Re: [Synoptic-L] Theories receiving attention
- I had written:
> ..... the Griesbach Theory should have been abandoned many decades ago, asLeonard Maluf replied:
> it does not really stand up to rational argument and it defies common sense.
> It might interest you to know that there are people who would say exactly theLeonard,
> 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.
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?
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
- 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:
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.
Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician
601 Oakmont Lane,
Westmont, IL 60559
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]