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

[Synoptic-L] Added a page to my site, an alternative to the 3SH

Expand Messages
  • dgentil@sears.com
    While I believe the results of my study suport something similiar to the 3SH, here is another possible explination for the results.
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      While I believe the results of my study suport something similiar to the
      3SH,
      here is another possible explination for the results.

      http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/alternative.html


      One way the
      results found
      in the study
      could have
      come about is
      if the author
      of Luke knew
      and used
      Matthew. There
      is another
      related
      explanation,
      however. We
      could
      speculate that
      the 2SH is
      correct and
      that Matthew
      and Luke both
      used Mark and
      Q
      independently.
      Then Matthew
      became
      established as
      the most
      authoritative
      gospel.
      Copyists might
      also have been
      more familiar
      with Matthew's
      text than the
      other texts.
      Thus, the text
      of Luke slowly
      became
      corrupted over
      time with
      unintentional
      and
      intentional
      changes that
      made it look
      more like
      Matthew.

      Most of the
      minor
      agreements
      would have
      been made by
      unintentional
      changes to
      Luke, in this
      view. Large
      parts of what
      we call Q,
      were not
      actually in
      the sayings
      source, but
      were added to
      Luke by
      "copyists" who
      were familiar
      with Matthew,
      and considered
      Matthew to be
      authoritative.
      Some of the
      Mark/Q overlap
      could have
      been caused by
      Matthian
      versions of
      Mark's text
      being
      transferred
      into Luke.

      This
      explanation
      can explain
      the results of
      the study just
      as well as the
      3SH can. So,
      our choice of
      one over the
      other would
      have to be
      based on other
      criteria.

      If we continue
      to speculate
      along the same
      lines, we
      could say that
      it is likely
      that parts of
      Mark were also
      changed by
      copyists to
      match Matthew.
      This could be
      the cause of
      some of the
      more
      suspicious
      items that
      proponents of
      the GH
      hypothesis
      point to in
      support of
      Matthian
      priority. In
      addition if
      parts of a
      Matthian
      pericope were
      copied
      independently
      into both Luke
      and Mark, this
      could be yet
      another source
      of Mark/Q
      overlap.

      Finally, in
      addition to
      contaminating
      Mark and Luke,
      Matthew could
      have
      contaminated
      Matthew.
      Copyists very
      familiar with
      Matthew's text
      may have
      duplicated
      bits of
      Matthian
      material at
      other
      locations in
      the text of
      Matthew,
      causing
      doublets.

      There are
      arguments for
      and against
      this idea vs.
      Luke's direct
      knowledge of
      Matthew, and
      the study can
      support both
      ideas, equally
      well.










      David Gentile,
      M.S. Physics, M.S. Finance
      Hoffman Estates, IL



      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Ron Price
      Dave, You suggest that large parts of what we call Q could have been adaptations of the text of Luke by copyists who were familiar with Matthew. Your idea
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 3, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Dave,

        You suggest that large parts of what we call Q could have been adaptations
        of the text of Luke by copyists who were familiar with Matthew.

        Your idea (which I have not quoted here because of the peculiar format in
        which it was posted!) should be given a "good try" for lateral thinking, but
        a "fail" for feasibility. For your suggestion implies that there were
        dozens of substantial alterations to the text of Luke prior to the earliest
        extant divergences of the textual tradition. But I have investigated the
        original text of all except the smallest NT documents, and can show that
        only in John are there more than a handful of substantial pre text-tradition
        alterations. (By "substantial" I mean altering the text size by more than
        around 40 letters or 8 words.)

        Ron Price

        Derbyshire, UK

        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm




        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Stuart Waugh
        Ron, You cannot fail the idea that quickly. I would advise you to examine the textual situation of Ephesians vis-à-vis its relationship to Romans Western text
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 3, 2004
        • 0 Attachment

          Ron,

           

          You cannot fail the idea that quickly. I would advise you to examine the textual situation of Ephesians vis-�-vis its relationship to Romans Western text as one example. Specifically the correct reading toi~v ou}sin (supported by Marcion, P46, א*, B*, 1739, Origen) of Ephesians 1:1 and its relationship to Romans 1:7 and 1:15 as witnessed by ms G. Clabeaux lays out this case � suggested to him by Helmut Koester � very well (see pp 94-99: 'A Lost Edition of the Letters of Paul: A Reassessment of the Text of the Pauline Corpus Attested by Marcion').

           

          In Short we have here at least one demonstrated case of NT redaction using an errant text source. The key here being textual variants appear to have started before the canonical text was set. There is thus fluidity in the situation, neither text nor redaction were complete, and many textual variants (indeed proto text types) appeared while redactions were still on going.

           

          I also think a better explanation is required of Luke as known to Marcion. Taking Irenaeus and Tertullian on their word in clearly polemic diatribes is less than reliable. Yet (setting aside the theological debate and hyperbole) Marcion is an example of a second version of a Gospel floating around very early in the second century. As with the two versions of Acts, and the longer and shorter versions of the Ignatius letters, we have examples of multiple versions of major works floating around. Second, as in Ephesians use of an errant Romans text, does it not stand to reason that some Synoptic readings resulted from redaction based upon one or another divergent textual tradition? Put another way, what are the odds a redacting auther had the UBS text of his source in front of him?

           

          I think one stands on infirm ground when they suggest that significant textual variance necessarily starts after redaction. The evidence is far from clear-cut, and it seems to me more likely that redaction and textual variance came about early, often overlapping each other. The same forces that put an end to wild textual variance also put the brakes on redaction (although they did continue some to support orthodoxy). I suggest instead that they co-existed and grew up together. The separation of a redaction period from a textual reproduction (thus variance) and transmission period is a false division. Remember also no Codex of significant size (more than some scraps) is extant to us from prior to the 3rd century. Yet textual theories trace many of the text types back into at least the early 2nd century because of Patristic readings.

           

          Stuart Waugh 

           



          Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:
          Dave,

          You suggest that large parts of what we call Q could have been adaptations
          of the text of Luke by copyists who were familiar with Matthew.

          Your idea (which I have not quoted here because of the peculiar format in
          which it was posted!) should be given a "good try" for lateral thinking, but
          a "fail" for feasibility. For your suggestion implies that there were
          dozens of substantial alterations to the text of Luke prior to the earliest
          extant divergences of the textual tradition. But I have investigated the
          original text of all except the smallest NT documents, and can show that
          only in John are there more than a handful of substantial pre text-tradition
          alterations. (By "substantial" I mean altering the text size by more than
          around 40 letters or 8 words.)

          Ron Price

          Derbyshire, UK

          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm




          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...


          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster.
        • Ron Price
          ... Stuart, I tried to make clear that I was referring to substantial changes to the text (which Dave had admitted were involved in his suggestion), and your
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 3, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Stuart Waugh wrote:

            > You cannot fail the idea that quickly. I would advise you to examine the
            > textual situation of Ephesians vis-?-vis its relationship to Romans Western
            > text as one example. Specifically the correct reading toi~v ou}sin (supported
            > by Marcion, P46, #1488;*, B*, 1739, Origen) of Ephesians 1:1 and its
            > relationship to Romans 1:7 and 1:15 as witnessed by ms G. Clabeaux lays out
            > this case ? suggested to him by Helmut Koester ? very well (see pp 94-99: 'A
            > Lost Edition of the Letters of Paul: A Reassessment of the Text of the Pauline
            > Corpus Attested by Marcion').

            Stuart,

            I tried to make clear that I was referring to substantial changes to the
            text (which Dave had admitted were involved in his suggestion), and your
            example doesn't appear to be in that category.

            > I think one stands on infirm ground when they suggest that significant textual
            > variance necessarily starts after redaction.

            This was not my claim, but rather that I have devised techniques which
            enable me to identify the limited cases where substantial redaction has
            occurred prior to the earliest *known* ('extant' was the word I used)
            textual variants.

            Ron Price

            Derbyshire, UK

            Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm


            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • dgentil@sears.com
            Ron writes: But, as I tried to indicate in my previous posting, I can identify fairly closely what the author of Luke wrote, and can therefore rule out any
            Message 5 of 6 , Mar 3, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Ron writes:

              But, as I tried to indicate in my previous posting, I can identify fairly
              closely what the author of Luke wrote, and can therefore rule out any
              "early
              substantial change(s)" of the sort you mention.

              Dave:

              How? If a bit of text in Luke is identical to the text of Matthew, and is
              Matthian in style, then how can we say if the original author of Luke
              brought in that text from Matthew, or a later copyist brought in that text
              from Matthew? We would not be able to say that it is in the style of Luke,
              because we're already arguing it is in the style of Matthew. The orignal
              text of sQ could have been the what you believe it was under either
              hypothesis. So that does not seem of much help here either.

              I suppose if the text was needed to form a cohesive whole with other parts
              of Luke, that would be an argument for its original inclusion in Luke. Is
              there another argument I'm missing?


              David Gentile
              M.S. Physics, M.S. Finance
              Hoffman Estates, IL





              Ron Price
              <ron.price@virgin To: Synoptic-L elist <Synoptic-L@...>
              .net> cc:
              Sent by: Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Added a page to my site, an
              owner-synoptic-l@ alternative to the 3SH
              bham.ac.uk


              03/03/2004 03:13
              PM






              Dave Gentile wrote:

              > .....the fact that we don't have those
              > hypothetical early versions of Luke certainly is an argument against the
              > idea. I think we would have to speculate that "a copy of record"
              somewhere
              > was made to look more like Matthew, and that all existing copies descend
              > from that copy. In addition to an early substantial change, there may
              have
              > been other minor changes in the same direction. Earlier versions of Luke
              > may not have been widely distributed, and in fact might have been
              actively
              > destroyed by proto-orthodox believers, if the original Luke contained
              > material that did not sit well with their view.

              Dave,

              But, as I tried to indicate in my previous posting, I can identify fairly
              closely what the author of Luke wrote, and can therefore rule out any
              "early
              substantial change(s)" of the sort you mention.

              Ron Price

              Derbyshire, UK

              Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm


              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@...
            • Stephen C. Carlson
              ... These are all very good points and importantly corrective of naive assumptions about the stability of the text, but I think the question is, how do we go
              Message 6 of 6 , Mar 4, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                At 09:39 AM 3/3/04 -0800, Stuart Waugh wrote:
                >I think one stands on infirm ground when they suggest that significant
                >textual variance necessarily starts after redaction. The evidence is far
                >from clear-cut, and it seems to me more likely that redaction and textual
                >variance came about early, often overlapping each other. The same forces
                >that put an end to wild textual variance also put the brakes on redaction
                >(although they did continue some to support orthodoxy). I suggest instead
                >that they co-existed and grew up together. The separation of a redaction
                >period from a textual reproduction (thus variance) and transmission period
                >is a false division. Remember also no Codex of significant size (more than
                >some scraps) is extant to us from prior to the 3rd century. Yet textual
                >theories trace many of the text types back into at least the early 2nd
                >century because of Patristic readings.

                These are all very good points and importantly corrective of
                naive assumptions about the stability of the text, but I think
                the question is, how do we go forward from here?

                There have been attempts to identify which text-type of Mark
                that Matt and Luke (are supposed to have) used, but I don't
                think much has come out that work. Assuming Markan priority,
                for the sake of an example and without loss of generality, it
                is true that--unless Matthew and Luke were using an unmutilated
                autograph of Mark--their exemplars of Mark differed in some
                way from Mark's autograph. A similar idea has been suggested
                for Q, in Qmt and Qlk, versions. My understanding of all this
                work is that specific solutions have commanded little assent.

                The problem isn't so much that people are unaware of the problem;
                it's that they are unaware of the solution, or more precisely
                how to find a generally agreeable solution. How can we identify
                pre-redactional textual variation in the synoptic problem? How
                do we distinguish this from post-redactional textual variation?

                I suppose these questions might be somewhat answerable if we
                had confidence in both the text and the synoptic relationship,
                but the issue often crops up, as it did here, when comparing
                two competing synoptic theories. Usually, in this context,
                appeals to textual variation are proposed to avoid some problem
                in one's own source theory, so now we're faced with the additional
                issue of having to balance this against a source theory may not
                need to rely on such textual variation to explain the evidence.

                Unless one has a decent method for sorting out which variant
                belongs to which level of redaction or scribal transmission, I
                think that the UBS text will continue to stand as the best
                supported approximation of the original texts. It's always
                possible that post-redactional textual variation could have
                influenced the text of the synoptic gospels, so to that extent
                I agree with David Gentile. However, much of this textual
                variation has already factored into the text of the gospel
                reconstructed by UBS, so I think that the person proposing a
                different text used by the synoptic evangelists has the onus
                of producing arguments and evidence independent of one's source
                theory for each departure from the UBS text. To that extent
                I'm on Price's side.

                Use of the UBS text brings up another problem: to what extent
                is Markan Priority or even the full Two-Source Theory was used
                as a premise in establishing the text? Dungan has pointed out
                before that the UBS may be biased in favor a particular solution.
                I don't think this question has been answered satifactorially yet;
                based on my own, limited investigations I can only say that other
                biases of the UBS committee seem to play a much stronger role.

                Stephen Carlson
                --
                Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
                "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@...
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.