au@...> wrote:
        >I've just finished reading Tuckett's "Current State of the
        >Synoptic Problem" and Foster's "The M-Source: Its History
        >and Demise in Biblical Studies." I'm currently wondering
        >about the relative age of our respective recontructed Gospels,
        >i.e. Isn't our recontructed text of Mark later than that
        >for Matthew and/or Luke? I have yet to see any discussion
        >of this but I'm about to read Boring's paper ("The 'minor
        >agreements' and their bearing on the synoptic problem")
        >which hopefully discusses it.

        Peter Head has a paper on Textual Criticism and the Synoptic
        Problem, but I'm not sure he discusses the relative ages of
        the reconstructed texts of Mark, Matthew, and Luke.

        Stephen Carlson


        --
        Stephen C. Carlson
        Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
        Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: Synoptic In Response To: Tim Lewis, Stephen Carlson On: Age of the Reconstructed Gospels From: Bruce STEPHEN: Peter Head has a paper on Textual Criticism
        Message 3 of 8 , Apr 10, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          To: Synoptic
          In Response To: Tim Lewis, Stephen Carlson
          On: Age of the "Reconstructed Gospels"
          From: Bruce

          STEPHEN: Peter Head has a paper on Textual Criticism and the Synoptic
          Problem, but I'm not sure he discusses the relative ages of the
          reconstructed texts of Mark, Matthew, and Luke.

          BRUCE: Hard to be sure, for two reasons:

          1. The paper is headed "ROUGH DRAFT (incomplete in the final sections)."
          Perhaps Peter, who I think is present on this list, could testify directly
          as to his own opinion?

          2. What is meant by "reconstructed gospels?" The text as in the latest
          Nestle-Aland?

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks
          Warring States Project
        • Tim.Lewis
          In Boring s paper mention is made of T. F. Glasson s 20 instances in which MAs are represented by the Western text of Mark. I guess this means Matthew &
          Message 4 of 8 , Apr 11, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            In Boring's paper mention is made of T. F. Glasson's "20 instances in which
            MAs are represented by the 'Western' text of Mark." I guess this means
            Matthew & Luke use a Western text of Mark (whereas NA27 relies more so on
            Alexandrian text types for reconstructing each of the synoptic Gospels). I'm
            guessing the jury is still out on which text types are earliest.
            Three questions:
            (1) can we say something yet about the relative 'age' of our eclectic texts
            for each Gospel?
            (2) do we know which text types currently dominate in our critical
            recontruction of each of the Gospels?
            (3) has anyone studied this (or planning to?) in relation to the synoptic
            problem?

            I'm about to have a closer look at Peter Head's draft paper.
            Cheers,
            Tim

            -----

            "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...> wrote:

            Peter Head has a paper on Textual Criticism and the Synoptic
            Problem, but I'm not sure he discusses the relative ages of
            the reconstructed texts of Mark, Matthew, and Luke.

            Stephen Carlson


            --
            Stephen C. Carlson
            Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
            Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor,
            2005)
          • Tim.Lewis
            In answer to Bruce s second question (what is meant by reconstructed gospels? ): yes, it refers to text critics best attempts at reproducing the alleged
            Message 5 of 8 , Apr 11, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              In answer to Bruce's second question (what is meant by "reconstructed gospels?"): yes, it refers to text critics' best attempts at reproducing the alleged 'earliest' texts (i.e. autographs of Mark, Matthew & Luke) i.e. NA27(+).
              Cheers,
              Tim
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: E Bruce Brooks
              To: synoptic@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 3:07 PM
              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Anyone reading the conference papers? I want to discuss age of reconstructed Mk


              To: Synoptic
              In Response To: Tim Lewis, Stephen Carlson
              On: Age of the "Reconstructed Gospels"
              From: Bruce

              STEPHEN: Peter Head has a paper on Textual Criticism and the Synoptic
              Problem, but I'm not sure he discusses the relative ages of the
              reconstructed texts of Mark, Matthew, and Luke.

              BRUCE: Hard to be sure, for two reasons:

              1. The paper is headed "ROUGH DRAFT (incomplete in the final sections)."
              Perhaps Peter, who I think is present on this list, could testify directly
              as to his own opinion?

              2. What is meant by "reconstructed gospels?" The text as in the latest
              Nestle-Aland?

              Bruce

              E Bruce Brooks
              Warring States Project





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • E Bruce Brooks
              To: Synoptic In Response To: Tim Lewis On: Reconstructed Gospels From: Bruce TIM: In answer to Bruce s second question (what is meant by reconstructed
              Message 6 of 8 , Apr 11, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                To: Synoptic
                In Response To: Tim Lewis
                On: Reconstructed Gospels
                From: Bruce

                TIM: In answer to Bruce's second question (what is meant by "reconstructed
                gospels?"): yes, it refers to text critics' best attempts at reproducing the
                alleged 'earliest' texts (i.e. autographs of Mark, Matthew & Luke) i.e.
                NA27(+).

                BRUCE: OK. If I rephrase the question this way:

                "what is the relative age of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as we know them via
                Nestle-Aland 27?"

                am I asking the same question? Otherwise, I think one is simply asking for
                the publication date of NA27. I would proposed to answer it thus:

                "The order of the final compositional versions of these texts is Mark,
                Matthew, Luke."

                Whether right or wrong in fact, does this qualify, in form, as an answer to
                the question?

                Tim's original question was: "Isn't our reconstructed text of Mark later
                than that for Matthew and/or Luke?" I still find that perplexing. The signs
                in the text (as known via the most up-to-date text criticism) seem still to
                point to the conclusion that Mark is earlier than both Matthew and Luke.

                Peter Head (mentioned by Stephen Carlson in his reply, not by Tim) on p259
                of his book has this: "Our first and perhaps most obvious conclusion is that
                *the traditional Christological argument for Markan priority is fatally
                flawed and unable to support on its own the priority of Mark in relation to
                Matthew*" [his italics, my capitalization]. It might then seem that he
                claims to have refuted Markan Priority. Not at all. His second and third
                conclusions are:

                [2] "*the data we have surveyed provide little encouragement for modern
                defenders of the Griesbach hypothesis.*" [ditto]

                [3] "*the Christological argument, if transformed in such a way as to focus
                on the positive redactional interests of the Evangelists, provides powerful
                support for Markan priority.*" [ditto]

                Peter's Oxford paper (cited by Stephen) seems minus its conclusion, but much
                of what is extant does discuss the effect of text criticism on Synoptic
                theory, particularly the fact that certain text critical decisions affect
                the number of "minor agreements" to be dealt with by that theory. That is,
                some MA are referred, by some text critics, to subsequent scribal
                corruption, and not to the respective supposed originals (or better,
                archetypes). I don't get the impression that Peter thinks that the MA vanish
                as an issue, but we should let him speak for himself, presumably in the form
                of a more complete draft. (Perhaps he already has; I notice that Oxford has
                not freshened this portion of its web side since the middle of March).

                Bruce

                E Bruce Brooks
                Warring States Project
                University of Massachusetts at Amherst
              • Tim.Lewis
                No, I was not suggesting that the Gospel of Mark postdated either Matthew or Luke. I was asking if, having better and/or earlier witnesses to the texts of
                Message 7 of 8 , Apr 11, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  No, I was not suggesting that the Gospel of Mark postdated either Matthew or Luke. I was asking if, having better and/or earlier witnesses to the texts of Matthew and Luke, whether our reconstructed/critical text of Mark (NA27) more likely reflected a later text than what we have been able to do for Matthew & Luke. I.e. whether our reconstruction of Mark gets us, say, a reasonable mid-3rd century resemblance, while our recontructions of Mt & Lk push us half a century or so earlier? Has anyone made use of such an argument before? Perhaps this is more so a text critical question which would better suit a different E-list?
                  Cheers,
                  Tim


                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: E Bruce Brooks
                  To: synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 6:11 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Anyone reading the conference papers? I want to discuss age of reconstructed Mk


                  To: Synoptic
                  In Response To: Tim Lewis
                  On: Reconstructed Gospels
                  From: Bruce

                  TIM: In answer to Bruce's second question (what is meant by "reconstructed
                  gospels?"): yes, it refers to text critics' best attempts at reproducing the
                  alleged 'earliest' texts (i.e. autographs of Mark, Matthew & Luke) i.e.
                  NA27(+).

                  BRUCE: OK. If I rephrase the question this way:

                  "what is the relative age of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as we know them via
                  Nestle-Aland 27?"

                  am I asking the same question? Otherwise, I think one is simply asking for
                  the publication date of NA27. I would proposed to answer it thus:

                  "The order of the final compositional versions of these texts is Mark,
                  Matthew, Luke."

                  Whether right or wrong in fact, does this qualify, in form, as an answer to
                  the question?

                  Tim's original question was: "Isn't our reconstructed text of Mark later
                  than that for Matthew and/or Luke?" I still find that perplexing. The signs
                  in the text (as known via the most up-to-date text criticism) seem still to
                  point to the conclusion that Mark is earlier than both Matthew and Luke.

                  Peter Head (mentioned by Stephen Carlson in his reply, not by Tim) on p259
                  of his book has this: "Our first and perhaps most obvious conclusion is that
                  *the traditional Christological argument for Markan priority is fatally
                  flawed and unable to support on its own the priority of Mark in relation to
                  Matthew*" [his italics, my capitalization]. It might then seem that he
                  claims to have refuted Markan Priority. Not at all. His second and third
                  conclusions are:

                  [2] "*the data we have surveyed provide little encouragement for modern
                  defenders of the Griesbach hypothesis.*" [ditto]

                  [3] "*the Christological argument, if transformed in such a way as to focus
                  on the positive redactional interests of the Evangelists, provides powerful
                  support for Markan priority.*" [ditto]

                  Peter's Oxford paper (cited by Stephen) seems minus its conclusion, but much
                  of what is extant does discuss the effect of text criticism on Synoptic
                  theory, particularly the fact that certain text critical decisions affect
                  the number of "minor agreements" to be dealt with by that theory. That is,
                  some MA are referred, by some text critics, to subsequent scribal
                  corruption, and not to the respective supposed originals (or better,
                  archetypes). I don't get the impression that Peter thinks that the MA vanish
                  as an issue, but we should let him speak for himself, presumably in the form
                  of a more complete draft. (Perhaps he already has; I notice that Oxford has
                  not freshened this portion of its web side since the middle of March).

                  Bruce

                  E Bruce Brooks
                  Warring States Project
                  University of Massachusetts at Amherst





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Peter M. Head
                  Here is the relevant portion of the slightly less rough draft. Basically on these terms I agree with Tim, but with the nuance that we treat all three somewhat
                  Message 8 of 8 , Apr 11, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Here is the relevant portion of the slightly less
                    rough draft. Basically on these terms I agree
                    with Tim, but with the nuance that we treat all
                    three somewhat individually. (And this has
                    relevance to examining proposals for treating the
                    minor agreements on the basis of non-harmonised
                    readings in early versions of Mark, for example).

                    I have already mentioned something
                    of the new materials discovered and published in
                    the first half of the twentieth century. In some
                    ways, the century of the papyri has passed the
                    synoptic problem by without making any
                    particularly significant impact. While Matthew is
                    well served in terms of the number of early
                    fragments on papyrus from the late second and
                    early third century (P104 = POxy 4404; P64+67;
                    P103 = POxy 4403; P77 = POxy 2683&4405), not very
                    much text is extant in these four witnesses.
                    Indeed, judging by extant manuscripts up to the
                    fourth century Matthew (along with John) was one
                    of the most popular texts, extant in up to
                    seventeen manuscripts, but most of these are only
                    a portion of a single leaf, and in three cases
                    (which includes P45) fragmentary portions of two
                    leaves remain. Of course any evidence is
                    important, and the extant fragments can tell us
                    something about the relative popularity of the
                    gospels (at least in Egypt), about the formats
                    and contents of codices etc., but for the text of
                    Matthew as a whole we remain dependent on the fourth century uncials.
                    This is even more the case for Mark.
                    One of the striking results from the last hundred
                    years has been the lack of fulfilment of the
                    looked for event which Turner mentioned – the
                    hope that earlier manuscripts of Mark would
                    emerge from the period before the major uncials.
                    Indeed, with respect to the text of Mark our
                    knowledge has barely moved in a hundred years. In
                    the period before the uncials we have only a
                    single manuscript: P45, a mid-third century
                    codex, originally containing the four gospels and
                    Acts, but now extant in only 155 verses, or
                    approximately one quarter of Mark.[1] Even then
                    this includes the maximal figure, since most of
                    the Mark pages are considerably damaged. It is
                    notable that if we take Oxyrhynchus material
                    alone we have 13 copies of Matthew; 14 copies of
                    John; 2 copies of Luke and none of Mark.[2]
                    Unlike the other gospels then, we have no access
                    to evidence of Mark before or outside of its
                    inclusion into this (and then later) four gospel
                    codices (unlike the other gospels). In fact the
                    absence of Mark’s Gospel becomes a datum of
                    significance which is both significant in its own
                    right and also cries out for explanation
                    (assuming, as I think we must, that this is not
                    simply a random kind of variation).
                    Only for Luke do we have early papyri with
                    extensive amounts of text (esp. P75, but also P4
                    and P45: 7 leaves; 5 mss in total for II-IV); and
                    even more so for John (P66, P75: twenty mss in total from II-IV).
                    Clearly it is a vital concern of NT textual
                    criticism to study this early material (as well
                    as the early patristic citations) in order to
                    understand the transmission of the text back into
                    the second century, but the fact remains that our
                    knowledge of the text of Matthew and more
                    especially Mark in the second - third centuries is extremely limited.


                    [1] 4.36-40; 5.15-26; 5.38-6.3, 16-25, 36-50;
                    7.3-15; 7.25-8.1, 10-26; 8.34-9.9, 18-31; 11.27-12.1, 5-8, 13-19, 24-28.
                    [2] Matthew (13 copies), Luke (2 copies), John
                    (14 copies), Acts (3 copies), Romans (4 copies),
                    1 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1-2
                    Thessalonians, Hebrews (3 copies), James (3
                    copies), 1 John, Jude, and Revelation (3 copies).


                    At 09:41 11/04/2008, Tim.Lewis wrote:
                    >No, I was not suggesting that the Gospel of Mark
                    >postdated either Matthew or Luke. I was asking
                    >if, having better and/or earlier witnesses to
                    >the texts of Matthew and Luke, whether our
                    >reconstructed/critical text of Mark (NA27) more
                    >likely reflected a later text than what we have
                    >been able to do for Matthew & Luke. I.e. whether
                    >our reconstruction of Mark gets us, say, a
                    >reasonable mid-3rd century resemblance, while
                    >our recontructions of Mt & Lk push us half a
                    >century or so earlier? Has anyone made use of
                    >such an argument before? Perhaps this is more so
                    >a text critical question which would better suit a different E-list?
                    >Cheers,
                    >Tim
                    >
                    >
                    >----- Original Message -----
                    >From: E Bruce Brooks
                    >To: synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                    >Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 6:11 PM
                    >Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Anyone reading the
                    >conference papers? I want to discuss age of reconstructed Mk
                    >
                    >
                    >To: Synoptic
                    >In Response To: Tim Lewis
                    >On: Reconstructed Gospels
                    >From: Bruce
                    >
                    >TIM: In answer to Bruce's second question (what is meant by "reconstructed
                    >gospels?"): yes, it refers to text critics' best attempts at reproducing the
                    >alleged 'earliest' texts (i.e. autographs of Mark, Matthew & Luke) i.e.
                    >NA27(+).
                    >
                    >BRUCE: OK. If I rephrase the question this way:
                    >
                    >"what is the relative age of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as we know them via
                    >Nestle-Aland 27?"
                    >
                    >am I asking the same question? Otherwise, I think one is simply asking for
                    >the publication date of NA27. I would proposed to answer it thus:
                    >
                    >"The order of the final compositional versions of these texts is Mark,
                    >Matthew, Luke."
                    >
                    >Whether right or wrong in fact, does this qualify, in form, as an answer to
                    >the question?
                    >
                    >Tim's original question was: "Isn't our reconstructed text of Mark later
                    >than that for Matthew and/or Luke?" I still find that perplexing. The signs
                    >in the text (as known via the most up-to-date text criticism) seem still to
                    >point to the conclusion that Mark is earlier than both Matthew and Luke.
                    >
                    >Peter Head (mentioned by Stephen Carlson in his reply, not by Tim) on p259
                    >of his book has this: "Our first and perhaps most obvious conclusion is that
                    >*the traditional Christological argument for Markan priority is fatally
                    >flawed and unable to support on its own the priority of Mark in relation to
                    >Matthew*" [his italics, my capitalization]. It might then seem that he
                    >claims to have refuted Markan Priority. Not at all. His second and third
                    >conclusions are:
                    >
                    >[2] "*the data we have surveyed provide little encouragement for modern
                    >defenders of the Griesbach hypothesis.*" [ditto]
                    >
                    >[3] "*the Christological argument, if transformed in such a way as to focus
                    >on the positive redactional interests of the Evangelists, provides powerful
                    >support for Markan priority.*" [ditto]
                    >
                    >Peter's Oxford paper (cited by Stephen) seems minus its conclusion, but much
                    >of what is extant does discuss the effect of text criticism on Synoptic
                    >theory, particularly the fact that certain text critical decisions affect
                    >the number of "minor agreements" to be dealt with by that theory. That is,
                    >some MA are referred, by some text critics, to subsequent scribal
                    >corruption, and not to the respective supposed originals (or better,
                    >archetypes). I don't get the impression that Peter thinks that the MA vanish
                    >as an issue, but we should let him speak for himself, presumably in the form
                    >of a more complete draft. (Perhaps he already has; I notice that Oxford has
                    >not freshened this portion of its web side since the middle of March).
                    >
                    >Bruce
                    >
                    >E Bruce Brooks
                    >Warring States Project
                    >University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >------------------------------------
                    >
                    >Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    Peter M. Head, PhD
                    Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                    Tyndale House
                    36 Selwyn Gardens
                    Cambridge CB3 9BA
                    01223 566601
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.