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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Directionality Determinations

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 17 , Dec 5, 2006
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 17 , Dec 5, 2006
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 17 , Dec 6, 2006
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 17 , Dec 6, 2006
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 17 , Dec 6, 2006
            View Source
            • 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 6 of 17 , Dec 6, 2006
              View Source
              • 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 7 of 17 , Dec 8, 2006
                View Source
                • 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.