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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Directionality Determinations

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.