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

Book on Q

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    Well not really about textual criticism, but perhaps interesting to some: Q. A Reconstruction and Commentary H.T. Fleddermann Peeters, Leuven 2005 ISBN:
    Message 1 of 9 , Dec 23, 2005
      Well not really about textual criticism, but perhaps interesting to some:

      "Q. A Reconstruction and Commentary"
      H.T. Fleddermann
      Peeters, Leuven 2005
      ISBN: 90-429-1656-7
      Pages: XIII-995 p.
      Price: 105 EURO

      Summary:
      "The last fifty years have witnessed a remarkable renaissance in Q studies with scholars probing every aspect of the Q hypothesis from the existence and extent of Q to the reconstruction of the original text and the place of the document in the history of early Christianity. The time seems ripe for a major commentary on Q to consolidate and extend the discussion of this important document that Matthew and Luke incorporated into their gospels. «Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary» contains an argued reconstruction of the original Greek text of Q and a commentary on the reconstructed text along with an introduction that explores all of the main questions that swirl around the Q hypothesis. Q sets Jesus firmly in the past, but by emphasizing the two questions that dominate the gospel genre - Who is Jesus? and What does it mean to be Jesus' disciple? - the author makes Jesus' ministry and preaching the norm for the present. The present emerges as the time for Christians to demonstrate fidelity to their absent Lord (the Servant Left in Charge and the Pounds) and as the time for the kingdom proclamation to grow into a living structure that can shelter all peoples (the Mustard Seed) and that can penetrate and transform the entire world (the Leaven). The present, though, remains radically oriented toward the future when Jesus will come and usher in the definitive kingdom of God. In Q Jesus speaks a word out of the past to the present for the future."


      Note that Peeters also publishes two nice, very inexpencive small books, which I find very useful:

      Neirynck F., 1995
      Q-Synopsis. The Double Tradition Passages in Greek.
      ISBN: 90-6831-662-1

      Neirynck F., 1991
      The Minor Agreements in a Horizontal-Line Synopsis.
      ISBN: 90-6831-347-9

      6 and 10 Euro each. A must-have, I think.

      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      ------------------------------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
    • James M. Leonard
      I suppose the current disarray in NT studies is quite exempliefied on one hand in the many books which not only provide a reconstruction of Q, but also
      Message 2 of 9 , Dec 24, 2005
        I suppose the current disarray in NT studies is quite exempliefied
        on one hand in the many books which not only provide a
        reconstruction of Q, but also identify older redactional layers to
        it, and on the other hand, matter of fact comments by such a scholar
        as Francis Watson who refers to his present research as providing
        yet "another nail in the coffin of the Q hypothesis"
        (http://www.abdn.ac.uk/divinity/staff/francis-watson.shtml.)

        Gordon Fee's essay "Modern Textual Criticism and the Synoptic
        Problem: On the Problem of Hamronization in the Gospels" (Studies
        in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism) still
        seems to be the only modern sustained discussion of the relationship
        of tc to the Synoptic Problem. Yet, I think much more work needs to
        be done in this area, an area of particular interest to me.

        If anyone has any suggested reading, please let me know.

        The Hermeneia commentary on Q provides a textual commentary on
        select readings in a preliminary chapter. The focus of the
        commentary is on establishing the text of Q, but doesn't make the
        case for Q on tc grounds.


        Jim Leonard
        Southwestern Pennsylvania


        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker"
        <willker@c...> wrote:
        >
        > Well not really about textual criticism, but perhaps interesting
        to some:
        >
        > "Q. A Reconstruction and Commentary"
        > H.T. Fleddermann
        > Peeters, Leuven 2005
        > ISBN: 90-429-1656-7
        > Pages: XIII-995 p.
        > Price: 105 EURO
        >
        > Summary:
        > "The last fifty years have witnessed a remarkable renaissance in Q
        studies with scholars probing every aspect of the Q hypothesis from
        the existence and extent of Q to the reconstruction of the original
        text and the place of the document in the history of early
        Christianity. The time seems ripe for a major commentary on Q to
        consolidate and extend the discussion of this important document
        that Matthew and Luke incorporated into their gospels. «Q: A
        Reconstruction and Commentary» contains an argued reconstruction of
        the original Greek text of Q and a commentary on the reconstructed
        text along with an introduction that explores all of the main
        questions that swirl around the Q hypothesis. Q sets Jesus firmly in
        the past, but by emphasizing the two questions that dominate the
        gospel genre - Who is Jesus? and What does it mean to be Jesus'
        disciple? - the author makes Jesus' ministry and preaching the norm
        for the present. The present emerges as the time for Christians to
        demonstrate fidelity to their absent Lord (the Servant Left in
        Charge and the Pounds) and as the time for the kingdom proclamation
        to grow into a living structure that can shelter all peoples (the
        Mustard Seed) and that can penetrate and transform the entire world
        (the Leaven). The present, though, remains radically oriented toward
        the future when Jesus will come and usher in the definitive kingdom
        of God. In Q Jesus speaks a word out of the past to the present for
        the future."
        >
        >
        > Note that Peeters also publishes two nice, very inexpencive small
        books, which I find very useful:
        >
        > Neirynck F., 1995
        > Q-Synopsis. The Double Tradition Passages in Greek.
        > ISBN: 90-6831-662-1
        >
        > Neirynck F., 1991
        > The Minor Agreements in a Horizontal-Line Synopsis.
        > ISBN: 90-6831-347-9
        >
        > 6 and 10 Euro each. A must-have, I think.
        >
        > Best wishes
        > Wieland
        > <><
        > ------------------------------------------------
        > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        > mailto:willker@c...
        > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
        > Textcritical commentary:
        > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
        >
      • Stephen Payne
        Mr Leonard, Mark Goodacre s The Case Against Q is indispensible reading on this topic. It should be required reading for all Biblical scholars. Yours, Stephen
        Message 3 of 9 , Dec 24, 2005
          Mr Leonard,

          Mark Goodacre's The Case Against Q is indispensible reading on this topic.  It should be required reading for all Biblical scholars.

          Yours,

          Stephen Payne
          Chicago

          "James M. Leonard" <jmleonardfamily@...> wrote:
          I suppose the current disarray in NT studies is quite exempliefied
          on one hand in the many books which not only provide a
          reconstruction of Q, but also identify older redactional layers to
          it, and on the other hand, matter of fact comments by such a scholar
          as Francis Watson who refers to his present research as providing
          yet "another nail in the coffin of the Q hypothesis"
          (http://www.abdn.ac.uk/divinity/staff/francis-watson.shtml.) 

          Gordon Fee's essay "Modern Textual Criticism and the Synoptic
          Problem:  On the Problem of Hamronization in the Gospels" (Studies
          in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism) still
          seems to be the only modern sustained discussion of the relationship
          of tc to the Synoptic Problem.  Yet, I think much more work needs to
          be done in this area, an area of particular interest to me.

          If anyone has any suggested reading, please let me know.

          The Hermeneia commentary on Q provides a textual commentary on
          select readings in a preliminary chapter.  The focus of the
          commentary is on establishing the text of Q, but doesn't make the
          case for Q on tc grounds.


          Jim Leonard
          Southwestern Pennsylvania


          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker"
          <willker@c...> wrote:
          >
          > Well not really about textual criticism, but perhaps interesting
          to some:
          >
          > "Q. A Reconstruction and Commentary"
          > H.T. Fleddermann
          > Peeters, Leuven 2005
          > ISBN: 90-429-1656-7     
          > Pages: XIII-995 p.     
          > Price: 105 EURO
          >
          > Summary:
          > "The last fifty years have witnessed a remarkable renaissance in Q
          studies with scholars probing every aspect of the Q hypothesis from
          the existence and extent of Q to the reconstruction of the original
          text and the place of the document in the history of early
          Christianity. The time seems ripe for a major commentary on Q to
          consolidate and extend the discussion of this important document
          that Matthew and Luke incorporated into their gospels. «Q: A
          Reconstruction and Commentary» contains an argued reconstruction of
          the original Greek text of Q and a commentary on the reconstructed
          text along with an introduction that explores all of the main
          questions that swirl around the Q hypothesis. Q sets Jesus firmly in
          the past, but by emphasizing the two questions that dominate the
          gospel genre - Who is Jesus? and What does it mean to be Jesus'
          disciple? - the author makes Jesus' ministry and preaching the norm
          for the present. The present emerges as the time for Christians to
          demonstrate fidelity to their absent Lord (the Servant Left in
          Charge and the Pounds) and as the time for the kingdom proclamation
          to grow into a living structure that can shelter all peoples (the
          Mustard Seed) and that can penetrate and transform the entire world
          (the Leaven). The present, though, remains radically oriented toward
          the future when Jesus will come and usher in the definitive kingdom
          of God. In Q Jesus speaks a word out of the past to the present for
          the future."
          >
          >
          > Note that Peeters also publishes two nice, very inexpencive small
          books, which I find very useful:
          >
          > Neirynck F., 1995
          > Q-Synopsis. The Double Tradition Passages in Greek.
          > ISBN: 90-6831-662-1
          >
          > Neirynck F., 1991
          > The Minor Agreements in a Horizontal-Line Synopsis.
          > ISBN: 90-6831-347-9
          >
          > 6 and 10 Euro each. A must-have, I think.
          >
          > Best wishes
          >     Wieland
          >        <><
          > ------------------------------------------------
          > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
          > mailto:willker@c...
          > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
          > Textcritical commentary:
          > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
          >









          Yahoo! Photos
          Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever.
        • James M. Leonard
          Right, The Case against Q is extremely revelational, I think. And a fantastic read. And who else would have had the nerve to cite Monte Python s Life of
          Message 4 of 9 , Dec 24, 2005
            Right, The Case against Q is extremely revelational, I think. And a
            fantastic read. And who else would have had the nerve to cite Monte
            Python's Life of Brian not once but twice in a scholarly tome?

            But I don't think Dr. Goodacre made much use of the text critical
            argument against Q.


            Jim Leonard


            --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Payne
            <brspayne@y...> wrote:
            >
            > Mr Leonard,
            >
            > Mark Goodacre's The Case Against Q is indispensible reading on
            this topic. It should be required reading for all Biblical scholars.
            >
            > Yours,
            >
            > Stephen Payne
            > Chicago
            >
            > "James M. Leonard" <jmleonardfamily@m...> wrote: I
            suppose the current disarray in NT studies is quite exempliefied
            > on one hand in the many books which not only provide a
            > reconstruction of Q, but also identify older redactional layers
            to
            > it, and on the other hand, matter of fact comments by such a
            scholar
            > as Francis Watson who refers to his present research as
            providing
            > yet "another nail in the coffin of the Q hypothesis"
            > (http://www.abdn.ac.uk/divinity/staff/francis-watson.shtml.)
            >
            > Gordon Fee's essay "Modern Textual Criticism and the Synoptic
            > Problem: On the Problem of Hamronization in the Gospels"
            (Studies
            > in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism)
            still
            > seems to be the only modern sustained discussion of the
            relationship
            > of tc to the Synoptic Problem. Yet, I think much more work
            needs to
            > be done in this area, an area of particular interest to me.
            >
            > If anyone has any suggested reading, please let me know.
            >
            > The Hermeneia commentary on Q provides a textual commentary on
            > select readings in a preliminary chapter. The focus of the
            > commentary is on establishing the text of Q, but doesn't make
            the
            > case for Q on tc grounds.
            >
            >
            > Jim Leonard
            > Southwestern Pennsylvania
            >
            >
            > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker"
            > <willker@c...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Well not really about textual criticism, but perhaps
            interesting
            > to some:
            > >
            > > "Q. A Reconstruction and Commentary"
            > > H.T. Fleddermann
            > > Peeters, Leuven 2005
            > > ISBN: 90-429-1656-7
            > > Pages: XIII-995 p.
            > > Price: 105 EURO
            > >
            > > Summary:
            > > "The last fifty years have witnessed a remarkable renaissance
            in Q
            > studies with scholars probing every aspect of the Q hypothesis
            from
            > the existence and extent of Q to the reconstruction of the
            original
            > text and the place of the document in the history of early
            > Christianity. The time seems ripe for a major commentary on Q to
            > consolidate and extend the discussion of this important document
            > that Matthew and Luke incorporated into their gospels. «Q: A
            > Reconstruction and Commentary» contains an argued
            reconstruction of
            > the original Greek text of Q and a commentary on the
            reconstructed
            > text along with an introduction that explores all of the main
            > questions that swirl around the Q hypothesis. Q sets Jesus
            firmly in
            > the past, but by emphasizing the two questions that dominate the
            > gospel genre - Who is Jesus? and What does it mean to be Jesus'
            > disciple? - the author makes Jesus' ministry and preaching the
            norm
            > for the present. The present emerges as the time for Christians
            to
            > demonstrate fidelity to their absent Lord (the Servant Left in
            > Charge and the Pounds) and as the time for the kingdom
            proclamation
            > to grow into a living structure that can shelter all peoples
            (the
            > Mustard Seed) and that can penetrate and transform the entire
            world
            > (the Leaven). The present, though, remains radically oriented
            toward
            > the future when Jesus will come and usher in the definitive
            kingdom
            > of God. In Q Jesus speaks a word out of the past to the present
            for
            > the future."
            > >
            > >
            > > Note that Peeters also publishes two nice, very inexpencive
            small
            > books, which I find very useful:
            > >
            > > Neirynck F., 1995
            > > Q-Synopsis. The Double Tradition Passages in Greek.
            > > ISBN: 90-6831-662-1
            > >
            > > Neirynck F., 1991
            > > The Minor Agreements in a Horizontal-Line Synopsis.
            > > ISBN: 90-6831-347-9
            > >
            > > 6 and 10 Euro each. A must-have, I think.
            > >
            > > Best wishes
            > > Wieland
            > > <><
            > > ------------------------------------------------
            > > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
            > > mailto:willker@c...
            > > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
            > > Textcritical commentary:
            > > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > SPONSORED LINKS
            > Bible
            theology
            Theology
            Christianity

            >
            > ---------------------------------
            > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
            >
            >
            > Visit your group "textualcriticism" on the web.
            >
            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
            Service.
            >
            >
            > ---------------------------------
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ---------------------------------
            > Yahoo! Photos
            > Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events,
            holidays, whatever.
            >
          • James M. Leonard
            Dr. Royse points out a telling contradiction in Synoptic and text critical studies. On one hand, Synoptic scholars are apt to point out how Matthew and Luke
            Message 5 of 9 , Dec 29, 2005
              Dr. Royse points out a telling contradiction in Synoptic and text
              critical studies.

              On one hand, Synoptic scholars are apt to point out how Matthew and
              Luke would mutually editorially smooth out a Marcan complex clause
              (i.e., an independent clause combined with a modifying subordinate
              clause) into simple clauses. Often one evangelist might adapt one
              part of the clause, and the other adapt the second part of the
              clause. Such phenomena, we are told, to be taken as indicative of
              Marcan priority, and of Matthew and Luke's relative "lateness."
              (See for example, Mark 1:32//Matt 8:16//Luke 4:40).

              On the other hand, we are told quite the opposite when it comes to
              scribal activity. When we find two MSS which have two conflicting
              simple readings, and also find that another MS conflates the two
              readings, we are quick to assume that the conflated reading is late,
              and that the other two simple readings have priority over the
              conflated reading.

              Dr. Royse concludes,

              "…There is no plausibility in Streeter's claim that two directly
              contrary principles would hold, namely that scribes tend to conflate
              separate texts into a longer one, while Matthew and Luke sought
              conciseness. Streeter should at least have given some explanation
              of how conflation could be a mark of lateness in Manuscript
              transmission, and a mark of originality in Gospel composition"
              (Scribal Habits in the Transmission of New Testament Texts, 149);
              see also Vinton A. Dearing, A Manual of Textual Analysis (Berkeley
              and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1959, p. 18.

              If I had to submit such an explanation, I suppose I would try to
              argue that the evangelists were self-conscious redactors engaged in
              the production of new literary works, while the scribes (at least
              the later ones) were merely trying to preserve the original text.

              Am I on the right track? Any suggested reading?





              --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "James M. Leonard"
              <jmleonardfamily@m...> wrote:
              >
              > Right, The Case against Q is extremely revelational, I think. And
              a
              > fantastic read. And who else would have had the nerve to cite
              Monte
              > Python's Life of Brian not once but twice in a scholarly tome?
              >
              > But I don't think Dr. Goodacre made much use of the text critical
              > argument against Q.
              >
              >
              > Jim Leonard
              >
              >
              > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Payne
              > <brspayne@y...> wrote:
              > >
              > > Mr Leonard,
              > >
              > > Mark Goodacre's The Case Against Q is indispensible reading on
              > this topic. It should be required reading for all Biblical
              scholars.
              > >
              > > Yours,
              > >
              > > Stephen Payne
              > > Chicago
              > >
              > > "James M. Leonard" <jmleonardfamily@m...> wrote: I
              > suppose the current disarray in NT studies is quite exempliefied
              > > on one hand in the many books which not only provide a
              > > reconstruction of Q, but also identify older redactional
              layers
              > to
              > > it, and on the other hand, matter of fact comments by such a
              > scholar
              > > as Francis Watson who refers to his present research as
              > providing
              > > yet "another nail in the coffin of the Q hypothesis"
              > > (http://www.abdn.ac.uk/divinity/staff/francis-watson.shtml.)
              > >
              > > Gordon Fee's essay "Modern Textual Criticism and the Synoptic
              > > Problem: On the Problem of Hamronization in the Gospels"
              > (Studies
              > > in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism)
              > still
              > > seems to be the only modern sustained discussion of the
              > relationship
              > > of tc to the Synoptic Problem. Yet, I think much more work
              > needs to
              > > be done in this area, an area of particular interest to me.
              > >
              > > If anyone has any suggested reading, please let me know.
              > >
              > > The Hermeneia commentary on Q provides a textual commentary on
              > > select readings in a preliminary chapter. The focus of the
              > > commentary is on establishing the text of Q, but doesn't make
              > the
              > > case for Q on tc grounds.
              > >
              > >
              > > Jim Leonard
              > > Southwestern Pennsylvania
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker"
              > > <willker@c...> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Well not really about textual criticism, but perhaps
              > interesting
              > > to some:
              > > >
              > > > "Q. A Reconstruction and Commentary"
              > > > H.T. Fleddermann
              > > > Peeters, Leuven 2005
              > > > ISBN: 90-429-1656-7
              > > > Pages: XIII-995 p.
              > > > Price: 105 EURO
              > > >
              > > > Summary:
              > > > "The last fifty years have witnessed a remarkable
              renaissance
              > in Q
              > > studies with scholars probing every aspect of the Q hypothesis
              > from
              > > the existence and extent of Q to the reconstruction of the
              > original
              > > text and the place of the document in the history of early
              > > Christianity. The time seems ripe for a major commentary on Q
              to
              > > consolidate and extend the discussion of this important
              document
              > > that Matthew and Luke incorporated into their gospels. «Q: A
              > > Reconstruction and Commentary» contains an argued
              > reconstruction of
              > > the original Greek text of Q and a commentary on the
              > reconstructed
              > > text along with an introduction that explores all of the main
              > > questions that swirl around the Q hypothesis. Q sets Jesus
              > firmly in
              > > the past, but by emphasizing the two questions that dominate
              the
              > > gospel genre - Who is Jesus? and What does it mean to be
              Jesus'
              > > disciple? - the author makes Jesus' ministry and preaching the
              > norm
              > > for the present. The present emerges as the time for
              Christians
              > to
              > > demonstrate fidelity to their absent Lord (the Servant Left in
              > > Charge and the Pounds) and as the time for the kingdom
              > proclamation
              > > to grow into a living structure that can shelter all peoples
              > (the
              > > Mustard Seed) and that can penetrate and transform the entire
              > world
              > > (the Leaven). The present, though, remains radically oriented
              > toward
              > > the future when Jesus will come and usher in the definitive
              > kingdom
              > > of God. In Q Jesus speaks a word out of the past to the
              present
              > for
              > > the future."
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > Note that Peeters also publishes two nice, very inexpencive
              > small
              > > books, which I find very useful:
              > > >
              > > > Neirynck F., 1995
              > > > Q-Synopsis. The Double Tradition Passages in Greek.
              > > > ISBN: 90-6831-662-1
              > > >
              > > > Neirynck F., 1991
              > > > The Minor Agreements in a Horizontal-Line Synopsis.
              > > > ISBN: 90-6831-347-9
              > > >
              > > > 6 and 10 Euro each. A must-have, I think.
              > > >
              > > > Best wishes
              > > > Wieland
              > > > <><
              > > > ------------------------------------------------
              > > > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
              > > > mailto:willker@c...
              > > > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
              > > > Textcritical commentary:
              > > > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > SPONSORED LINKS
              > > Bible
              > theology
              > Theology
              >
              Christianity
              >
              > >
              > > ---------------------------------
              > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
              > >
              > >
              > > Visit your group "textualcriticism" on the web.
              > >
              > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > > textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > >
              > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              > Service.
              > >
              > >
              > > ---------------------------------
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > ---------------------------------
              > > Yahoo! Photos
              > > Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events,
              > holidays, whatever.
              > >
              >
            • Wieland Willker
              ... That s certainly one explanation. But I think that you cannot play off one rule against the other. In one variation unit a conflation is more probable than
              Message 6 of 9 , Dec 29, 2005
                > If I had to submit such an explanation, I suppose I would try to
                > argue that the evangelists were self-conscious redactors engaged in
                > the production of new literary works, while the scribes (at least
                > the later ones) were merely trying to preserve the original text.
                >
                > Am I on the right track?


                That's certainly one explanation.
                But I think that you cannot play off one rule against the other. In one
                variation unit a conflation is more probable than in another. Sometimes the
                longer reading is more probably original, sometimes not.


                Best wishes
                Wieland
                <><
                ------------------------------------------------
                Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
                http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                Textcritical commentary:
                http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
              • James M. Leonard
                Earlier I had mentioned about how the discipline was in a state of disarray as especially reflected in the differing positions regarding Synoptic sources.
                Message 7 of 9 , Dec 31, 2005

                  Earlier I had mentioned about how the discipline was in a state of disarray as especially reflected in the differing positions regarding Synoptic sources.  Now, as I read through Martin Hengel's The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, this suspicion continues to be confirmed.

                  Hengel is circumspect, appropriately I think, in writing "I do not dispute the existence of 'Q', but only the possibility of demonstrating its unity and reconstructing it in any way which is at all reliable..." (173).

                  What is remarkable is his reason for denying our ability to reconstruct Q.  He continues, "...the later [!] Matthew used the earlier Luke."  This contrasts with Dr. Goodacre who argues that Luke used Matthew.

                  Sure would be nice to get the Synoptic Problem fixed sometime in our generation!

                   

                  Jim Leonard

                  Southwestern Pennsylvania

                   

                   


                  --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker" <willker@c...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > If I had to submit such an explanation, I suppose I would try to
                  > > argue that the evangelists were self-conscious redactors engaged in
                  > > the production of new literary works, while the scribes (at least
                  > > the later ones) were merely trying to preserve the original text.
                  > >
                  > > Am I on the right track?
                  >
                  >
                  > That's certainly one explanation.
                  > But I think that you cannot play off one rule against the other. In one
                  > variation unit a conflation is more probable than in another. Sometimes the
                  > longer reading is more probably original, sometimes not.
                  >
                  >
                  > Best wishes
                  > Wieland
                  > <><
                  > ------------------------------------------------
                  > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                  > mailto:willker@c...
                  > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                  > Textcritical commentary:
                  > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
                  >

                • James M. Leonard
                  Can textual criticism solve the Synoptic Problem?Dr. Fee writes, …when one works with [harmonistic] variations over many, many instances, and in many
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jan 1, 2006

                    Can textual criticism solve the Synoptic Problem?

                    Dr. Fee writes, "…when one works with [harmonistic] variations over many, many instances, and in many different kinds of Gospel settings, the clear direction in which the textual solution tends to lie is also a direction that calls for the priority of Mark.  If one were to posit the priority of Matthew, then the resolution of the textual harmonization almost always requires a solution that is either more circuitous or that is less satisfactory in answering the basic question of textual criticism:  which text best explains how the other(s) came about? ("Modern Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem:  On the Problem of Harmonization in the Gospels" in Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Criticism, 180).

                    Unfortunately, the texts which Dr. Fee works through in this essay deal only with harmonization, and not at all with the Synoptic Problem.  At the end of the essay, he tacks on some thoughts about how tc principles can be applied to the Synoptic Problem (i.e., Griesbach's first principle), but this is not at all related to how an analysis of a harmonized text can lead to progress on the Synoptic Problem.  Despite the teasing paragraph above, he offers not a single example of textual variation which, properly analyzed, might lead to some help on the Synoptic Problem.

                    Frankly, I'd like to see how an analysis of harmonistic readings might bear on the Synoptic Problem.  Having read as widely as I can on harmonization and on the Synoptic Problem, I don't think anyone has made any real effort to do so. 

                    Can anyone point me toward such Synoptic texts or to any further reading?

                     

                    Jim Leonard

                    Southwestern Pennsylvania

                     

                     


                    --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "James M. Leonard" <jmleonardfamily@m...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > Earlier I had mentioned about how the discipline was in a state of disarray as especially reflected in the differing positions regarding Synoptic sources. Now, as I read through Martin Hengel's The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, this suspicion continues to be confirmed.
                    >
                    > Hengel is circumspect, appropriately I think, in writing "I do not dispute the existence of 'Q', but only the possibility of demonstrating its unity and reconstructing it in any way which is at all reliable..." (173).
                    >
                    > What is remarkable is his reason for denying our ability to reconstruct Q. He continues, "...the later [!] Matthew used the earlier Luke." This contrasts with Dr. Goodacre who argues that Luke used Matthew.
                    >
                    > Sure would be nice to get the Synoptic Problem fixed sometime in our generation!
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Jim Leonard
                    >
                    > Southwestern Pennsylvania
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker" willker@c... wrote:
                    > >
                    > > > If I had to submit such an explanation, I suppose I would try to
                    > > > argue that the evangelists were self-conscious redactors engaged in
                    > > > the production of new literary works, while the scribes (at least
                    > > > the later ones) were merely trying to preserve the original text.
                    > > >
                    > > > Am I on the right track?
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > That's certainly one explanation.
                    > > But I think that you cannot play off one rule against the other. In one
                    > > variation unit a conflation is more probable than in another. Sometimes the
                    > > longer reading is more probably original, sometimes not.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Best wishes
                    > > Wieland
                    > > <><
                    > > ------------------------------------------------
                    > > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                    > > mailto:willker@c...
                    > > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                    > > Textcritical commentary:
                    > > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
                    > >
                    >

                  • James M. Leonard
                    In Streeter s The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, the issue of the minor agreements of Matt and Luke against Mark is discussed. He attempts to deal with
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jan 4, 2006

                      In Streeter's The Four Gospels:  A Study of Origins, the issue of the minor agreements of Matt and Luke against Mark is discussed.  He attempts to deal with them, or tries to explain them away,  in four categories.  The fourth category is agreement through textual corruption.

                      In 19 pages, Streeter deals with  "all the minor agreements not already discussed in this chapter which seem to me at all significant" (1951, 309).  Farmer is said to have responded by claiming that most of the textual decisions Streeter made to explain away these 31 passages have not been largely accepted by tc scholarship.

                      I checked in Stein's The Synoptic Problem:  An Introduction, which is often cited as the modern authority on the issue, and chuckled to see that he devotes but a single paragraph to the question.  He concludes anemically,  "Whether or not certain of the Matthew-Luke agreements can be explained as due to textual corruption is a matter for the specialist in textual criticism..."  (126).

                      So there you have it, my specialist friends, it's up to you to solve the Synoptic Problem!

                      Again, I'm soliciting recommended reading on a text critical approach to the Synoptic Problem.

                       

                      Jim Leonard

                      Southwestern Pennsylvania

                       


                      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "James M. Leonard" <jmleonardfamily@m...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Can textual criticism solve the Synoptic Problem?Dr. Fee writes, "…when one works with [harmonistic] variations over many, many instances, and in many different kinds of Gospel settings, the clear direction in which the textual solution tends to lie is also a direction that calls for the priority of Mark. If one were to posit the priority of Matthew, then the resolution of the textual harmonization almost always requires a solution that is either more circuitous or that is less satisfactory in answering the basic question of textual criticism: which text best explains how the other(s) came about? ("Modern Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem: On the Problem of Harmonization in the Gospels" in Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Criticism, 180).Unfortunately, the texts which Dr. Fee works through in this essay deal only with harmonization, and not at all with the Synoptic Problem. At the end of the essay, he tacks on some thoughts about how tc principles can be applied to the Synoptic Problem (i.e., Griesbach's first principle), but this is not at all related to how an analysis of a harmonized text can lead to progress on the Synoptic Problem. Despite the teasing paragraph above, he offers not a single example of textual variation which, properly analyzed, might lead to some help on the Synoptic Problem.Frankly, I'd like to see how an analysis of harmonistic readings might bear on the Synoptic Problem. Having read as widely as I can on harmonization and on the Synoptic Problem, I don't think anyone has made any real effort to do so. Can anyone point me toward such Synoptic texts or to any further reading?
                      >
                      >
                      > Jim Leonard
                      >
                      > Southwestern Pennsylvania
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "James M. Leonard" jmleonardfamily@m... wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Earlier I had mentioned about how the discipline was in a state of disarray as especially reflected in the differing positions regarding Synoptic sources. Now, as I read through Martin Hengel's The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, this suspicion continues to be confirmed.
                      > >
                      > > Hengel is circumspect, appropriately I think, in writing "I do not dispute the existence of 'Q', but only the possibility of demonstrating its unity and reconstructing it in any way which is at all reliable..." (173).
                      > >
                      > > What is remarkable is his reason for denying our ability to reconstruct Q. He continues, "...the later [!] Matthew used the earlier Luke." This contrasts with Dr. Goodacre who argues that Luke used Matthew.
                      > >
                      > > Sure would be nice to get the Synoptic Problem fixed sometime in our generation!
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Jim Leonard
                      > >
                      > > Southwestern Pennsylvania
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker" willker@c... wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > > If I had to submit such an explanation, I suppose I would try to
                      > > > > argue that the evangelists were self-conscious redactors engaged in
                      > > > > the production of new literary works, while the scribes (at least
                      > > > > the later ones) were merely trying to preserve the original text.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Am I on the right track?
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > That's certainly one explanation.
                      > > > But I think that you cannot play off one rule against the other. In one
                      > > > variation unit a conflation is more probable than in another. Sometimes the
                      > > > longer reading is more probably original, sometimes not.
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Best wishes
                      > > > Wieland
                      > > > <><
                      > > > ------------------------------------------------
                      > > > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                      > > > mailto:willker@c...
                      > > > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                      > > > Textcritical commentary:
                      > > > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >

                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.