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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 21 , May 1, 2000
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 21 , Nov 22, 2000
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 21 , Nov 23, 2000
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 21 , Nov 23, 2000
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 21 , Nov 23, 2000
            View Source
            • 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 6 of 21 , Nov 24, 2000
              View Source
              • 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 7 of 21 , Nov 24, 2000
                View Source
                • 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 8 of 21 , Nov 24, 2000
                  View Source
                  • 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 9 of 21 , Nov 25, 2000
                    View Source
                    • 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 10 of 21 , Nov 25, 2000
                      View Source
                      • 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 11 of 21 , Nov 25, 2000
                        View Source
                        • 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 12 of 21 , Nov 25, 2000
                          View Source
                          • 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 13 of 21 , Nov 25, 2000
                            View Source
                            • 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 14 of 21 , Nov 26, 2000
                              View Source
                              • 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 15 of 21 , Nov 26, 2000
                                View Source
                                • 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.