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

[Synoptic-L] RE: Two questions on Q Crit. Ed.

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    ... No, not really. What Robinson says is that you cannot read several sentences in the NT that are supported continuously by one MS. The problem in the IQP is
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 27, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
      > This is identical to M. Robinson's critique of the Nestle text,

      No, not really. What Robinson says is that you cannot read several
      sentences in the NT that are supported continuously by one MS.
      The problem in the IQP is the definition of "variation unit". This is of
      course subjective, but I think that the IQP has several unnecessary
      short variation units, that's all. The results are Q texts that are not
      support even within three words (!) by either Mt or Lk.

      Another reading of Q that is not supported by Mt or Lk is
      Q 6:31 OUTWS POIEITE AUTOIS

      Mt: OUTWS KAI UMEIS POIEITE AUTOIS
      Lk: POIEITE AUTOIS OMOIWS.

      Note also Q 7:35 APO TWN TEKNWN AUTHS

      Mt: APO TWN ERGWN AUTHS.
      Lk: APO PANTWN TWN TEKNWN AUTHS.

      It is clear here, as M. Goodacre pointed out that they are mixing
      sourcecritical and textcritical evaluations. I am not sure if this is
      really a problem, but at least it is a serious difference to NT TC.


      > The remaining issue is that the IQP uses variation units much
      > finer than Colwell would allow, and I don't see the problem in
      > that either, because Aland's local genealogical principle on
      > the larger units looks at the smaller-grained changes.

      I really don't understand what you mean here.


      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      ------------------------------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie




      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Wieland Willker
      ... Now this is very simple. Have a look at Metzger s commentary for e.g. Mt 19:29 or Mk 8:35. Best wishes Wieland
      Message 2 of 3 , Mar 4, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        > > For example, it is possible that the Q hypothesis
        > > was used to establish parts of the critical text.
        >
        > Agreed; though I can't think of any where this is the case.


        Now this is very simple.
        Have a look at Metzger's commentary for e.g. Mt 19:29 or Mk 8:35.


        Best wishes
        Wieland
        <><
        ------------------------------------------------
        Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
        http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie




        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Wieland Willker
        Oops, this is not Q, but Markan priority! Best wishes Wieland ... From: Wieland Willker [mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003
        Message 3 of 3 , Mar 4, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Oops, this is not Q, but Markan priority!

          Best wishes
          Wieland



          -----Original Message-----
          From: Wieland Willker [mailto:willker@...-bremen.de]
          Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 9:30 AM
          To: Synoptic-L (Synoptic-L@...)
          Subject: RE: Two questions on Q Crit. Ed.


          > > For example, it is possible that the Q hypothesis
          > > was used to establish parts of the critical text.
          >
          > Agreed; though I can't think of any where this is the case.


          Now this is very simple.
          Have a look at Metzger's commentary for e.g. Mt 19:29 or Mk 8:35.


          Best wishes
          Wieland




          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.