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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.