2723Re: [Synoptic-L] Opinions about accretion
- May 1, 2010Jeff Peterson wrote in reply to Bruce Brooks:
> I think your characterization of Minear's case as "simply an argument forJeff and Bruce,
> accepting the entire canonical NT in a reverent manner" is an utter misread.
> He's inviting us to question our ability to infer stages in the development
> of a text from such textual phenomena as have transfixed Johannine scholars,
Both the old 'Proto-Mark' which often used to be posited as a part of the
Two-Source Theory to explain the Minor Agreements, and the old 'Proto-Luke',
are today rejected by almost everyone.
So some scholars got it wrong. But this doesn't prove that inferring stages
in the development of a text cannot be done. It merely proves that a rather
more rigorous approach is required. I suggest that the approach should
include at least:
(1) demonstrating that the posited document at each earlier stage is more
consistent than the later stage(s), because altering a well-thought-out text
(even one's own) usually introduces some inconsistencies;
(2) demonstrating a convincing motive for the alteration(s), bearing in mind
that a significant alteration to a text in the first century would have
involved rewriting the whole by hand if it was to be kept neat.
Of course my own reconstruction of the stages in the development of the
gospel of John (see my web site) does attempt to demonstrate these features.
The posited original of the gospel is better structured and creates an even
grander impression than our extant text. (Similarly for the original of
Luke's gospel, but that's not described on my web site.)
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>