I’ve just finished reading David Parker’s essay in the new book The Future of NT Textual Scholarship (more on that here). Even though I disagree with the main thrust of Parker’s work in the Living Text of the Gospels, there are few text critics I enjoy reading more than him. He always gets me thinking about things in fresh ways or from new angles. And very often he is asking the right question even when I don’t agree with his answer.Here is a case in point from the essay just mentioned, and I’d love to hear from people who are better versed in the history of Gospel scholarship than I am. On pages 398–399, Parker writes:
The result [of using 4th/5th c. manuscripts for critical editions] represented a huge change from the Textus Receptus. Gone were the Johannine Comma, the Pericope Adulterae, the Longer Ending of Mark. Gone too were so many harmonisations and alterations in the text of Mark that the new editions produced what by comparison with the Textus Receptus was a new version of the Gospel. A new approach to the Synoptic Problem and the influential theory of the Messianic Secret were just two developments that would never have been possible using the Textus Receptus.Now, I would not have thought that certain views of the Synoptic problem or Wrede’s messianic secret theory weren’t possible using the TR. But that could well be due to my ignorance. Even if that’s an exaggeration, it does get me thinking about the degree to which certain prominent views in NT studies over the last 150 years wouldn’t be possible (or would be far less compelling) if we were all still using the TR. What say our readers on this question?
I think the general point is fair enough. Look at the Lord's prayer as an example of differences magnified in the critical editions. I gave a paper on this once. Not sure about the messianic secret though.
ReplyDeleteThe wikipedia article on the Messianic Secret actually addresses that part of Parker's claim. It says:
Delete//Wrede recognized the inherent inter-relationship of his approach with the hypothesis of Markan priority – namely that Mark was written first and influenced the other Gospels. However, after re-examining his initial theory, Wrede suggested that his theory would work best if the Markan priority hypothesis turned out to be false and wrote: "it would be 'most highly desirable' if such a gospel as Mark were not the oldest gospel".[4] Yet, the followers of the Messianic Secret hypothesis were later forced to assume Markan priority – an issue that has resulted in various forms of criticism by other scholars.[4]//
In those footnotes it cites an article by you. So I guess "not sure about" is an understatement.
My paper was 'Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem: A Historical Perspective from 1500 to 1900' Paper for Fourth Birmingham Colloquium on NT Textual Criticism, 18 – 21 April 2005. (was that the only Birmingham Colloquium that didn't publish the papers?)
DeleteI can see why mine wasn't published! Needs a couple of months work.
DeleteMark Goodacre has a short note about this colloquium at https://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2005/04/textual-criticism-colloquium.html
DeleteIt is amazing how little of that book is actually concerned with the future. The editor claims the title is "audacious", there is another name for it too: false advertising.
ReplyDeleteHaha! You're right in a sense, Peter! But how do we think about the future of a discipline without considering past trends and figures (both prominent and forgotten) that have brought us to where we now are?
DeleteThe longer ending of Mark is clearly not supporting those that argue for Markan priority. Once Mk 16.9-20 is *removed* from the playing field, the Synoptic problem is looking significantly different in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI think an article or two written to establish (or disprove) precisely what he says in that quote would be good contributions to scholarship. It's an interesting question. I won't venture to try to answer right now.
ReplyDeleteBut this brings up a question I have had about Parker's views presented in his Living Text of the Gospels. It seems to me that adopting his view of Gospels texts undermines all hope for any of the traditional solutions to the synoptic problem. And a complaint I have about that book is that it doesn't address that point. I haven't read the chapter the above quote comes from. But since Parker broaches the subject the way he does there, does he also go on to talk about how his own theory would shatter the two-/four- source hypothesis just as much as he is saying that the critical text paved the way for it?
"The quest for the historical text always(!), culminates in the quest for the historical Jesus." At least that's how Dr. Letis would have it. It shouldn't be a shock that those who deny certain aspects of the Christian faith would prefer texts which accommodate their presuppositions. All is left to do then is to apply higher criticism and voila` ,we have a hypothetical construct which allows for the dismissal of all "later" theological accretion (i.e.virgin birth, bodily resurrection, ascension, divinity of Christ, miricles, etc.) which are not suited to such and such scholars particular tastes. Thus the over emphasis on Mark's Gospel in this regard. The dismissal of the Last 12 verses of Mark played a vital role in this ideology as did also the principal lectio brevio potior. -MMR
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhile there is a logical nexus between the “quest for the historical text” and the “quest for the historical Jesus," I am not aware that Letis ever demonstrated a direct cause and effect relationship between the two areas of enquiry.
DeleteIt is interesting to note that Michael Bird, “Textual Criticism and the Historical Jesus,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 6 (2008) 133–156, upbraids scholars of the ‘historical Jesus’ for moving “all too comfortably from the UBS 4 or NA 27 to the historical Jesus, but without giving much thought for the complex and disputed textual history that lies between them.” (Bird, 134).
He later concludes, “While scholars have been quick to nail their colours to the mast about the oral tradition and the theological activity of the Evangelists, the question of the integrity of the textual tradition has been mostly ignored. This is all the more disconcerting, since the very possibility of historical Jesus research rests on certain assumptions about the nature of our Gospel texts.” (Bird, 155).
FP, you state "While there is a logical nexus between the “quest for the historical text” and the “quest for the historical Jesus," I am not aware that Letis ever demonstrated a direct cause and effect relationship between the two areas of enquiry."
DeleteTwo historical examples Letis gives are as follows: 1. Sir Isaac Newton, in regards to his denial of the trinity and divinity of Christ as based upon the textual variation at I John 5:7,8 and II Tim.3:16. Secondly he offers the work of Joseph Priestley, who denied the trinity in light of textual variation at I John 5:7,8 and the virgin birth on the basis of the Gospel of Matthew being written originally in hebrew. Apparently Priestley surmised that the hebrew original of Matthew's gospel did not contain the first chapter and therefore (in an act of proto-higher criticism no less) he suggested that the virgin birth was a theological afterthought. Letis heavily implies that the Annotations of Erasmus acted as a spring-board for such progression in thinking. He clearly thinks it axiomatic that a change in a historical text (in this case the NT) naturally leads to a change in understanding history. Which, as I can gather from your statement, "While there is a logical nexus between the “quest for the historical text” and the “quest for the historical Jesus," that you to understand all too well.
On a side note, I personally think to much emphasis has been put on intentional corruption (whether by orthodox or heretic) and to little upon the fact that men may have simply indulged in confirmation bias and chose the reading which best suits their theological preference. Which readings (as it goes) came generally by accident via parabelipsis, hom.tel.,hom.arc. or by marginal note or lection smoothing seeping into the Text. It would be foolish to suppose that this is only a modern phenomenon. Surely the followers of Cerenthius, Marcion, Valentinius or Basilides would be inclined towards a text or readings which coincide with their masters teachings. The same could be said of the orthodox who might naturally tend towards a reading familiar to them as read in the Church lectionary and thus honor such readings as authentic (and therefore admitting a gloss here and a fuller sacred name there). -And yet even knowing this cannot properly guide a critic. Unless of course his own judgment is squarely founded upon external evidence first! -M.M.R.
The paper mentioned by Peter Head (or one that sounds very much like it) is available on his academia page and is well worth a read, especially for the intersecting histories of scholarship on the synoptic problem and NT textual criticism in the early 20th century. Also worth checking out on a related topic are J. K. Elliott's chapters on different gospel synopses and the synoptic problem. I've been working on a "handbook" chapter on "Manuscripts and the Problem of Dependence" for the last few months. The problem, in a nutshell, is this: As Mike Holmes has noted, the text of the gospels in our earliest manuscripts displays "microlevel fluidity" ("the fluidity of wording within a verse, sentence, or paragraph is sometimes remarkable..."), and for something like the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark, this micro-level fluidity makes comparison really quite difficult. The good(-ish) news is that the traditional arguments for Markan priority seem, to me anyway, to be basically unaffected by this microlevel fluidity. But deciding between, say, the Two-Source Hypothesis, and the Goulder-Goodacre Hypothesis is a lot more tricky when textual variation is taken into consideration. And, of course, all of this is impossible to see in the TR, which appears to be the result of a great deal of harmonizing, often of Mark to Matthew.
ReplyDelete<< The result [of using 4th/5th c. manuscripts for critical editions] represented a huge change from the Textus Receptus. Gone were the Johannine Comma, the Pericope Adulterae, the Longer Ending of Mark. >>
ReplyDeleteExcept, in real life, Irenaeus obvious had at least one MS in the 100s with Mark 16:19, and codices A, C, D, and W have Mark 16:9-20 (plus MSS used by various patristic writers in an assortment of locales in the 300s and 400s), and Jerome reports that he saw the pericope adulterae in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin.
Whatever David Parker was trying to describe, it was not a simple reliance on ancient evidence instead of younger evidence.
James Snapp, you wrote "Whatever David Parker was trying to describe, it was not a simple reliance on ancient evidence instead of younger evidence."
DeleteVery true. In lieu of the general academic narrative he must of meant a very few specific mss., i.e. Aleph/B etc...
Outside of that, maybe the brackets are Dr. Gurry's words and not Parkers (?). -M.M.R.
I assume that the bracketed words are Gurry's and that they fairly reflect what the word "result" refers back to in its context (albeit, undoubtedly with attending argumentation that would shed light).
DeleteBut it still is the case anyway, regardless of the soundness of the reasoning that led to this, that the longer ending of Mark was removed from the critical editions, and that this removal was in large part (even if not wholly) on account of reliance upon 4th-5th century manuscripts.
Eric Rowe wrote "I assume that the bracketed words are Gurry's"
DeleteI wasn't sure if the editor of the larger work (G.V. Allen), of which Parker's essay forms a part, took liberty to add explanatory notes with brackets among the various essays. If not, I suppose the customary
"[brackets are mine]" would of helped lol.
E.Rowe "and that they fairly reflect what the word "result" refers back to in its context"
Agreed, although in Txt. Criticism, as so often goes, what's correct in general is often incorrect technically and vice versa.
E.Rowe "(albeit, undoubtedly with attending argumentation that would shed light)."
This was my point. Without the previous context we have no idea of how Parker qualified and fleshed out his argument.
E.Rowe "But it still is the case anyway, regardless of the soundness of the reasoning that led to this, that the longer ending of Mark was removed from the critical editions, and that this removal was in large part (even if not wholly) on account of reliance upon 4th-5th century manuscripts."
Agreed,-And case in point. This statement is generally true, yet technically it could be argued against if not qualified (for one there is no 5th cent. Mss. which omits the verses). The only thing I would add is that principles played a vital role in the removal of the last twelve verses of Mark, as also did certain statements of Eusebius. Scrivener put it best when he stated "All opposition to the authenticity of the paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius and the testimony of Aleph/B" -M.M.R.