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

Theories receiving attention

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    I see from Mark Goodacre s report on the second day of the Oxford Conference on the Synoptic Problem that the three theories which are receiving most attention
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 9, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I see from Mark Goodacre's report on the second day of the Oxford Conference
      on the Synoptic Problem that the three theories which are receiving most
      attention are the Two-Source Theory, the Griesbach Theory and the Farrer
      Theory.

      Given recent form in scholarly circles we should hardly be surprised. But
      there are two anomalies here.

      Firstly the Griesbach Theory should have been abandoned many decades ago, as
      it does not really stand up to rational argument and it defies common sense.

      Secondly there is no mention of any theories which attempt to blend the
      Two-Source Theory and the Farrer Theory. Perhaps the assembled delegates
      cannot conceive of such a blend. There is a blend which solves the major
      problems of both theories, and brings to light some extraordinary
      connections, as well as a truly credible sayings source. It's all available
      from the following page:

      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      It might interest you to know that there are people who would say exactly the same about the Two Source Theory (and who would also think hasty and
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 9, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        It might interest you to know that there are people who would say exactly the same about the Two Source Theory (and who would also think hasty and irresponsible?Ron's view of the Griesbach theory). But simply?trading dogmatisms in this way is not famous for advancing the science.

        Leonard Maluf
        Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
        Weston, MA

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Ron Price <ron.price@...>
        To: Synoptic-L elist <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 7:00 am
        Subject: [Synoptic-L] Theories receiving attention



        I see from Mark Goodacre's report on the second day of the Oxford Conference
        on the Synoptic Problem that the three theories which are receiving most
        attention are the Two-Source Theory, the Griesbach Theory and the Farrer
        Theory.

        Given recent form in scholarly circles we should hardly be surprised. But
        there are two anomalies here.

        Firstly the Griesbach Theory should have been abandoned many decades ago, as
        it does not really stand up to rational argument and it defies common sense.




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Ron Price
        ... Leonard, Greetings. It seems a long time since we ve heard from you. It is not dogmatic to recognize an obvious truth. Dogmatism only enters the debate
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 9, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          I had written:

          > ..... the Griesbach Theory should have been abandoned many decades ago, as
          > it does not really stand up to rational argument and it defies common sense.

          Leonard Maluf replied:

          > It might interest you to know that there are people who would say exactly the
          > same about the Two Source Theory (and who would also think hasty and
          > irresponsible?Ron's view of the Griesbach theory). But simply?trading
          > dogmatisms in this way is not famous for advancing the science.

          Leonard,

          Greetings. It seems a long time since we've heard from you.

          It is not dogmatic to recognize an obvious truth. Dogmatism only enters the
          debate when good rational arguments are brushed aside or countered by
          blatantly feebler arguments (a common occurrence in discussions on so-called
          'Intelligent Design'). It's clear to me that the argument about Markan
          priority was essentially settled over a century ago, and I cannot see why
          modern scholars should devote serious debating time to a theory (Griesbach)
          which fails all the best tests of the directionality of documentary
          dependence. Mark's style is improved. His bluntness is ameliorated. His
          major gaps are filled in. When we look at it the other way round, it is
          difficult to see what motivation Mark would have had to produce a shorter
          gospel story with much duplication and then severely trim the sayings of
          Jesus and not include any resurrection appearances. What a waste of effort!
          The gospel message would have lost nothing had all copies of Mark been
          destroyed in the second century. Need I say more?

          Ron Price

          Derbyshire, UK

          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
        • gentile_dave@emc.com
          I think I d venture that all three of the listed theories fail the test of basic plausibility - IF they are taken to be complete theories, with no additions
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 10, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            I think I'd venture that all three of the listed theories fail the test
            of basic plausibility - IF they are taken to be complete theories, with
            no additions needed. If I were to go on and rank them according to which
            ones need the least adjustment in order to achieve plausibility I think
            I would say:



            1) 2SH

            2) FH

            3) GH



            Although, arguably 1 and 2 could be reversed.



            Maybe as a rhetorical point, it might be better to present the 3SH as
            just a variation of the accepted 2SH. Besides, while I'm convinced that
            our Luke is dependent on Matthew in part, I am agnostic on the idea that
            the autograph version of Luke is dependent on Matthew. As a matter of
            taxonomy I'm not sure it should really be called a "3 source hypothesis"
            unless the autograph of Luke depends on Matthew.



            Dave





            Dave Gentile

            Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician

            EMC Captiva

            EMC Corporation

            601 Oakmont Lane,

            Westmont, IL 60559

            P: 630-321-2985

            F: 630-654-1607

            E: Gentile_Dave@...





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.