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

5244[Synoptic-L] The Critical Edition of Q

Expand Messages
  • Steven Craig Miller
    Nov 24, 2000
      To: Brian E. Wilson,

      << You seem not to realize that on the basis of text criticism alone, Q is
      a nonsense, since there are no manuscripts of a document answering to the
      description of Q as defined by the Two Document Hypothesis. A
      **text-critical** critical edition of Q would consist of blank pages with
      no text and no critical apparatus, for there is no manuscript evidence for
      a document Q, and no manuscript variations within that evidence. >>

      Your statement appears very silly and out of place in a form devoted to
      academic scholarship. You've created a straw man with your "text-critical
      critical edition of Q" and then you laugh and poke fun at how silly it
      looks with blank pages.

      << Mark Goodacre suggests that "the reconstruction of Q by the IQP, in
      spite of its immense skill, care, energy and sophistication, essentially
      remains a piece of source-criticism; it is not text-criticism." I agree
      that it is not text-criticism. It seems to me to be an application of a
      documentary hypothesis (the 2DH) to the gospels of Matthew and Luke to
      determine how, on the assumption that the 2DH is true, they treated their
      supposed source material. I would suggest therefore that the findings of
      the IQP are in fact **redaction-criticism** of Matthew and Luke on the
      basis of the 2DH. >>

      Of course, I'm unaware that it claims to be anything but that. It is
      obviously redaction criticism and not text-criticism as such. They don't
      claim to have found lost manuscripts of Q, rather they claim to have
      reconstructed Q based on redaction criticism and the Two Source hypothesis.
      The CEQ doesn't present itself as a "text-critical critical edition of Q,"
      but rather as a critical edition of their reconstruction of Q. As such it
      does not contain only blank pages, but rather a thoughtful working out of
      their hypothesis.

      Personally, I have my reservations as to its usefulness, even for those who
      accept the Two Source hypothesis. But your overtly partisan caricature of
      the CEQ is disrespectful and grossly unfair.

      -Steven Craig Miller
      Alton, Illinois (USA)
      scmiller@...



      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Show all 21 messages in this topic