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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Mar 2, 2003
      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 2 of 10 , Mar 2, 2003
        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.