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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Bernard Orchard

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.