11-09-2012, 01:03 AM
Most scholars are currently behind the Two Source Hypothesis as it so far is the best and most well-demonstrated explanation for the composition of Mark, Matthew and Luke. That theory states that Matthew and Luke borrowed (word for word) from Mark and another source (also word for word) that is now lost. That share material outside of Mark has been called "Q" for convenience sake, and it is unknown if it was one source or two or whatever. All that is known is that it's a lot of word-by-word overlap with some interesting quirks.
Furthermore, the nature of a critical edition is to lay out all of the known variations and make educated decisions upon which reading is most likely closest to the original tradition. As such no Seminary actually teaches that the Critical text is the "true" New Testament, as by that nature, it's an assessment of all possibilities. Because of this, it's also not restricted to the Greek NT either: Andreas Juckel (of M?nster University) gave a presentation about a critical edition of the Peshitta that is now well underway that I was fortunate enough to attend at the first Hugoye Symposium.
Peace,
-Steve
Furthermore, the nature of a critical edition is to lay out all of the known variations and make educated decisions upon which reading is most likely closest to the original tradition. As such no Seminary actually teaches that the Critical text is the "true" New Testament, as by that nature, it's an assessment of all possibilities. Because of this, it's also not restricted to the Greek NT either: Andreas Juckel (of M?nster University) gave a presentation about a critical edition of the Peshitta that is now well underway that I was fortunate enough to attend at the first Hugoye Symposium.
Peace,
-Steve