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
  • 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 1 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 2 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.