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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Directionality Determinations

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.