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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Directionality Determinations

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 17 , Dec 4, 2006
      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 2 of 17 , Dec 5, 2006
        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 3 of 17 , Dec 5, 2006
          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 4 of 17 , Dec 5, 2006
            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 5 of 17 , Dec 5, 2006
              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 6 of 17 , Dec 5, 2006
                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 7 of 17 , Dec 5, 2006
                  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 8 of 17 , Dec 5, 2006
                    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 9 of 17 , Dec 5, 2006
                      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 10 of 17 , Dec 5, 2006
                        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 11 of 17 , Dec 6, 2006
                          --- "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 12 of 17 , Dec 6, 2006
                            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 13 of 17 , Dec 6, 2006
                              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 14 of 17 , Dec 6, 2006
                                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 15 of 17 , Dec 8, 2006
                                  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.