In this
episode I do two things:
First, I share
a draft of a recent book review I completed on the Synoptic Problem.
Second, I reflect on a recent blog post that raised questions about the Synoptic Problem
and Text Criticism.
Part One: Book Review:
Stanley E. Porter and
Bryan R. Dyer, Eds., The Synoptic
Problem: Four Views (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2016): 194 pp.
Part Two: Blog post:
In a blog post titled “Markan
Priority, Messianic Secret, and the Textus Receptus” from May 9, 2019 on
the Evangelical Text Criticism blog, Peter Gurry noted an article from David
Parker in an anthology titled The
Future of NT Textual Scholarship (Mohr Siebeck, 2019), sadly priced at
over $150!
Parker apparently writes about how the rejection of the TR was
connected to the overall objectives inherent in the application of modern
historical-critical method to the TR. Here is the brief quote from Parker’s
article:
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.
So, the rejection of the TR leads to the Synoptic Problem and
the Messianic Secret? Parker (and perhaps Gurry too, though more cautious) see
this as a great advance. But is it? What has this meant for the authority of
the Bible?
Could it be that the first step to reclaiming Biblical authority
is reclaiming an authoritative text?
JTR
1 comment:
Pastor Jeff, I enjoyed listening to this episode. I would love to know what your own position is on the Synoptic Problem. I was taught the Q-theory in seminary, and that has been my position for many years. However, after reading a lot of work by Goodacre, my confidence in Q is virtually nil, although I still tentatively hold to the theory. It sounds as though you do not believe there is any real problem here to solve. But rather than assume, I would love to hear from you what solution you are convinced of for the Synoptic Problem. If you do not believe there is any literary dependence among the Synoptics, how do you account for their origins, especially in light of their many verbatim agreements as well as their significant disagreements? Thanks very much.
Post a Comment