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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Theories receiving attention

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.