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

3443RE: [Synoptic-L] A modified 3SH theory

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    Jul 1, 2011
      Ron, apologies for confusing both you and myself in my post! I was trying to
      make it short, but in the process took out too much clarifying info. I'm in
      the final stages of a stylistic analysis of the synoptics (starting from a
      completely 'agnostic' view of the synoptic problem) that appears to be
      telling me this:

      1. The general order of the form of the gospels as we see them is Mk
      -> Mt -> Lk

      2. Mk was the main source used by Mt, but Mt had access to other
      written material as well.

      3. Mk and Mt were the main sources used by Lk, but Lk had access to
      other written material as well.

      4. The other written source(s) available to Mt and Lk included
      material not in Mk, which was the source for at least some of the agreement
      between Mt and Lk against Mk (both double and triple traditions)

      5. Mt and Lk may have also had access to oral material, but if so we
      have no way of knowing what it was. We assume that it contributed to the Mt
      and Lk sonderguts, but could have also contributed to some of the
      differences in wording in the double tradition.

      Note that I'm not saying here whether the written sources(s) available to Mt
      and Lk were exactly the same or not, but whatever they were they overlapped.
      I'm also not saying that the overlap was Q, or anything like Q. I'm just
      saying that there was some additional common written material available to
      Mt and Lk. Also, whether you believe additional written sources (Q or
      something else) are necessary or not, my analysis is saying that something
      did exist. Finally, this kind of analysis can in no way help with any
      discussion as to which of the synoptics has the 'best' order of pericopes. I
      hope that's a little clearer.

      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

      From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      Of Ronald Price
      Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 3:18 AM
      To: Synoptic-L
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A modified 3SH theory

      On 30/06/2011 23:47, "David Inglis" <davidinglis2@...
      <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> > wrote:

      > As I understand it, the addition of the Mt -> Lk arrow to the 2SH (thus
      > creating the 3SH) basically allows for slight editing of text from Mt by
      > to create the minor agreements. In other words, the 3SH assumes that Q ->
      > followed by Q -> Lk is now the double tradition is created, and Mt -> Lk
      > where aLk edits the result slightly. However, using the same arrows, how
      > things change if Q -> Mt followed by Mt - > Lk is what creates the double
      > tradition, and then Q -> Lk is where aLk makes the slight edits. This gets
      > of the problem of how Q became 'lost' if it was so important,
      > because with my modification Q is only a minor source for both aMt and

      I don't understand this. If Q is taken to be more or less equivalent to the
      double tradition, as is usually the case in the 2ST, then this source will
      surely only be more minor for aLk.

      The minor agreements relate to the triple tradition, which is where your
      "slight editing" shows up. In regard to the double tradition, are you
      suggesting that in Q -> Lk, Luke merely makes a few 'corrections' to the
      double tradition based on a supposedly more ancient Q? This would be quite a
      difficult procedure if Matthew had substantially altered the order of the Q

      More crucially, if the double tradition is explained as comprising the
      pericopes which Luke copied from Matthew, you would then have to explain why
      you think there was a Q source. Also it would be a remarkable coincidence if
      in Mt -> Lk Luke copied all of the Q pericopes and no others from Matthew.
      Even if he knew the contents of Q by studying it carefully, extracting each
      of the 60+ repositioned pericopes from Mt would be very difficult.

      If on the other hand you were to start from my radical version of the 3ST
      and alter it by positing that Luke copied the logia material from Mt rather
      than directly from the logia, with perhaps a few minor corrections based on
      the original logia, then this would not explain why (if my analysis is
      correct) Luke has ordered many of the sayings more accurately than Matthew.

      Ron Price,

      Derbyshire, UK



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic