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

[Synoptic-L] Bernard Orchard

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.