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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Theories receiving attention

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.