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

Synoptic text categories by source

Expand Messages
  • Ronald Price
    As I see it, there are essentially ten categories of synoptic pericope when divided according to their use of written sources. (1) Pure Mark, e.g. the Parable
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 6, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      As I see it, there are essentially ten categories of synoptic pericope when
      divided according to their use of written sources.

      (1) Pure Mark, e.g. the Parable of the Vineyard in Mk 12:1-12

      (2) Pure Matthew, e.g. the Last Judgment

      (3) Pure Luke, e.g. the Good Samaritan

      (4) Mark adapting a logia saying, e.g. Mk 10:23-27, which is an expanded
      form of 'Eye of needle' in 10:25

      (5) Matthew copying/adapting logia saying(s), e.g. 'Rock/sand' in Mt 7:24-27

      (6) Luke copying/adapting logia saying(s), e.g. 'Sheep/coin' in 15:4-10

      (7) Matthew copying/adapting Mark, e.g. the Parable of the Sower, Mt 13:1-9

      (8) Matthew conflating Mark and the logia, e.g. the Mustard Seed, Mt
      13:31-32

      (9) Luke copying/adapting Mark, with an eye on Matthew for minor stylistic
      improvements, e.g. the Parable of the Wicked Tenants, Lk 20:9-19. This
      category includes Luke's version of all the 'minor agreements'.

      (10) Luke copying/adapting Matthew, e.g. the Temptations. This category
      includes all those Double Tradition ('Q') pericopes which (as I see it) were
      never in the sayings source. It also includes all the phrases which look
      distinctly Matthean, yet found their way into Luke (e.g. 'You brood of
      vipers').

      Neither the Two-Source Theory nor the Farrer Theory has all these
      categories, but I contend that all are necessary if we are to explain the
      variety and distribution of literary styles in the synoptic material.

      Ron Price,

      Derbyshire, UK

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



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • gentdave1
      Ron, The only category where you and I would have much to argue about is this one: 4) Mark adapting a logia saying, e.g. Mk 10:23-27, which is an expanded form
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 8, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron,

        The only category where you and I would have much to argue about is this one:

        4) Mark adapting a logia saying, e.g. Mk 10:23-27, which is an expanded form of 'Eye of needle' in 10:25

        I disagree with most of the places where Mark is supposed to be secondary to the saying source. However, there could be exceptions, where Mark's text is a very late alteration to the original text. But your example is not on the standard list of Mark/Q overlaps. Fledderman does not cover it, for example. I see the "expanded" text in Mark, which you refer to. I agree this might be an issue for the 2SH, since both Matthew and Luke omit the same text.

        But, from my perspective, I would offer the following: The saying source is created well after Mark. Some of the material is new, but for authenticity it must also contain sayings already found in Mark - so, I would speculate that the author of the saying source creates an abbreviated form of Mark here, and Matthew and Luke both use that abbreviated form.

        I don't see much in the way of directional indicators here, however, so my idea and yours would seem to work equally well here.

        Dave Gentile
      • Ronald Price
        I had identified as the fourth category: 4) Mark adapting a logia saying, e.g. Mk 10:23-27, which is an expanded form of Eye of needle in 10:25 ... Dave,
        Message 3 of 3 , Jan 8, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          I had identified as the fourth category:

          4) Mark adapting a logia saying, e.g. Mk 10:23-27, which is an expanded form
          of 'Eye of needle' in 10:25

          Dave Gentile replied:

          > ..... your example is not on the standard list of Mark/Q overlaps.
          >
          Dave,

          True. This is because the saying is not in the Double Tradition, and
          therefore not considered to have been in Q. In my view the saying perfectly
          matches the literary style and theological outlook of the doublet sayings,
          so I take it to have been in the logia.

          > Fledderman does not cover it, for example.
          >
          Among Q devotees, Fleddermann seems to me to be the scholar most slavishly
          attached to the hypothesis that Q was absolutely identical in scope to the
          Double Tradition.

          > I don't see much in the way of directional indicators here ...
          >
          From my point of view, the direction is clear. The core saying in Mk 10:25
          is hyperbole and looks to me to predate the synoptics. The whole story in Mk
          10:23-27 is typical of Markan adaptations of logia sayings, in this case
          providing a context which softens the saying, Mark either missing the
          hyperbole or merely allowing for readers who might have missed it. For
          whereas the original could be taken as a dig at rich people, the added
          context is designed to appeal to a wider audience including rich as well as
          poor. This is consistent with the ³many² in Mk 10:45, contrasting with the
          logia sayings with ³few² e.g. Mt 7:14; and also consistent with the wider
          default status in Mk 9:40 ³is on our side², contrasting with the narrower
          original Mt 12:30 // Lk 11:23 (³is against me²).

          Ron Price,

          Derbyshire, UK

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




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