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

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

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    ... Thanks for this -- it s a good point. However, is there anything quite on the level Wieland is talking about, of two or three words together in the
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      On 26 Feb 2003 at 14:49, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

      > This is identical to M. Robinson's critique of the Nestle text,
      > and I don't think that the critique is any more effective here
      > than there. If one follows eclecticism, as the majority of NT TC
      > scholars do, one will get a resultant text that for some stretches is
      > not supported in any MS. I don't see the problem in that.

      Thanks for this -- it's a good point. However, is there anything
      quite on the level Wieland is talking about, of two or three words
      together in the critical text which don't have any MS witness? This
      is a question out of pure ignorance -- sorry!
      >
      > Furthermore, there are no MS copies of Q. :-)

      This is the interesting question, though, isn't it? I think that the
      quasi-text-critical procedure of the IQP does cause them to treat the
      critical text of Matthew and Luke as if they are two manuscript
      witnesses, something that is not always helpful when one is doing
      source-criticism.

      > 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'd be grateful if you have a moment to unpack this for those like me
      who are not as familiar with textual-criticism as they should be.

      Many thanks
      Mark
      -----------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
      University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
      Birmingham B15 2TT UK

      http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
      http://NTGateway.com


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... Maurice Robinson has documented one verse in each gospel in which no MS supports the critical text. It is fairly infrequent, however, because there are so
      Message 2 of 10 , Mar 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        At 12:09 PM 3/2/03 -0000, Mark Goodacre wrote:
        >On 26 Feb 2003 at 14:49, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
        >> This is identical to M. Robinson's critique of the Nestle text,
        >> and I don't think that the critique is any more effective here
        >> than there. If one follows eclecticism, as the majority of NT TC
        >> scholars do, one will get a resultant text that for some stretches is
        >> not supported in any MS. I don't see the problem in that.
        >
        >Thanks for this -- it's a good point. However, is there anything
        >quite on the level Wieland is talking about, of two or three words
        >together in the critical text which don't have any MS witness? This
        >is a question out of pure ignorance -- sorry!

        Maurice Robinson has documented one verse in each gospel in which
        no MS supports the critical text. It is fairly infrequent, however,
        because there are so many MSS and the copying of the texts is quite
        faithful, and perhaps also because Codex Vaticanus is followed by
        default when the internal criteria are unclear. But when there are
        few witnesses (e.g. 2 for Q) and the text has not been copied very
        faithfully (e.g. Matt. and Luke of Q), one would expect a lot more
        of this to happen, and, looking at the IQP text, it does. But
        eclecticism presents no theoretical objection to it.

        >> Furthermore, there are no MS copies of Q. :-)
        >
        >This is the interesting question, though, isn't it? I think that the
        >quasi-text-critical procedure of the IQP does cause them to treat the
        >critical text of Matthew and Luke as if they are two manuscript
        >witnesses, something that is not always helpful when one is doing
        >source-criticism.

        It's probably safe to use the critical texts of Matt. and Luke to
        establsh the text of Q, and there is no clear alternative. However,
        one should be on guard for violations of one's assumptions and/or
        circular reasoning. For example, it is possible that the Q hypothesis
        was used to establish parts of the critical text. Also, it is possible
        for Q to have influenced the text of Matt. and Luke after Matt. and
        Luke were published. (Is this the only way for J. M. Robinson's scribal
        error in Q to work?) Both these possibilities have to be carefully
        controlled for.

        >> 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'd be grateful if you have a moment to unpack this for those like me
        >who are not as familiar with textual-criticism as they should be.

        Even with variation units that are several words long, the critic
        is supposed to arrange the different readings of the variation unit
        into a family tree (i.e. the local genealogy) to find the reading
        that most likely gave rise to the others. In order to do this, the
        critic must consider differences between the readings that are
        smaller grained than and fit within the variation unit.

        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@...
      • Mark Goodacre
        ... OK; these points are well taken -- thank you. ... Agreed; though I can t think of any where this is the case. I wonder if anyone else can? I know that
        Message 3 of 10 , Mar 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          On 2 Mar 2003 at 16:07, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

          > Maurice Robinson has documented one verse in each gospel in which no
          > MS supports the critical text. It is fairly infrequent, however,
          > because there are so many MSS and the copying of the texts is quite
          > faithful, and perhaps also because Codex Vaticanus is followed by
          > default when the internal criteria are unclear. But when there are
          > few witnesses (e.g. 2 for Q) and the text has not been copied very
          > faithfully (e.g. Matt. and Luke of Q), one would expect a lot more of
          > this to happen, and, looking at the IQP text, it does. But
          > eclecticism presents no theoretical objection to it.

          OK; these points are well taken -- thank you.

          > It's probably safe to use the critical texts of Matt. and Luke to
          > establsh the text of Q, and there is no clear alternative. However,
          > one should be on guard for violations of one's assumptions and/or
          > circular reasoning. 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. I wonder
          if anyone else can? I know that adherents of the Two-Gospel
          Hypothesis sometimes make the claim that the Two-Source Theory has
          unduly influenced the critical text but Friedrichsen notes that in
          _Beyond the Q Impasse_ there are relatively few places where there is
          disagreement with UBS4 (see Timothy Friedrichsen, "Critical
          Observations on a Team Effort",
          http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l/friedrichsen.pdf (2002),
          pp. 6-7).

          > Also, it is
          > possible for Q to have influenced the text of Matt. and Luke after
          > Matt. and Luke were published. (Is this the only way for J. M.
          > Robinson's scribal error in Q to work?) Both these possibilities have
          > to be carefully controlled for.

          I *think* Robinson's claim in relation to the "witness" to the
          scribal error in Sinaiticus (vid) of Matthew is that that scribe of
          Matthew was effectively making a (correct) conjectural emendation.
          But I don't have any of the articles in front of me so can't check
          that.

          > Even with variation units that are several words long, the critic is
          > supposed to arrange the different readings of the variation unit into
          > a family tree (i.e. the local genealogy) to find the reading that most
          > likely gave rise to the others. In order to do this, the critic must
          > consider differences between the readings that are smaller grained
          > than and fit within the variation unit.

          I think I'm beginning to grasp this now, though I think there's
          something missing after "than".

          Thanks for your help
          Mark
          -----------------------------
          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
          Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
          University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
          Birmingham B15 2TT UK

          http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
          http://NTGateway.com


          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • John Lupia
          A new approach to pre-Gospel texts takes into account the actual record of literature production and dissemination known to have existed in the first century.
          Message 4 of 10 , Mar 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            A new approach to pre-Gospel texts takes into account
            the actual record of literature production and
            dissemination known to have existed in the first
            century. The earliest sources or Q fall into eleven
            Type documents. These pre-Gospel texts emerged during
            the very first years shortly after the death and
            resurrection of Jesus from AD 33-37. As many of you
            know my thesis of the Synoptic Problem solution I
            hold that Luke created the twelfth Type document that
            became the literary model later on adapted by Matthew
            and Mark, but can also be seen to be reflected to some
            extent as well in John.

            The eleven Type documents that preceded the Gospel
            model did not necessarily develop in an essentially
            ordered and chronological manner, but may have
            developed alongside one another in the first few years
            of the Church.

            The eleven Type documents briefly are:

            Type 1: epos, (versified oral tradition),
            non-versified oral tradition, euchologions, i. e.,
            collections of written epos hymns.

            Type 2: orthodox short or brief written records of
            historic events, and unorthodox cacographic short or
            brief written records of historic events.

            Type 3: shorthand records written by stenographers
            recording speeches and events.

            Type 4: pesher or Peripatetic endoxa inscribed as
            postillae that follow Doeve�s theory of recording
            narratives in the margins of OT texts but differs from
            him in that they included commentary.

            Type 5: pesher that used Jewish literature.

            Type 6: pesher (endoxa) that used Hellenistic
            literature.

            Type 7: apologues or moralized parables.

            Type 8: translations and scholia that provided rich
            vocabulary from which a distinctive Christian
            vocabulary grew and was used in the canonical Gospels.

            Type 9: compilations, collections or catenae of Types
            1-8 in a disorganized manner.

            Type 10: organized compilations made for various
            purposes and having specific utilitarian functions for
            liturgy and catecheses.

            Type 11: cacography, i.e., apocryphal gospels that
            reflected unorthodox views identical to the Gospel of
            Thomas, an Epicurean propagandistic ribald
            hilarotragoedia jibe that betrays Sadducaic and
            Herodian origins, alluded to in Luke�s Prologue that
            caused his Gospel to be produced to refute them.


            with best regards,
            John

            =====
            John N. Lupia, III
            31 Norwich Drive
            Toms River, New Jersey 08757 USA
            Phone: (732) 341-8689
            Email: jlupia2@...
            Editor, Roman Catholic News
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

            __________________________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
            http://taxes.yahoo.com/

            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.