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

Re: [Synoptic-L] The Critical Edition of Q

Expand Messages
  • Peter M. Head
    In my previous posting I was really just trying to obey our moderator s advice not always to take everything so seriously. I m still in the closet on Q. Why
    Message 1 of 21 , May 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      In my previous posting I was really just trying to obey our moderator's
      advice not always to take everything so seriously. I'm still in the closet
      on Q. Why don't we wait until we can get our hands on this new critical Q
      volume (and maybe Kloppenborg's Excavating) and organise a proper Q
      e-seminar in this forum? Presumably even unbelievers (in Q that is) would
      value working through the evidence/arguments. I suppose we could do it now
      (there is no shortage of argument already!), but it needs a bit of
      direction and organisation (maybe a guest star).

      What do you think?


      Peter


      Dr. Peter M. Head
      Tyndale House
      36 Selwyn Gardens
      Cambridge CB3 9BA
      Tel: 01223 566607
      Fax: 01223 566608
      email: pmh15@...
    • Mark Goodacre
      ... Apologies if my previous post on the topic sounded unduly intense. I did enjoy your jokey post about the topic very much but nevertheless found myself
      Message 2 of 21 , May 1, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        On 1 May 00, at 10:04, Peter M. Head wrote:

        > In my previous posting I was really just trying to obey our moderator's
        > advice not always to take everything so seriously. I'm still in the closet
        > on Q.

        Apologies if my previous post on the topic sounded unduly intense.
        I did enjoy your jokey post about the topic very much but
        nevertheless found myself wondering how a member of the IQP
        would react to it. After all, these people spend a large amount of
        time working on the assumption not only that this text exists but
        also that it can be reconstructed in minute detail. I wonder how
        they would react if indeed it becomes clear that, after all, Q is
        horse feathers?

        >Why don't we wait until we can get our hands on this new critical
        > Q
        > volume (and maybe Kloppenborg's Excavating) and organise a proper Q
        > e-seminar in this forum? Presumably even unbelievers (in Q that is) would
        > value working through the evidence/arguments. I suppose we could do it now
        > (there is no shortage of argument already!), but it needs a bit of
        > direction and organisation (maybe a guest star).
        >
        > What do you think?

        I think it is a cracking idea! You might be interested to hear that
        Prof. Kloppenborg has already kindly agreed to take part in an on-
        line seminar focused on his _Excavating Q_. It is scheduled for a
        three week period beginning on September 11 and there will be
        more details anon. "Watch this space"!

        Happy May day

        Mark
        ---------------------------
        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
        Dept of Theology
        University of Birmingham Fax.: +44 (0)121 414 6866
        Birmingham B15 2TT Tel.: +44 (0)121 414 7512

        http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
        All-in-One Biblical Resources Search
        New Testament Gateway
        Mark Without Q
        Aseneth Home Page
      • Jim West
        ... i picked up my copy at the SBL. ... apparatus? It has an excellent and thorough apparatus (though i havent yet compared it to NA). ... TC matters are ...
        Message 3 of 21 , Nov 22, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          At 05:22 PM 11/22/00 +0100, you wrote:
          >Has anybody seen this yet?

          i picked up my copy at the SBL.

          >I would like to know if it has a GOOD (and independent of NA?) textcritical
          apparatus?

          It has an excellent and thorough apparatus (though i havent yet compared it
          to NA).

          >The book is quite expensive ($60) and I would probably buy it only if the
          TC matters are
          >treated -ehm- adequately.

          it was 45$ at the meeting. You can still get it at that price if you are a
          member of the sbl and tell them you want the discount when you order.

          best,

          jim

          ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

          Jim West, ThD
          Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology
          Adjunct Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Hudson College

          http://web.infoave.net/~jwest


          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Brian E. Wilson
          Stephen Carlson wrote -- ... The language being used here seems to suggest that the IQP have in fact been reconstructing Q and that there is an existing text
          Message 4 of 21 , Nov 23, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Stephen Carlson wrote --
            >
            >Its apparatus is designed to document the method and
            >judgments of the IQP team in their reconstruction of Q. For
            >example, the CEQ includes sigla for delimiting the discrete
            >"variation units" the IQP used for analyzing the Q text.
            >
            The language being used here seems to suggest that the IQP have in fact
            been reconstructing Q and that there is an existing text of Q. Is this
            not rather begging the question of whether Q ever existed?

            If Q never existed, the IQP have not reconstructed Q, and the text of Q
            has in no way been analysed, however many judgements have been
            documented and however discrete variation units have been delimited.

            Chuck Schartz asked, "How you can have a 'critical edition' of a
            hypothetical document that doesn't exist?" Part of the answer is surely
            that a critical edition of Q is possible only on the assumption that at
            some time in the past Q did exist.

            The corollary is that if it is assumed that Q never existed, which is a
            reasonable enough assumption, then we cannot have a critical edition of
            Q at all, and "The Critical Edition of Q" is not what it says it is.

            Best wishes,
            BRIAN WILSON

            Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK

            E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk
            _

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            ... I believe that I have accurately characterized the CEQ. I am fully aware that Q is hypothetical and I am not interested in getting into word games about
            Message 5 of 21 , Nov 23, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              At 07:42 PM 11/23/00 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
              >Stephen Carlson wrote --
              >>Its apparatus is designed to document the method and
              >>judgments of the IQP team in their reconstruction of Q. For
              >>example, the CEQ includes sigla for delimiting the discrete
              >>"variation units" the IQP used for analyzing the Q text.
              >>
              >The language being used here seems to suggest that the IQP have in fact
              >been reconstructing Q and that there is an existing text of Q. Is this
              >not rather begging the question of whether Q ever existed?

              I believe that I have accurately characterized the CEQ. I am
              fully aware that Q is hypothetical and I am not interested in
              getting into word games about it.

              Stephen Carlson
              --
              Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
              Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
              "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Steven Craig Miller
              To: Brian E. Wilson, But Q does exist, in
              Message 6 of 21 , Nov 23, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                To: Brian E. Wilson,

                << Chuck Schartz asked, "How you can have a 'critical edition' of a
                hypothetical document that doesn't exist?" >>

                But Q does exist, in fact, I have a number of copies of it in my library
                right at this present moment. Gosh, don't you? <grin> Whether or not Q
                existed in the 1st century, it exists today as a hypothesis. A "critical
                edition" of Q is no more silly than a synopsis for Q or a concordance for Q
                or a book discussing the "theology of Q" etc. A hypothetical document does
                exist, and one can indeed have a critical edition of this hypothetical
                document. In fact, in a very real sense, all critical editions to even the
                New Testament are hypothetical documents! As you well know, all the
                original texts of the NT have been lost. The difference between the
                hypothetical nature of a Q text and the hypothetical nature of the NT text
                is merely one of degree. In either case, one always runs the risk (such is
                the nature of working with a hypothesis) of working with a text which never
                had existence in the 1st century.

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



                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Brian E. Wilson
                Steven Miller wrote -- ... If all the manuscript witnesses to the text of the books of the NT had been lost, then I would have agreed with your conclusion,
                Message 7 of 21 , Nov 24, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  Steven Miller wrote --
                  >
                  >As you well know, all the original texts of the NT have been lost. The
                  >difference between the hypothetical nature of a Q text and the
                  >hypothetical nature of the NT text is merely one of degree.
                  >
                  If all the manuscript witnesses to the text of the books of the NT had
                  been lost, then I would have agreed with your conclusion, since then the
                  NT books would be hypothetical in the sense in which Q is hypothetical.

                  As it is we have thousands of manuscript witnesses to the text of the
                  books of the NT and absolutely none to the text of hypothetical Q. As
                  Mark Goodacre put this in his most recent posting --
                  >
                  >There are no witnesses to Q in the same sense that there are
                  >witnesses to the texts of Matthew, Luke and the other gospels. In
                  >other words, there [is] no ancient document that witnesses to a
                  >document with the character and parameters of the hypothetical Q.
                  >
                  The point is that the manuscript evidence we have is perfectly
                  consistent with Q never having existed.

                  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.

                  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.
                  Redaction-criticism proceeds by first assuming a source hypothesis and
                  applying this to the synoptic gospels in order to attempt to trace how
                  writers have used sources, and from this eventually to try and discover
                  the special theological emphases of those writers. The book "The
                  Critical Edition of Q" is the result of redaction-critics applying the
                  2DH to Matthew and Luke in order to discover how, on the assumption the
                  2DH is true, Matthew and Luke used their supposed source material, Q.
                  The "documented decisions" of the writers of CEQ record their redaction-
                  critical decisions of how Matthew and Luke used source material, on the
                  assumption that the Two Document Hypothesis is true.

                  Best wishes,
                  BRIAN WILSON

                  E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

                  Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                  > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                  > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                  _

                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Steven Craig Miller
                  To: Brian E. Wilson,
                  Message 8 of 21 , Nov 24, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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@...
                  • John C. Poirier
                    I may be wrong, but I always thought that the term critical edition was to be taken as a single idea, *viz.* that what is critical is the work of
                    Message 9 of 21 , Nov 24, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I may be wrong, but I always thought that the term "critical edition" was to
                      be taken as a single idea, *viz.* that what is "critical" is the work of
                      "edition", and that the work so designated was therefore implied to be a
                      "text-critical" edition. Am I wrong, or are there examples of other
                      non-text-critical "critical editions" of works?

                      Has the IQP invented a new genre of reference work?

                      I wonder who is responsible for the title of this book. A title like "The
                      Scholar's Edition of Q" would have been much better.


                      John C. Poirier
                      Middletown, Ohio


                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Steven Craig Miller" <scmiller@...>
                      To: <Synoptic-L@...>
                      Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 3:54 PM
                      Subject: [Synoptic-L] The Critical Edition of Q


                      > 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@...
                      >


                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Brian E. Wilson
                      Steven Miller wrote -- ... Brian Wilson commented -- ... Steven Miller replied -- ... Steven, There is no laughing or poking fun at anything or anyone in what
                      Message 10 of 21 , Nov 25, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Steven Miller wrote --
                        >As you well know, all the original texts of the NT have been lost. The
                        >difference between the hypothetical nature of a Q text and the
                        >hypothetical nature of the NT text is merely one of degree.

                        Brian Wilson commented --
                        >If all the manuscript witnesses to the text of the books of the NT had
                        >been lost, then I would have agreed with your conclusion, since then
                        >the NT books would be hypothetical in the sense in which Q is
                        >hypothetical. As it is we have thousands of manuscript witnesses to the
                        >text of the books of the NT and absolutely none to the text of
                        >hypothetical Q...
                        >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.

                        Steven Miller replied --
                        >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.

                        Steven,
                        There is no laughing or poking fun at anything or anyone in what
                        I wrote. If my statement appears silly maybe this is because it has been
                        mis-understood. The "straw man" I am supposed to have created just for
                        the fun of knocking down, may characterize your view-point, not mine.

                        As quoted above, at the top, you state that the difference between the
                        hypothetical nature of a text of Q and the hypothetical nature of the NT
                        text is merely one of degree. The hypothetical nature of the NT text,
                        however, is the consequence of there being differing manuscript
                        witnesses to that text so that any reconstruction of the text is usually
                        accompanied by a critical apparatus showing the variants. From this and
                        your statement, however, it follows that a text of Q must also be
                        capable of being set out as a possible reconstruction with a critical
                        apparatus showing observed variants, ****otherwise the difference
                        between the hypothetical nature of Q and the hypothetical nature of the
                        NT text would NOT be merely one of degree, but would be a difference in
                        kind****.

                        It is just not the case, however, that a text of Q is capable of being
                        set out as a reconstruction of the document Q with a critical apparatus
                        showing variants between the manuscripts of the document Q. In fact,
                        such an attempt at a text-critical critical text 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 variations within that
                        evidence.

                        The "straw man" of a text-critical critical text of Q is therefore an
                        implication of your statement concerning the difference between the
                        hypothetical nature of a text of Q and the hypothetical nature of the NT
                        text being merely one of degree. If I am knocking down a straw man, it
                        would appear to be one that characterizes your stated view. The "straw
                        man" is implied by your "merely one of degree" statement.

                        You also wrote--
                        >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.

                        Agreed. The "**text-critical** critical edition of Q" is an implication
                        of your stated view, not of the book.

                        >As such [the CEQ] does not contain only blank pages, but rather a
                        >thoughtful working out of their hypothesis.

                        Yes. As I suggested (not Mark Goodacre), the book CEQ is the product of
                        **redaction criticism** of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke on the
                        assumption that the Two Document Hypothesis is true. (I think Mark
                        Goodacre suggested that CEQ may be the product of source criticism of
                        the synoptic gospels.)

                        >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.

                        I leave others on this List to judge who has produced an overtly
                        partisan caricature or been disrespectful and grossly unfair (or silly).

                        I think one thing that has come out of this thread is that it seems that
                        attempting to establish the text of Q on the assumption that the Two
                        Document Hypothesis is true, is not a task for text-criticism, since
                        there can be no text-critical text of the hypothetical document Q.

                        The question seems to be whether establishing the text of Q on the
                        assumption of the Two Document Hypothesis is a task for the source
                        critic, or for the redaction critic.

                        Best wishes,
                        BRIAN WILSON

                        E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

                        Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                        > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                        > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                        _

                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • Steven Craig Miller
                        To: Brian E. Wilson,
                        Message 11 of 21 , Nov 25, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          To: Brian E. Wilson,

                          << As quoted above, at the top, you state that the difference between the
                          hypothetical nature of a text of Q and the hypothetical nature of the NT
                          text is merely one of degree. >>

                          And I would still concur with that statement.

                          << The hypothetical nature of the NT text, however, is the consequence of
                          there being differing manuscript witnesses to that text so that any
                          reconstruction of the text is usually accompanied by a critical apparatus
                          showing the variants. From this and your statement, however, it follows
                          that a text of Q must also be capable of being set out as a possible
                          reconstruction with a critical apparatus showing observed variants ... >>

                          Now you are trying to be silly again, this time by trying to put words into
                          my mouth. I NEVER said that they were the SAME hypothesis, nor even that
                          they were SIMILAR hypotheses. I never suggested that Q could be
                          reconstructed with a critical apparatus showing observed variants. What I
                          wrote was:

                          SCM: << The difference between the hypothetical nature of a Q text and the
                          hypothetical nature of the NT text is merely one of degree. >>

                          I'm fully aware that they are different KINDS of reconstruction,
                          nonetheless, they are both hypothetical reconstructions with some degree of
                          being probable. Since they are both hypotheses, the difference in NATURE of
                          such hypotheses I deemed to be merely one of degree. The point I was trying
                          to make, and the point you missed with your straw man rhetoric, was that
                          even if one holds that the RECONSTRUCTION of the NT has a higher degree of
                          probability than the RECONSTRUCTION of Q, the difference is merely a matter
                          of degree. As I wrote in my earlier message, the original texts of the NT
                          are lost, what we have today is merely a hypothetical reconstruction.

                          << I think one thing that has come out of this thread is that it seems that
                          attempting to establish the text of Q on the assumption that the Two
                          Document Hypothesis is true, is not a task for text-criticism, since there
                          can be no text-critical text of the hypothetical document Q. >>

                          Obviously, but it is also a boring moot point since no one has ever
                          suggested that one could make a text-critical text of the hypothetical
                          document Q.

                          I apologize for missing the point that you were poking fun at me (instead
                          of the authors of the CEQ) and so it was wrong for me to assume that you
                          were poking fun at them. For that I apologize. Nonetheless, I still find
                          your rhetoric out of place for a form devoted to academic scholarship.
                          Instead of trying to force words into my mouth, it would have been more
                          respectful and civil for you to ask me to clarify my point.

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



                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        • Brian E. Wilson
                          Steven Miller wrote -- ... This a quite different point. Best wishes, BRIAN WILSON E-mail; brian@twonh.demon.co.uk HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk Rev
                          Message 12 of 21 , Nov 25, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Steven Miller wrote --
                            >
                            >The point I was trying to make, and the point you missed with your
                            >straw man rhetoric, was that even if one holds that the RECONSTRUCTION
                            >of the NT has a higher degree of probability than the RECONSTRUCTION of
                            >Q, the difference is merely a matter of degree.

                            This a quite different point.

                            Best wishes,
                            BRIAN WILSON

                            E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

                            Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                            > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                            > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                            _

                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          • Steven Craig Miller
                            To: Brian E. Wilson, SCM:
                            Message 13 of 21 , Nov 25, 2000
                            • 0 Attachment
                              To: Brian E. Wilson,

                              SCM: << The point I was trying to make, and the point you missed with your
                              straw man rhetoric, was that even if one holds that the RECONSTRUCTION of
                              the NT has a higher degree of probability than the RECONSTRUCTION of Q, the
                              difference is merely a matter of degree. >>

                              BEW: << This a quite different point. >>

                              Precisely!

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



                              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                            • Steven Craig Miller
                              To: John C. Poirier,
                              Message 14 of 21 , Nov 25, 2000
                              • 0 Attachment
                                To: John C. Poirier,

                                << I may be wrong, but I always thought that the term "critical edition"
                                was to be taken as a single idea, *viz.* that what is "critical" is the
                                work of "edition", and that the work so designated was therefore implied to
                                be a "text-critical" edition. Am I wrong, or are there examples of other
                                non-text-critical "critical editions" of works? >>

                                I believe that you are correct that the term "critical edition" often, or
                                usually, implies a text-critical edition.

                                << Has the IQP invented a new genre of reference work? >>

                                How many hypothetical reconstructions of (supposedly) non-extant texts have
                                you read?

                                << I wonder who is responsible for the title of this book. A title like
                                "The Scholar's Edition of Q" would have been much better. >>

                                Gesh ... does the title really deserve such nitpicking? Perhaps I'm
                                mistaken, but it seemed to me that some of the criticism I read directed
                                against the title of this book, "The Critical Edition of Q," was merely a
                                not-so-veiled partisan disgust for another book on the Q hypothesis. After
                                all, the merits of this reconstruction surely don't stand and fall with the
                                title of their book, yes? Or is it that some people are so unaware that the
                                term "critical" has more than one meaning? I will note that the 10th
                                edition of "Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary" gives the following
                                meaning for the term "critical":

                                << d : including variant readings and scholarly emendations (a ~ edition) >>

                                But it also includes:

                                << c : exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation >>.

                                To me, the title "The Critical Edition of Q" is perfectly intelligible, the
                                objections to this title seem narrow minded and partisan, I can't imagine
                                why intelligent people should complain about it.

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



                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                              • John C. Poirier
                                ... Perhaps there is something of disgust in my objection, but it is not a disgust for yet another book about Q. It is a disgust for another book written
                                Message 15 of 21 , Nov 26, 2000
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Steven Craig Miller wrote:

                                  > Gesh ... does the title really deserve such nitpicking? Perhaps I'm
                                  > mistaken, but it seemed to me that some of the criticism I read directed
                                  > against the title of this book, "The Critical Edition of Q," was merely a
                                  > not-so-veiled partisan disgust for another book on the Q hypothesis.

                                  Perhaps there is something of "disgust" in my objection, but it is not a
                                  disgust for yet another book about Q. It is a disgust for another book
                                  written from the James M. Robinson viewpoint, in which Q is regarded as a
                                  perfectly secure hypothesis, with an uncritical disdain for those of us who
                                  still regard the Synoptic Question as an open one. If this book had been
                                  written by the European community of Q scholars, it would not have been
                                  called a "critical edition," because only the North Americans are pretending
                                  that Q has established beyond all doubt.

                                  All I'm asking is for North American Q scholars to come down off their high
                                  horse.


                                  John C. Poirier
                                  Middletown, Ohio





                                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                • Steven Craig Miller
                                  To: John C. Poirier,
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Nov 26, 2000
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    To: John C. Poirier,

                                    << Perhaps there is something of "disgust" in my objection, but it is not a
                                    disgust for yet another book about Q. It is a disgust for another book
                                    written from the James M. Robinson viewpoint, in which Q is regarded as a
                                    perfectly secure hypothesis, with an uncritical disdain for those of us who
                                    still regard the Synoptic Question as an open one. If this book had been
                                    written by the European community of Q scholars, it would not have been
                                    called a "critical edition," because only the North Americans are
                                    pretending that Q has established beyond all doubt. >>

                                    I don't know if it is fair to criticizes Robinson merely because he doesn't
                                    want to spend his time endlessly debating the merit of Q. And as for the
                                    article "the" in the title, I have no idea who is to blame for that, but it
                                    sounds less pretentious than Westcott and Hort's "The New Testament in the
                                    Original Greek," but whatever. The one thing which often bothers me is
                                    putting the word "new" in the title, like: "The New Cambridge Modern
                                    History." Volume one of this work was published in 1957. It really isn't so
                                    "new" any more. <grin>

                                    << All I'm asking is for North American Q scholars to come down off their
                                    high horse. >>

                                    Gosh, I love these equestrian metaphors. It almost makes me want to put on
                                    my cowboy hat and swagger around the house for awhile. But I wonder, isn't
                                    it the North American scholars' turn to ride this high horse? The Germans
                                    got to ride it, then the Brits, isn't it the North American scholars' turn?
                                    (I apologize to those in other countries. I realize this isn't fair. But
                                    your nation needs to be a superpower in order for your scholars to ride a
                                    "high horse.")

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



                                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.