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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Directionality Determinations

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.