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

2 Quotes from M. Black

Expand Messages
  • Mitch Larramore
    Can I have explanations for these 2 comments by Matthew Black: 1.Principles valid for the textual restoration of Plato or Aristotle cannot be applied to sacred
    Message 1 of 3 , May 4, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Can I have explanations for these 2 comments by Matthew Black:

      1.Principles valid for the textual restoration of Plato or Aristotle cannot be applied to sacred texts such as the Gospels (or the Pauline Epistles).

      2. We cannot assume that it is possible by a sifting of 'scribal errors' to arrive at the prototype or autograph text of the Biblical writer.

      Source of both quotes: An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1946), p. 214.


      Mitch Larramore
      Sugar Land, Texas
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... IMHO, Black was trying to get more acceptance of his Aramaic approach by poisoning the well of text-critical method. He does not substantiate these
      Message 2 of 3 , May 5, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mitch Larramore <mitchlarramore@...>, May 4, 2009 3:54 PM wrote:
        >Can I have explanations for these 2 comments by Matthew Black:
        >
        >1.Principles valid for the textual restoration of Plato or Aristotle
        >cannot be applied to sacred texts such as the Gospels (or the Pauline
        >Epistles).
        >
        >2. We cannot assume that it is possible by a sifting of 'scribal errors'
        >to arrive at the prototype or autograph text of the Biblical writer.

        IMHO, Black was trying to get more acceptance of his Aramaic approach by
        poisoning the well of text-critical method. He does not substantiate these
        statements with sufficient reasoning, and they ultimately beg the question
        that his Aramaic approach is the way to go.

        >Source of both quotes: An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford:
        >Oxford University Press, 1946), p. 214.

        That's the first edition. In the third edition, these passages are on pp.
        279-280.

        Stephen


        --
        Stephen C. Carlson
        Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
        Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)
      • Eddie Mishoe
        Mitch: 1.Principles valid for the textual restoration of Plato or Aristotle ... Of course there are only 7 Platonic mss available. That would be one reason.
        Message 3 of 3 , May 5, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Mitch:

          1.Principles valid for the textual restoration of Plato or Aristotle
          >cannot be applied to sacred texts such as the Gospels (or the Pauline
          >Epistles).

          Of course there are only 7 Platonic mss available. That would be one reason. And I wonder if Dr. Black might be taking into consideration the presumed religious convictions of scribes of sacred texts versus the secular scribe who would presume to have less of a bias. I doubt that could be supported, but it would seem to be a default assumption if you ask me.


          >2. We cannot assume that it is possible by a sifting of 'scribal errors'
          >to arrive at the prototype or autograph text of the Biblical writer.

          Wittgenstein has said (if I may paraphrase) that there are no genuine disputes, only vague and undefined terms. My assumption is that "sifting of scribal errors" would be Black's way of saying "textual criticism methodology." Thus, this quote needs far more data [context] before any answer could be given outside of speculative.

          Eddie Mishoe
          Pastor


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