Re: [Synoptic-L] Directionality Determinations
- 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 broadGordon Fee wrote a couple of articles applying text critical methods
>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
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
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 C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
- Hi Chuck:
You can take a look at the following articles and
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).
--- Chuck Jones <chuckjonez@...> wrote:
> 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?
> Rev. Chuck Jones
> Atlanta, Georgia
> John Lupia <jlupia2@...> wrote:
> --- Chuck Jones wrote:
> > Hey John,
> > Are you arguing for the priority of Luke?
> And you
> > didn't mention it when I first asked the question
> > the thread named Why not Mt used Lk? You
> Teasing is not my motive, but rather, lack of time.
> Best regards,
> 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
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
- To: Synoptic
In Response To: John Lupia
On: Directionality Criteria (Metzger et al)
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
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?
E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst