I have just
posted WM 129: The Synoptic Problem and Text Criticism. Listen here.
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:
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
