Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2723Re: [Synoptic-L] Opinions about accretion

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    May 1, 2010
      Jeff Peterson wrote in reply to Bruce Brooks:

      > I think your characterization of Minear's case as "simply an argument for
      > 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,

      Jeff and Bruce,

      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.)

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic