 |
| Thanks to Hugh for the photo |
One question I got in the Q&A was if I could put together some short YouTube videos. Each video could maybe explore a different aspect of the method, giving examples and that might be a good entry point for students. That’s a good idea and I might try to do that if I find the time. I am keen to find more ways to make the CBGM
In the mean time, I said I would share a lecture I gave at my seminary earlier this year that may serve as a good starting point for students. I’ve also uploaded the slides (which aren’t in the video) so you can follow along. My part of the talk starts around the 33 minute mark. Let me know if you find this helpful, especially if you’re a teacher.
That was a great lecture ... right up to the section on Mark 1.1!!
ReplyDeleteYou mean the high point!
DeleteNO, it is because I haven't been persuaded yet that arguments purely based on the supposed "coherence" or otherwise of a pair of readings are actually strong arguments about the real history of the text (rather than a bias inherent in the system and its interpreters).
DeleteOkay, but did I base the argument purely on coherence? I think here the coherence tips the scales where the other evidence is conflicted. But yes, coherence is not a binary type of evidence. Other explanations for any given coherence are possible. (For example, coherence could be bad in some cases because of lost witnesses.) But, having worked through lots of variants in the Catholic Letters, I saw again and again that the coherence matched what I already thought to be the case on internal grounds. That has led me to trust it even where the other types of evidence conflict, like in Mark 1.1. As for bias, I think that's hard to demonstrate given how many places of variation its based on. In any case, the argument for Mark 1.1 is only based on pre-genealogical coherence, so almost certainly not biased. But didn't you read my dissertation? I thought I assuaged all your criticisms already.
DeletePG,
ReplyDeleteIf coherence is so important, how is it possible that a reading that is NOT in a single Greek manuscript could be chosen using the CBGM? Additionally, this is a case where the editor’s decision, Mink, as to what he thinks is most natural reading outweighs the manuscript evidence and the results of the CBGM!
Tim
We deal with 2 Peter 3.10 in the book. I actually think the coherence provides evidence against the NA28 conjecture. But all that goes to show is that the editors don't blindly follow coherence. How could they when coherence typically is a scalar type of evidence?
DeleteAlso, the subjective nature of the CBGM is highlighted by ‘the editors realized that a number of Byzantine witnesses were surprisingly similar to THEIR OWN reconstructed text’ so they now consider it (the Byzantine Text) to be “an important witness to the early text.”
ReplyDeleteWhat, they reconstruct a text, then decide that a text type that looks like theirs must be important! Can we say circular?
Tim
Only circular if they had used that same text to determine their reconstructed text. In this case, they started with a bias against the Byzantine witnesses and ended with a more favorable opinion of it. So, kind of the opposite of circularity. But, no one has ever claimed that the CBGM isn't subjective. How could it be otherwise?
DeletePG,
DeleteI am glad to hear you say the CBGM is subjective. You might think that Iit being subjective is obvious, yet almost everything written seems to assume that the CBGM is not. Authors might talk about the CBGM as a tool, but then act as if the results are unchallengeable!
Tim
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePeter, trying to forget what I've read/heard on CBGM elsewhere and focusing on this talk, I'd say the main things to know are these: (1) computers help us sort the large amounts of data found in the MSS; (2) CBGM helps us be more consistent; (3) CBGM doesn't lead to many changes in the text, but occasionally they are important, and these important ones tend to be a bit shocking, like Jesus' anger; and (4) CBGM can be expected strongly to influence English versions from this point on. Just trying to summarize what I got out of it so you have an idea what at least one person heard you to say.
ReplyDeleteOn a related note, thank you for giving talks like this, for putting in the effort as a Christian scholar to help people understand the issues, and even for prodding people away from complacency, since, after all, textual criticism is a most vital undertaking indeed. Really that word of thanks should go to all the blog editors here, but this thought struck me as I listened to you in this video.
Thanks, Stephen. Aiding understanding was my main goal.
DeleteThose were two very helpful and informative talks on Cyprian and the CBGM. My thanks to both Dr. Arnold and Dr. Gurry.
ReplyDeleteEven though I'm not entirely sold on the CBGM, one will certainly come away from Dr. Gurry's talk in the video understanding it.
This was a very helpful talk on the CBGM. Thanks Peter. As a professor helping students to understand what the CBGM was, how it works, and what its value is, this was very helpful to me and I am sure that I will be pointing some students to this talk.
ReplyDeletePeter,
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting this video. I have watched this video, am reading the book you and Tommy wrote and heard countless talks on this at SBL. I recognize that this video was an introduction for an audience with various backgrounds and interest levels and thus had to be at a certain level, and I thought it was a good introduction to that audience. What I would like, however, would be to see a video of how to use the CBGM website. When I watched your video and heard your explanation of Mark 1:1 (and read yours and Peter's back and forth about it in the comments), it leaves me wanting to go to the CBGM website and reproduce your Mark 1:1 results, but I get to the website, and I have no idea how to. I seem to recall, years ago, at SBL some general tutorial but I have forgotten the explanations. When I see talks that produce these results from the CBGM, and spit out these graphics (like you have in your book with flow charts) I want to know how to produce them. As you think about making more videos (if you have time for that) I would really like to see a type of tutorial of you using the website--even just walking through how you arrived at the conclusion that witnesses that have "son of God" show more coherence than witnesses that do not. I am not doubting or arguing the conclusion, I would just like to see a tutorial on how to get there, so that I could then apply the lessons to other passages of my own interest. At SBL this year, during your presentation Q&A, I believe, the comment was made that people just need to play around with the CBGM and then they will understand it. I guess my problem is, I do not even understand how to play around with it. I think I understand the theory, but how does it work in practice? That would be my request.
Dan
Dan, that's helpful and makes good sense. I've felt the need for a while now for some kind of "walkthroughs" to help orient people to the software. What buttons do I push? What do they do? That kind of thing. If I can find the time, that's what I'd like to do.
DeleteIt was good lecture. Very informative. Good to know about the conclusions about Mark 1:1. Maybe I am bit slow, I didn't get what you said in regards to CBGM conclusions about 2 Peter 3:10? "Will be found" or "will not be found"?
ReplyDelete