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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Critical Edition of Q

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... I d think that your comments would have more cogency if the title were A Text Critical Edition of Q. But, by itself, the word critical only means that
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      At 08:55 AM 3/31/01 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:

      >The work is a fine very scholarly attempt to reconstruct the text of Q
      >on the assumption that the Two Document Hypothesis is true. It is not a
      >critical text of Q, since if Q existed no manuscripts of it have
      >survived, and, in any case, Q may never have existed at all. A critical
      >edition of Q would have all its pages blank.

      I'd think that your comments would have more cogency if the
      title were "A Text Critical Edition of Q." But, by itself,
      the word "critical" only means that rigorous thought went
      into producing the edition of Q.

      >I have been trying to think of an alternative title that would fit the
      >contents of the published book. What about "The Reconstruction of Q" ?

      Your title is fine, because that's what it is. There's also
      "A Source Critical Edition of Q".

      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@...
    • Brian E. Wilson
      ... Stephen Carlson replied -- ... Stephen, I agree that the cogency of my comments would be even greater if the title were A Text Critical Edition of Q . I
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        >Brian Wilson wrote--
        >
        >The work is a fine very scholarly attempt to reconstruct the text of Q
        >on the assumption that the Two Document Hypothesis is true. It is not a
        >critical text of Q, since if Q existed no manuscripts of it have
        >survived, and, in any case, Q may never have existed at all. A critical
        >edition of Q would have all its pages blank.
        >
        Stephen Carlson replied --
        >
        >I'd think that your comments would have more cogency if the title were
        >"A Text Critical Edition of Q." But, by itself, the word "critical"
        >only means that rigorous thought went into producing the edition of Q.
        >
        Stephen,
        I agree that the cogency of my comments would be even greater
        if the title were "A Text Critical Edition of Q". I think the cogency of
        what I actually wrote, however, remains.

        The word "Critical" is not by itself in "The Critical Edition of Q", but
        is part of the phrase "Critical Edition".

        You cannot have a critical edition of a hypothetical document that does
        not exist, and may never have existed.

        You can have a critical edition of a document that has extant
        manuscripts. It is possible to have a critical edition of the Gospel of
        Matthew, for instance. The edition is constructed by critically
        examining the extant manuscripts, and choosing between observed
        variants. If there were no manuscripts of Matthew there would be no
        critical edition of it.

        Brian Wilson also wrote --
        >
        >I have been trying to think of an alternative title that would fit the
        >contents of the published book. What about "The Reconstruction of Q" ?
        >
        To which Stephen Carlson replied --
        >
        >Your title is fine, because that's what it is. There's also "A Source
        >Critical Edition of Q".
        >
        I suggest that "A Source Critical Edition of Q" does not fit the
        contents of "The Critical Edition of Q" . Its writers make very clear
        that their work is certainly not source criticism, but redaction
        criticism --
        >
        >"The emergence of Q as a text originally written in Greek, whose
        >Matthean and Lukan redaction can often be detected and discounted by
        >applying the methods and results of redaction criticism in identifying
        >Matthean and Lukan redactional traits in their treatment of Mark made a
        >critical edition of Q seem at least a possibility." (page lxvi)
        >
        Source-critical questions such as the "layering" of Q in a succession of
        documentarily dependent sources, or of whether reconstructed Q reflects
        an earlier source of the sayings of Jesus, or of a Q community, are
        explicitly not on the agenda --
        >
        >"Hence its [the CEQ's] method has neither presupposed a view as to the
        >layering of the text of Q, nor a view as to what extent or in what way
        >Q reflects the sayings of Jesus and/or of the Q community." (page
        >lxvii)
        >
        The aim of Robinson, Kloppenborg Verbin and Hoffmann in "The Critical
        Edition of Q" is, on the assumption that the Two Document Hypothesis is
        true, to use redaction criticism of the synoptic gospels to fill in the
        lacunae between the wording of "minimal Q" which is the wording common
        to Matthew and Luke (but not Mark). Such redaction criticism cannot
        proceed even the tiniest step without first assuming the Two Document
        Hypothesis.

        The book is a thoroughly scholarly redaction-critical reconstruction of
        Q on the assumption that the Two Document Hypothesis is true. It is not
        a critical edition of a hypothetical document which may never have
        existed.

        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@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.