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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Directionality Determinations

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic Cc: WSW Clarifying an Earlier Response To: Ron Price On: The Metzger Principle From: Bruce Before bothering any eminent persons, let s see if we
    Message 1 of 17 , Dec 4, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      Cc: WSW
      Clarifying an Earlier Response To: Ron Price
      On: The Metzger Principle
      From: Bruce

      Before bothering any eminent persons, let's see if we can clear up this
      matter locally. The previous discussion had gone this way:

      BRUCE: I think the sovereign principle in directionality questions,
      articulated by Metzger . . . is that "that version is original which can be
      most readily seen as giving rise to the other." . . . [This principle] opens
      judgement to all the evidence.

      RON: I don't see how you come to this conclusion. The focus is solely on the
      process of "giving rise to", i.e. on how the author of the later text might
      have edited the earlier text. There is no mention of assessing the
      plausibility of the behaviour of the author in producing the earlier text.
      This is why I say the principle is too narrow.

      [For the record, Metzger's statement on The Text of the New Testament 3ed
      p207 is more precisely the following: "choose the reading which best
      explains the origin of the others"].

      I had responded that the Metzger principle is broader because it includes,
      but does not get bogged down in, treacherous aides-memoire like "lectio
      brevior." I will here add that in my mind, and I imagine also in Metzger's,
      a satisfactory scenario for directionality in a two-version situation (or in
      any more complex situation) will include plausibility at both ends: both the
      derived and the original reading. My own practice certainly includes such
      considerations, and I have always supposed that Metzger included them also,
      or if that idea was only latent in this thinking, that he would agree to it
      if asked.

      That, at any rate, is how I have put the question in a letter to Dr Metzger,
      which goes out tomorrow morning unless I hear from Ron that I am mistaken in
      my statement of the problem, or that he after all concurs in it, or can
      clarify his previous statement as to what he perceives as the deficiency.

      Ron, how say you?

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
      http://www.umass.edu/wsp
    • John Lupia
      Seasons Greetings to All: The discussion about directionality or the order of Gospel production is unsatisfactorily broached by Metzger. The principle of :
      Message 2 of 17 , Dec 4, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Seasons Greetings to All:


        The discussion about directionality or the order of
        Gospel production is unsatisfactorily broached by
        Metzger.

        The principle of : >choose the reading which best
        explains the origin of the others< is insufficient in
        itself.

        What is lacking is something more substantive and
        determinative. For example, that which best explains
        the origin of the others would necessarily also be
        consistent in every case not just in one or two
        pericopae. Moreover, that which best explains the
        origin of the others would also consistently prove
        itself to be more primitive in EVERY CASE. By every
        case is meant, parallel texts always demonstrate the
        first published Gospel is more primitive or original
        in literary style, vocabulary, narrative imagery,
        ecclesiastical and theological symbols and meaning
        needing or requiring another Gospel to help focus and
        clarify issues left open and raised by it to the
        Church through time. This last criteria may need
        clarification in itself, so here is a concrete
        example.

        Luke 5:1-11//Mt 4:18-22//Mk 1:16:20.

        Luke is obviously more primitive and original. (Don’t
        ask since IT REALLY IS obvious. If you cannot see it
        then no discussion will ever help.) Matthew takes Luke
        and refers to Simon as the one called Peter. Mark does
        not mention this since by the time he wrote St. Peter
        was dead and a holy icon in the Church not requiring
        additional clarification for neophytes.

        Lukan priority is consistent in every single case with
        no exception. Matthew consistently borrows from Luke
        the exact same way and Mark consistently follows
        Matthew also the exact same way, in every single case.

        If anyone objectively examines each parallel they will
        find this pattern as signatures of all three Synoptic
        Authors, in every single case without any exception,
        not one.

        Best regards to all and Merry Christmas,

        John N. Lupia III



        John N. Lupia, III
        Beachwood, New Jersey 08722 USA; Beirut, Lebanon
        Fax: (732) 349-3910
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/
        God Bless America



        ____________________________________________________________________________________
        Cheap talk?
        Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
        http://voice.yahoo.com
      • Jeffrey B. Gibson
        ... Er .. how nice of you to tell us that Metzger was wrong about something he never spoke on. The principle of his that you speak of him broaching
        Message 3 of 17 , Dec 4, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          John Lupia wrote:

          > Seasons Greetings to All:
          >
          > The discussion about directionality or the order of
          > Gospel production is unsatisfactorily broached by
          > Metzger.
          >

          Er .. how nice of you to tell us that Metzger was wrong about something he never spoke
          on.

          The principle of his that you speak of him broaching unsatisfactorily is one that he
          only ever thought applied or was relevant to the text critical matter of deciding which
          of variant readings in the MSS tradition of a particular text is original..

          To say that he was intent to give a rule on how one best goes about solving source
          critical questions or the question of the relationships between the Gospels is not only
          to fundamentally misunderstand what Metzger was on about, but to misrepresent him as
          well.

          JG

          --
          Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
          1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
          Chicago, Illinois
          e-mail jgibson000@...
        • E Bruce Brooks
          To: Synoptic Cc: WSW In Response To: John Lupia On: Directionality Determinations From: Bruce JOHN: . . . Moreover, that which best explains the origin of the
          Message 4 of 17 , Dec 5, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            To: Synoptic
            Cc: WSW
            In Response To: John Lupia
            On: Directionality Determinations
            From: Bruce

            JOHN: . . . Moreover, that which best explains the origin of the others
            would also consistently prove itself to be more primitive in EVERY CASE.

            BRUCE: I think this mixes two stages that are better kept separate. If
            (first) we apply the best-scenario rule to individual points of contrast,
            say, those between some stretch of Matthew and Luke (including omissions and
            repositionings as well as variants proper), and resolve them locally as best
            we can, the next step (second) is to look at the pattern of individual
            points across the whole of the two texts being compared, and see where most
            of the arrows point. In the nature of things (passage of time, human
            fallibility, etc) we cannot expect to judge every individual case correctly.
            But the majority of the individual determinations, in favorable cases (and
            there is no guarantee that all cases we choose to examine will be
            favorable), will suffice to indicate the relationship. I take it for granted
            that the ponderantur non numerantur principle will apply in that
            adjudication.

            We have situations at the Chinese end where, of two page-long texts, one is
            an obvious adaptation and recontexting of the other. No single-word scrutiny
            is required; the relationship is really clear from the two situations. But
            if, just for practice (and I recommend practice in these matters), we sit
            down for an afternoon anyway, and compare the two, word for word, and
            adjudicate the many little local directionalities one by one, we will
            probably find (at any rate, in several such experiments I DID find) that a
            good many were indeterminate, and of those where a decision seemed possible,
            some pointed left and some pointed right. More, as it happened pointed
            right, and "right" was the answer indicated by the otherwise known history
            of the two texts. Anyway, it seems to me that it is in the second or grand
            overview stage that the general sense of these local evaluations gets
            evaluated. I don't think they can usefully be combined, any more than our
            expectations can usefully be combined with our observations. The one tends
            to overwhelm the other.

            [I remark in passing that if the texts we are comparing prove not to be
            simple; that is, if one or both are composite, then the general result of
            many correct local adjudications may be that Text B turns out to be both
            earlier and later than Text A. This situation is actually of not infrequent
            occurrence, as between the rival Chinese philosophical texts (or rather,
            compendia), and there may be signs, such as the Matthew/Luke relationship
            which has been differently resolved by different persons, that the same
            pattern may occur in the NT corpus also. For instance, a two-layer Luke (and
            this has been very seriously proposed, even if it is not in vogue at the
            present moment) might easily resolve the bidirectionality of indebtedness
            that presently leads to, or lends support to, the outside Q hypothesis].

            [I here defer to another moment discussion of John's specific three-way
            example]

            JOHN: Luke is obviously more primitive and original. (Don't ask since IT
            REALLY IS obvious. If you cannot see it
            then no discussion will ever help.)

            BRUCE: We seem to have here a new principle, superseding methodology as
            such: the lumen naturalis. Frankly, I don't trust it. Not everybody's lumen
            is equally naturalis. I am reminded of the old New Critics. What, they
            asked, was the correct reading of a text? The reading, some of them wound up
            saying, of "the right reader." Then who chooses, from among many readers,
            the "right" reader? Answer, probably: the tenure committee. But in general,
            I think this series of questions ends in a de gustibus dead end. I suspect
            the same of the present "obviously" principle. As thing stand, and as
            Synoptic readers (and indeed Synoptic partisans) are presently constituted,
            different things will seem obvious to different people. Just check the
            publications on the relationship between Matthew and the Didache. There was
            a published debate on the Date of Kaniska debate, some years back, with
            eminent scholars offering crushingly lucid and dauntingly erudite arguments
            *on both sides* of the question as it was then posed. Awesome. To think that
            exactly half of these overwhelmingly convincing arguments had to be wrong:
            boggled the mind. One could hardly conceive such a deadlock, and yet there
            it was.

            It is precisely some sort of methodology, some kit of usable experiences and
            practical guidelines, that is needed to rescue scholarship in general, and
            scholarship cumulatively, from these circles of convincement and standoffs
            of instinct. No?

            Bruce

            E Bruce Brooks
            Warring States Project
            University of Massachusetts at Amherst
            http://www.umass.edu/wsp
          • E Bruce Brooks
            To: Synoptic Cc: WSW In Response To: John Lupia On: Lk 5:11 parr From: Bruce I now go back to consider, as a practical case of text philology, the specific
            Message 5 of 17 , Dec 5, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              To: Synoptic
              Cc: WSW
              In Response To: John Lupia
              On: Lk 5:11 parr
              From: Bruce

              I now go back to consider, as a practical case of text philology, the
              specific instance cited in John Lupia's message, already answered at the
              level of general methodology.

              JOHN: Luke 5:1-11//Mt 4:18-22//Mk 1:16:20.

              BRUCE: You forgot Jn 21:3-6, and with it as much as now remains of the
              Gospel of Peter. But perhaps three will do for a start.

              Where then DO we start? John starts as follows:

              JOHN: Matthew takes Luke and refers to Simon as the one called Peter. Mark
              does not mention this since by the time he wrote St. Peter was dead and a
              holy icon in the Church not requiring additional clarification for
              neophytes.

              BRUCE: I will come back to this proposal in a moment, but I would rather
              start a little larger, with the placement rather than the wording. Fitzmyer
              (1/70) lists this passage in Luke as one of seven or eight which have been
              displaced in Luke from their sequence in Mark (and in this instance, also in
              Matthew). He says, and I quote,

              "(3) The call of four disciples (Mark 6:1-6) becomes in Luke 5:1-11 a scene
              about the role of Simon the fisherman, and acquires a more psychologically
              plausible position, depicting disciples, attracted to Jesus after a certain
              amount of ministry and preaching by him."

              I would say that the acquiring of greater psychological plausibility is a
              magnificently convincing motive for Luke to have moved this passage from
              where it stood in his source. A not implausible question for the reader of
              Mark was, Why should these guys leave their boats and their livelihoods at a
              mere word from Jesus, when Jesus has not even demonstrated any supernatural
              powers yet? He must have had tremendous personal magnetism, but even this
              the text does not tell us. Luke's answer, given by transposition of
              elements, is that there HAD been previous preaching, and miracles, by Jesus,
              which gave better preparation, to Simon and company and also for the company
              of readers, for Simon's so prompt acceptance of a quite different lifetime
              mission. It was this experience that moved Peter (in Luke, but not in Mark)
              to be in awe of Jesus, and to feel sinful in his presence; to confess him as
              Lord.

              Then, by what is either the Metzger Principle or my own (that decision is
              pending), since we can better explain the Lukan move as an improvement of
              the plausibility of Mark, than we can explain Mark as a deprovement of the
              plausibility of Luke, the order to be inferred is Mark > Luke.

              Ap 5:1 itself, Fitzmyer notes:

              "The four preceding episodes provided a view of a ministry conducted by
              Jesus himself. There he appears alone in Galilee, teaching and healing. . .
              . However, Luke not presents Jesus again in Galilee, on the short of the
              Lake of Gennesaret." Here is the small inconcinnity introduced by Luke's
              relocation of the Calling episode. We discussed several of these Lukan
              moves, including the Calling of the Disciples, previously on this list.
              Together with Fitzmyer in this instance, I don't come to a different
              conclusion now than then. I think the signs of dislocation are perceptible
              (in resulting narrative discontinuities), and that the motive for relocation
              is very convincing.

              Separately, I have previously suggested, and won't here repeat, that the
              whole Twelve element in Mark is precariously based in the text of Mark (some
              of the key instances are interpolated according to the standard test of
              interpolations, and many of the non-key instances are mere gratuitous
              mentions; inconcinnities between the Twelve and "the disciples" occur in the
              wake of these additions. From these facts I conclude that this whole element
              in Mark is interpolated and indeed prospective: it legitimates the preaching
              of a group of disciples after his death, and does not (except in one
              manifestly phony instance) exemplify it during his life. Whether or not a
              given reader is convinced by the interpolation argument (with or without
              support from the admittedly hostile Rabbinic tradition, which reports that
              the historical Jesus had five, not twelve, disciples), I think it will be
              agreed by the reflective that the Twelve have very little function in the
              lifetime of Jesus. A rude if perceptive reader might say, They are just
              waiting around for Jesus to die, at which point they suddenly understand his
              message, and go out to preach to the world.

              I think that the writer of John 21 has somewhat dealt with this objection,
              since he moves the fishing scene (which, as most will agree, is a symbol of
              successful preaching) to the posthumous period, where Jesus stages the whole
              thing over again, this time with the immediate, not (as in the other three
              Gospels) the curiously deferred, prospect of a preaching mission for the
              disciples. Of which as it happens there are seven present on this occasion,
              not twelve; but hey, nothing is perfect.

              In this larger context, I think we can see a series of motivational
              rationalizations, first the chaotic and perhaps compressed Mark, then the
              psychologically more cogent (if narratively inconcinnitous) Luke, finally
              the thematically clarified John.

              We can now go back to the wording.

              JOHN [repeated from above]: Matthew takes Luke and refers to Simon as the
              one called Peter. Mark does not mention this since by the time he wrote St.
              Peter was dead and a holy icon in the Church not requiring additional
              clarification for neophytes.

              BRUCE: The theory that Mark does not need to convey information because the
              hearers of Mark already *possessed* that information has been applied to a
              lot of Mark, including its lack of birth stories, its lack of ethical
              preaching, and now its failure to refer to Simon on first occurrence also as
              Peter. Why this argument does not also apply to the Crucifixion, which was
              surely rather prominently remembered by the faithful, yet is narrated in
              great detail by Mark, I cannot imagine. In any case, I think these arguments
              of narrative superfluity, taken together, come perilously close to depriving
              Mark of any thinkable raison d'être, and so have thought others as well. The
              explanation does not clarify Mark, it obliterates Mark. As for "Peter" in
              Mark, for what Mark may be worth, we have an internally consistent
              situation. I would summarize it as follows (but anybody can verify it from
              the concordance): Simon is first introduced as Simon, and consistently
              called Simon until the Calling of the Twelve (3:16), at which moment he is
              given the surname Peter, for reasons not stated but perhaps to distinguish
              him from "Simon the Canaanean" in that same group of twelve. Thereafter, he
              is consistently called Peter (other people in the story have the name Simon,
              among them Simon of Cyrene, not to mention Jesus's own brother, so the
              contrast is still narratively useful, and clarifies things for the reader).

              Until the very end, when in a touchingly personal and not public moment in
              the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus says, "Simon, are you asleep? Could you not
              watch one hour?" (Mk 14:37). Is there a dry eye in the house? I do not think
              that many will be inclined to object to this as an inconsistency. gMark has
              never had a Renan to bang the drum for its literary excellence, but for all
              that, it has little beauties of its own.

              Be that as it may, the explanation of why gMark does not call Simon "Peter"
              is superfluous, since gMark DOES call Simon "Peter," in places which in
              terms of the overall design of gMark are literarily appropriate. Did the
              knowledge of the audience make superfluous these "Peter" references in the
              whole of gMark? Not very evidently. Then that explanation may be
              nonfunctional also at the first appearance of Simon/Peter.

              So in this case explained directly by John, as in the other matter not taken
              up by him, I find that gMark is sufficiently convincing as a consecutive
              narrative in its own right (except at some of the places where Mark, or a
              successor in the Markan community, has added stuff for the guidance and
              edification of the later Church, meaning, for its own guidance and
              edification). And I find separately that gLuke is also very convincing, and
              that on two levels: first, as having adopted without rearrangement the
              Markan series of events, and later, for reasons explained with sufficient
              cogency by Fitzmyer, on a separate occasion (at which either aLuke himself
              or, shall we say, aLuke2 presided) rearranging some of those incidents for
              greater psychological force, sometimes at the cost of local inconcinnities
              at the places moved to, or the places moved from, or both.

              I think these shifts in Luke are well observed, well explained, and
              perfectly intelligible both before and after. It follows that Luke not only
              comes after Mark, but that Luke regarded Mark in two senses: first, as a
              narrative source, and second, as a still valuable predecessor whose actual
              story, however, could use a good deal of cleaning up.

              Since the prologue to gLuke says as much, concerning aLuke's dissatisfaction
              with his many predecessors, we have, as it were, virtually internal
              confirmation of this second attitude toward gMark and any other sources. Our
              not unnatural inference from the text is seconded by the text itself. I
              don't know how good it may get, in this business, but this example is plenty
              good enough for me.

              Bruce

              E Bruce Brooks
              Warring States Project
              University of Massachusetts at Amherst
              http://www.umass.edu/wsp
            • P.M. Head
              Readers may be interested to read the obituary for Dom Bernard Orchard, who died on November 28th (peacefully in his sleept in the early hours of the morning).
              Message 6 of 17 , Dec 5, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Readers may be interested to read the obituary for Dom Bernard Orchard, who
                died on November 28th (peacefully in his sleept in the early hours of the
                morning). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,60-2486692,00.html Dom
                Bernard Orchard May 3, 1910 - November 28, 2006
              • Ron Price
                ... Bruce, Hasn t Bruce Metzger just sold off his whole library of books? I m not sure that someone in that position would want to be answering such questions.
                Message 7 of 17 , Dec 5, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Bruce Brooks wrote:

                  > Before bothering any eminent persons, let's see if we can clear up this
                  > matter locally. .......
                  > Ron, how say you?

                  Bruce,

                  Hasn't Bruce Metzger just sold off his whole library of books? I'm not sure
                  that someone in that position would want to be answering such questions.

                  Then there is the problem of which Jeffrey Gibson has reminded the list,
                  namely that Metzger's principle was enunciated in the context of Textual
                  Criticism, whereas we have been discussing Source Criticism.

                  As far as I know, Text Critics rarely do more than speculate about the broad
                  characteristics of any non-extant text supposed to lie behind two divergent
                  extant texts. This is in marked contrast to some Source Critic proponents of
                  Q. Can we learn something from this? The comparison of Source Critical
                  methodology with Text Critical methodology sounds like a good subject for a
                  thesis.

                  So even if we had an authoritative answer from your namesake, it would not
                  necessarily be definitive for Source Criticism.

                  Ron Price

                  Derbyshire, UK

                  Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                • E Bruce Brooks
                  To: Synoptic Cc: WSW In Response To: Ron Price About: Bruce Metzger and the Basic Principle of Text Philology From: Bruce RON: Hasn t Bruce Metzger just sold
                  Message 8 of 17 , Dec 5, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    To: Synoptic
                    Cc: WSW
                    In Response To: Ron Price
                    About: Bruce Metzger and the Basic Principle of Text Philology
                    From: Bruce

                    RON: Hasn't Bruce Metzger just sold off his whole library of books?

                    BRUCE: Yes, or at any rate many of them. Not necessarily the core basics.

                    RON: I'm not sure that someone in that position would want to be answering
                    such questions.

                    BRUCE: No harm trying. At least the folks at Princeton Theological Seminary
                    did not discourage me from making contact; on the contrary, they advised me
                    of the channel which he himself prefers. That preference is being respected.
                    If Metzger prefers not to answer, all he need do is simply not answer. And
                    if he cares to give it, the opinion of someone with that much experience of
                    the subject would probably be worth knowing. No?

                    RON: Then there is the problem of which Jeffrey Gibson has reminded the
                    list, namely that Metzger's principle was enunciated in the context of
                    Textual Criticism, whereas we have been discussing Source Criticism.

                    BRUCE: I dislike capitalizing, and by implication hypostatizing, what ought
                    to be different tools in the same kit. It breaks up the discipline
                    unhelpfully. But it's perfectly correct that Metzger articulated his
                    principle at the beginning of a discussion of standard text critical
                    (variant-discrimination) guidelines. The issue is whether he would
                    countenance an extension to cases where the priority of texts is being
                    discussed in the absence of manuscript variants. I think it is a fair and
                    straightforward methodological question. Doesn't everybody?

                    RON: As far as I know, Text Critics rarely do more than speculate about the
                    broad characteristics of any non-extant text supposed to lie behind two
                    divergent extant texts. This is in marked contrast to some Source Critic
                    proponents of Q. Can we learn something from this? The comparison of Source
                    Critical methodology with Text Critical methodology sounds like a good
                    subject for a thesis.

                    BRUCE: Or for daily work, which is where I am trying to apply it. I can only
                    agree that, with some notable exceptions, one often observes a weakness in
                    what NT and even OT scholars do when manuscript variants are not available
                    to adjudicate, and that in general, not only in NT, the treatment of what
                    lies *behind* the text-critical archetype has not been as well considered as
                    the treatment of what *leads back* to the archetype. My suggestion, not only
                    to NT but to philology at large, is that the same large principles apply to
                    both cases, and can yield useful results in both cases. Whether that
                    suggestion is original with me or not is a matter of less import, though
                    since it has come up, I join with what I take to be the list consensus in
                    thinking that it is not fair to hang it on Metzger if he himself is
                    uncomfortable with it.

                    On that small point of honor and citation precision, then, I hope to report
                    presently. Thanks to Ron and others for their timely and clarifying
                    responses, on such short notice.

                    Bruce

                    E Bruce Brooks
                    Warring States Project
                    University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                    http://www.umass.edu/wsp
                  • Chuck Jones
                    Hey John, Are you arguing for the priority of Luke? And you didn t mention it when I first asked the question in the thread named Why not Mt used Lk? You
                    Message 9 of 17 , Dec 5, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hey John,

                      Are you arguing for the priority of Luke? And you didn't mention it when I first asked the question in the thread named Why not Mt used Lk? You tease.....

                      Chuck

                      Rev. Chuck Jones
                      Atlanta, Georgia

                      John Lupia wrote:
                      Lukan priority is consistent in every single case with
                      no exception. Matthew consistently borrows from Luke
                      the exact same way and Mark consistently follows
                      Matthew also the exact same way, in every single case.

                      If anyone objectively examines each parallel they will
                      find this pattern as signatures of all three Synoptic
                      Authors, in every single case without any exception,
                      not one.




                      .





                      ---------------------------------
                      Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Stephen C. Carlson
                      ... Thanks for that. Along with William R. Farmer, he was one of the 20th century s most influential proponents of the Griesbach or, as he put it,
                      Message 10 of 17 , Dec 5, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 11:12 AM 12/5/2006 +0000, P.M. Head wrote:
                        >Readers may be interested to read the obituary for Dom Bernard Orchard, who
                        >died on November 28th (peacefully in his sleept in the early hours of the
                        >morning). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,60-2486692,00.html Dom
                        >Bernard Orchard May 3, 1910 - November 28, 2006

                        Thanks for that. Along with William R. Farmer, he was one of the 20th
                        century's most influential proponents of the Griesbach or, as he put it,
                        "Two-Gospel" hypothesis. May he rest in peace.

                        Stephen Carlson

                        --
                        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                        Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                        Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
                      • John Lupia
                        I see you agree with me about misapplications of Textual Criticism (TC) criteria to that of Source Criticism (SC), first voiced by me four years ago next
                        Message 11 of 17 , Dec 5, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I see you agree with me about misapplications of
                          Textual Criticism (TC) criteria to that of Source
                          Criticism (SC), first voiced by me four years ago next
                          month.

                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/synoptic-l/message/8946

                          However, this is not necessarily the case here with
                          this example drawn from Metzger, Text of the NT,
                          Chapter VIII, 207 >Choose the reading which best
                          explains the origin of the others. <

                          Metzger never gives an example that explains what is
                          meant by this principle. What follows is a so-called
                          example based on variant editions of Bunyon, Pilgrims
                          Progress, but it completely fails to demonstrate the
                          principle and instead shows that a good bibliographer
                          finding a first edition can compare it to the later
                          ones to see which words of the texts were altered
                          later on. The principle Metzger gives is nowhere to be
                          found in Chapter VIII.

                          He gives as a second criteria on the same page : The
                          reconstruction of the history of a variant reading is
                          prerequisite to forming a judgment about it. (judgment
                          is misspelled in the text). Again, the example is like
                          the first. This time it involves a variant in a
                          Dictionary. Two principles that show the same sort of
                          example, i. e., one a bibliographer could solve. What
                          is really happening is VALUE JUDGMENTS. Metzger
                          assumes the variant in Bunyon is due to an editor
                          removing what is offensive or embarrassing, and the
                          second example about the Dictionary entry was a
                          scribal reading error. If we follow the implied value
                          judgment approach to reading Metzger the first
                          principle >Choose the reading which best explains the
                          origin of the others. < involves those Gospel passages
                          where later editors removed what was then considered
                          offensive or embarrassing. This not only explains the
                          variant MSS history of an individual Gospel but
                          explains why four Gospels evolved. So what on the
                          surface appears to be an innocent principle of TC
                          criteria potentially could be used to explain the
                          Synoptic Problem.

                          Following the Gospel of Mark we find the so-called
                          Criterion of embarrassment about the apostles, Peter,
                          and so on. The later editors (Matthew and Luke)
                          removed what was then considered offensive or
                          embarrassing in their new Gospel versions. This has
                          been a Markan priority argument, and the fundamental
                          principle is found in Metzger cited above from page
                          207!

                          I also plainly see you agree with me that Metzger
                          never satisfactorily broached the subject of
                          directionality regarding the order of Gospel
                          production. As a text critic (TC) he does consider it
                          in evaluating internal evidence so we cannot say he
                          NEVER spoke about it. (cf. Textual Commentary on the
                          Greek NT, 14).

                          That the construction of Mk 1:2 is less embarrassing
                          than Mt 27:9 (cf. Text of the NT, 199) perhaps, might
                          reflect his preference or bias toward Markan priority.
                          (Ironically, this example is a good piece of evidence
                          to show that Matthew is not written after Mark but
                          prior to.)

                          This possible Markan priority bias may have surfaced
                          again when discussing assimilation of wording among
                          parallels in later variant editions of MSS he shows
                          how the wording of Matthew conforms to that of Mark.
                          (cf. Text of the NT, 193).

                          To come as close as one can get to the original text
                          certainly involves considerations about the order of
                          Gospel production that impact TC evaluations of
                          variant readings. Even a point of view about
                          ecclesiology and theology enters into the evaluation
                          of texts to arrive at the original text. The TC can
                          never be sterile from assumptions and presuppositions
                          about the HJ the time lag between the death of the HJ
                          and first written records, and so on. Source critical
                          considerations have direct impact on how a TC
                          evaluates MSS.

                          Cheers,

                          John




                          --- "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...>
                          wrote:

                          >
                          >
                          > John Lupia wrote:
                          >
                          > > Seasons Greetings to All:
                          > >
                          > > The discussion about directionality or the order
                          > of
                          > > Gospel production is unsatisfactorily broached by
                          > > Metzger.
                          > >
                          >
                          > Er .. how nice of you to tell us that Metzger was
                          > wrong about something he never spoke
                          > on.
                          >
                          > The principle of his that you speak of him broaching
                          > unsatisfactorily is one that he
                          > only ever thought applied or was relevant to the
                          > text critical matter of deciding which
                          > of variant readings in the MSS tradition of a
                          > particular text is original..
                          >
                          > To say that he was intent to give a rule on how one
                          > best goes about solving source
                          > critical questions or the question of the
                          > relationships between the Gospels is not only
                          > to fundamentally misunderstand what Metzger was on
                          > about, but to misrepresent him as
                          > well.
                          >
                          > JG
                          >
                          > --
                          > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                          > 1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                          > Chicago, Illinois
                          > e-mail jgibson000@...
                          >
                          >
                          >


                          John N. Lupia, III
                          Beachwood, New Jersey 08722 USA; Beirut, Lebanon
                          Fax: (732) 349-3910
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/
                          God Bless America



                          ____________________________________________________________________________________
                          Do you Yahoo!?
                          Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
                          http://new.mail.yahoo.com
                        • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                          ... Well, if you claimed that this was a misapplication, and that Metzger himself was not advocating or engaging in such a misapplication, why then did you
                          Message 12 of 17 , Dec 5, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            John Lupia wrote:

                            > I see you agree with me about misapplications of
                            > Textual Criticism (TC) criteria to that of Source
                            > Criticism (SC), first voiced by me four years ago next
                            > month.

                            Well, if you claimed that this was a misapplication, and that Metzger himself was not
                            advocating or engaging in such a misapplication, why then did you claim otherwise, as
                            you certainly seem to have done, when you asserted that "The discussion about
                            directionality or the order of Gospel production is unsatisfactorily broached by
                            Metzger"?


                            > I also plainly see you agree with me that Metzger
                            > never satisfactorily broached the subject of
                            > directionality regarding the order of Gospel
                            > production.

                            I agree with you that he didn't broach the subject. But I do **not** agree that he
                            never "satisfactorily broached" the subject, since it was not his intent to do so one
                            way or the other. Why are you chastising him for unsatisfactorily doing something that
                            he never did, that was beyond the purview of what he was doing, and was never something
                            he ever intended to do?

                            > As a text critic (TC) he does consider it
                            > in evaluating internal evidence so we cannot say he
                            > NEVER spoke about it. (cf. Textual Commentary on the
                            > Greek NT, 14).
                            >

                            Here is p. 14 from Metzger's Textual Commentary (2nd ed.). I an unable to detect where
                            on this page Metzger does what you say he does. Perhaps, you'd be so kind as to use
                            those fine eyes of yours that are so adept at spotting (alleged) spelling mistakes, and
                            point out to me what my aging eyes do not see.


                            GAMHSH) in order to make the construction parallel to the preceding
                            participial clause (hO APOLUWN). The omission of the words KAI ... MOICATAI (D
                            ita, b, d, k Greek and Latin mssacc. to Augustine) may be due to pedantic
                            scribes who regarded them as superfluous, reasoning that if “everyone who
                            divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress
                            [when she remarries],” then it would go without saying that “whoever marries a
                            divorced woman [also] commits adultery.”

                            5.44 (bis) {A}
                            Later witnesses enrich the text by incorporating clauses from the parallel
                            account in Lk 6.27–28. If the clauses were originally present in Matthew’s
                            account of the Sermon on the Mount, their omission in early representatives of
                            the Alexandrian (? B), Western (itk Irenaeuslat Cyprian), Eastern (syrc, s),
                            and Egyptian (copsa, bo) witnesses would be entirely unaccountable. The
                            divergence of readings among the added clauses likewise speaks against their
                            originality.

                            5.47 {B}
                            In later witnesses, followed by the Textus Receptus, the reading TELWNAI
                            appears to have been substituted for EQNIKOI in order to bring the statement
                            into closer parallelism with the preceding sentence. The Armenian version
                            conflates the reading with the Lukan form of the saying (Lk 6.32–34).

                            6.4 The Textus Receptus, following D E M S W Xvid Delta Pi Sigma phi 28 565
                            1241 al, introduces AUTOS (“himself”) before APODWSEI, and other ...


                            JG
                            --
                            Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                            1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                            Chicago, Illinois
                            e-mail jgibson000@...



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • John Lupia
                            ... Jeffrey: I owe you an apology for taxing your aging eyes. It was my scribal error of accepting a text as trustworthy that led to this mistake and my sloth
                            Message 13 of 17 , Dec 6, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...>
                              wrote:

                              > > As a text critic (TC) he does consider it
                              > > in evaluating internal evidence so we cannot say
                              > he
                              > > NEVER spoke about it. (cf. Textual Commentary on
                              > the
                              > > Greek NT, 14).
                              > >
                              >
                              > Here is p. 14 from Metzger's Textual Commentary (2nd
                              > ed.). I an unable to detect where
                              > on this page Metzger does what you say he does.
                              > Perhaps, you'd be so kind as to use
                              > those fine eyes of yours that are so adept at
                              > spotting (alleged) spelling mistakes, and
                              > point out to me what my aging eyes do not see.
                              >


                              Jeffrey:

                              I owe you an apology for taxing your aging eyes. It
                              was my scribal error of accepting a text as
                              trustworthy that led to this mistake and my sloth in
                              not checking the source myself to verify it. I found
                              the wrong citation in my notes drawn from a discussion
                              years ago on another list by one of the moderators of
                              this list who enjoys TC. Anyway, the error is mine and
                              it should have read page xxviii (in the Corrected
                              edition, 1975) in the discussion on II. Internal
                              Evidence (Criteria) 2 (b) The priority of the Gospel
                              according to Mark. However, I did say it was Metger's
                              criteria for evaluating Internal Evidence, which
                              should have led to the discovery of my misquoting the
                              page number.

                              So, as we can all see, it is abundantly and amply
                              clear that Metzger and the Committee of TC voters on
                              the text were indeed influenced by Markan priority,
                              take Markan priority as FACT, allow it to shape, color
                              and form their thinking when they evaluate texts to
                              make their determinations and final decisions
                              regarding the textual traditions and choose which
                              among them (in their way of thinking) comes closest to
                              the original.

                              Cheers,


                              John

                              John N. Lupia, III
                              Beachwood, New Jersey 08722 USA; Beirut, Lebanon
                              Fax: (732) 349-3910
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/
                              God Bless America



                              ____________________________________________________________________________________
                              Do you Yahoo!?
                              Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
                              http://new.mail.yahoo.com
                            • Chuck Jones
                              John, I was kidding. I m glad you weighed in. Is there a book or other resource you could recommend to me to learn more about arguments for Lukan priority?
                              Message 14 of 17 , Dec 6, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                John,

                                I was kidding. I'm glad you weighed in. Is there a book or other resource you could recommend to me to learn more about arguments for Lukan priority?

                                Thanks,

                                Chuck

                                Rev. Chuck Jones
                                Atlanta, Georgia

                                John Lupia <jlupia2@...> wrote:

                                --- Chuck Jones wrote:

                                > Hey John,
                                >
                                > Are you arguing for the priority of Luke?


                                Yes.



                                And you
                                > didn't mention it when I first asked the question in
                                > the thread named Why not Mt used Lk? You tease.....


                                Teasing is not my motive, but rather, lack of time.

                                Best regards,

                                John



                                ---------------------------------
                                Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Stephen C. Carlson
                                ... Gordon Fee wrote a couple of articles applying text critical methods to source criticism: Gordon D. Fee, Modern Text Criticism and the Synoptic Problem
                                Message 15 of 17 , Dec 6, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  At 11:42 AM 12/5/2006 +0000, Ron Price wrote:
                                  >As far as I know, Text Critics rarely do more than speculate about the broad
                                  >characteristics of any non-extant text supposed to lie behind two divergent
                                  >extant texts. This is in marked contrast to some Source Critic proponents of
                                  >Q. Can we learn something from this? The comparison of Source Critical
                                  >methodology with Text Critical methodology sounds like a good subject for a
                                  >thesis.

                                  Gordon Fee wrote a couple of articles applying text critical methods
                                  to source criticism:

                                  Gordon D. Fee, "Modern Text Criticism and the Synoptic Problem" in
                                  Orchard & Longstaff, eds., J.J. GRIESBACH: Synoptic and Text-Critical
                                  Studies 1776-1976 (SNTSMS 34; Cambridge: 1978), 154-169.

                                  Gordon D. Fee, "A Text-Critical Look at the Synoptic Problem," NovT 22
                                  (1980): 12-28.

                                  Gordon D. Fee, "Modern Textual Criticism and Synoptic Problem" in
                                  Epp & Fee, eds., STUDIES IN THE THEORY AND METHOD OF NEW TESTAMENT
                                  TEXTUAL CRITICISM (SD 45; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993), 174-182.

                                  Stephen Carlson
                                  --
                                  Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                                  Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                                  Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
                                • John Lupia
                                  Hi Chuck: You can take a look at the following articles and book: Richard H. Anderson, Theophilus: A Proposal, Evangelical Quarterly, 69:3, (1997), 195-215.
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Dec 6, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hi Chuck:

                                    You can take a look at the following articles and
                                    book:

                                    Richard H. Anderson, "Theophilus: A Proposal,"
                                    Evangelical Quarterly, 69:3, (1997), 195-215.

                                    Robert L. Lindsey, "A New Approach to the Synoptic
                                    Gospels," MISHKAN, No. 17-18 (1992-1993) : 87-106.

                                    William Lockton, The Resurrection and Other Gospel
                                    Narratives; and, The Narratives of the Virgin Birth:
                                    Two essays / by W. Lockton. (London : Longmans, Green,
                                    and Co., 1924).


                                    Best regards,
                                    John


                                    --- Chuck Jones <chuckjonez@...> wrote:

                                    > John,
                                    >
                                    > I was kidding. I'm glad you weighed in. Is there
                                    > a book or other resource you could recommend to me
                                    > to learn more about arguments for Lukan priority?
                                    >
                                    > Thanks,
                                    >
                                    > Chuck
                                    >
                                    > Rev. Chuck Jones
                                    > Atlanta, Georgia
                                    >
                                    > John Lupia <jlupia2@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > --- Chuck Jones wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > Hey John,
                                    > >
                                    > > Are you arguing for the priority of Luke?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Yes.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > And you
                                    > > didn't mention it when I first asked the question
                                    > in
                                    > > the thread named Why not Mt used Lk? You
                                    > tease.....
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Teasing is not my motive, but rather, lack of time.
                                    >
                                    > Best regards,
                                    >
                                    > John
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ---------------------------------
                                    > Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a
                                    > more powerful email and get things done faster.
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                                    > removed]
                                    >
                                    >




                                    ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                    Cheap talk?
                                    Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
                                    http://voice.yahoo.com
                                  • E Bruce Brooks
                                    To: Synoptic Cc: WSW In Response To: John Lupia On: Directionality Criteria (Metzger et al) From: Bruce John had earlier noted that in Bruce Metzger s Textual
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Dec 8, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      To: Synoptic
                                      Cc: WSW
                                      In Response To: John Lupia
                                      On: Directionality Criteria (Metzger et al)
                                      From: Bruce

                                      John had earlier noted that in Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the
                                      Greek New Testament (1971 page xxvii, and 1994 page 14*, not to be confused
                                      with plain page 14), it is explicitly stated that among the Intrinsic
                                      Probabilities which make up section B of "internal evidence" we find "The
                                      priority of the Gospel according to Mark." I agree with John that this is
                                      improper. More specifically, it is a mixing of levels. It is the job of text
                                      criticism (as I see it) to eliminate from the text any later corruptions,
                                      but ONLY later corruptions, so that the texts (refined as the respective
                                      archetypes) are then available to be examined for signs of internal growth
                                      and mutual influence in the second stage of the process. It is at the
                                      outcome of this second stage, not during it (or a like impropriety has taken
                                      place) that we may, if so the evidence suggests, speak of the Priority of
                                      Mark.

                                      So technically, yes. But in practice, the practice of the UBS Committee, how
                                      often is this criterion actually invoked? I haven't searched systematically,
                                      but I don't recall seeing an example in the individual commentaries which I
                                      have accessed for other reasons. Can anyone provide an example? I note also
                                      that J K Elliot's sometimes harsh criticisms of the editorial procedures
                                      revealed in this Commentary did not seem to include (as methodologically
                                      they might have) an objection to this particular criterion.

                                      John provides his own example of possible abuse as follows:

                                      "That the construction of Mk 1:2 is less embarrassing than Mt 27:9 (cf. Text
                                      of the NT, 199) perhaps, might
                                      reflect his preference or bias toward Markan priority. (Ironically, this
                                      example is a good piece of evidence
                                      to show that Matthew is not written after Mark but prior to)."

                                      The issue here is wrong attributions of OT quotations in NT, which seem to
                                      be cleaned up and corrected in later copies of both Mk and Mt. Ironically or
                                      no, there is no directionality indicator here as between Mk and Mt, only the
                                      fact that in what look like the earliest versions of the texts of BOTH those
                                      Gospels, the writers were somewhat lax about their sources, and that their
                                      later readers were inclined to change their text to what a learned and
                                      leisurely person, with a concordance or coming off a lifetime of study,
                                      would have written. This is a tendency that applies, at least as Metzger
                                      seems here to be applying it, to Mk, to Mt, and in principle to anything
                                      else in sight.

                                      As for the directionality principle that wrong attributions tend to be
                                      corrected over time into right attributions, and that the quotations
                                      themselves tend to get made more accurate (and in some cases, that what look
                                      like memories of the Hebrew text tend to get normalized to the Septuagint
                                      translation of the Hebrew text), I don't see anything wrong with it. No
                                      doubt it is conceivable that an ignorant scribe, seeing a properly
                                      attributed Zechariah quote in the text before him, might have said, Oh no,
                                      that sounds more like Jeremiah, and changed it accordingly in his copy. Or
                                      changed it to Isaiah, easily the most prominent, and in NT the most quoted,
                                      of the prophets. But surely the weight of probability, if we are assessing
                                      probability, lies in the other direction. No?

                                      Bruce

                                      E Bruce Brooks
                                      Warring States Project
                                      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                                      http://www.umass.edu/wsp
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.