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

Re: Book on Q--TC and the Synoptic Problem

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Jan 4, 2006
    • 0 Attachment

      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, "Â…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.