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

FGH Update

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic We have been hearing of late from the John prioritists, and from the Q prioritists in one variant or another. But it seems a long time since
    Message 1 of 45 , May 11, 2011
      To: Synoptic

      We have been hearing of late from the John prioritists, and from the Q
      prioritists in one variant or another. But it seems a long time since anyone
      mentioned FGH. Since we have something of an official representative (or
      anyway, ambassador presumptive) of that theory, namely MkG, I would like, by
      way of personal update on the state of the question, to ask that person
      these questions, as of May 2011:

      1. Do you accept Markan Priority?
      2. With what, if any, qualifications?
      3. Do you believe that there was a Q?
      4. Do you accept the sequence Mk > Mt > Lk > Jn?
      5. Do you accept M Goulder's argument that the socalled Q passages in Mt/Lk
      are original in Mt and drawn on by Lk?
      6. With what, if any, qualifications?
      7. How do you propose to explain the Minor Agreements?
      8. Do you date Thomas after the Synoptics?
      9. With what if any exceptions?
      10. What relation, if any, do you see between Thomas and John?

      [References to published works always acceptable; I am just reluctant to
      assume that the mind of 2011, my own or anyone else's, coincides at all
      points with the mind of a decade or more ago].

      Thanks,

      E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts at Amherst



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Mealand
      I noted previously that while I think Luke s beatitudes in the main have an earlier form than those in Matthew, I had agreed with Benedict Green that Luke s
      Message 45 of 45 , May 16, 2011
        I noted previously that while I think Luke's beatitudes
        in the main have an earlier form than those in
        Matthew, I had agreed with Benedict Green that
        Luke's matching woes had vocabulary links with
        Matthew's beatitudes (and Isai 61.2Gk). This made me suspect
        that Luke might have changed "mourn" and "be consoled"
        to "weep" and "laugh" the first time, but then
        used the original wording (or cognates) the second time.

        Mark came up with a similar edit to that where Luke
        follows Mark, but now this one where Luke matches
        Matthew's _additions_ to Mark. (On 2ST or on FGH)

        -----Mark recently---
        Here's another analogous case. Matt. 8.1R has ὄχλοι πολλοί (OCLOI
        POLLOI), not picked up in Luke 5.12, perhaps because of the
        contradiction with 8.4 ("Don't tell anyone"). Luke 5.15, then uses
        the expression in its summary verse subsequent to the Leper story.
        ------
        This is more interesting as the oxloi polloi along with
        kai idou and Kyrie are what I would call three "minor agreements"
        but which Mark would class as Lukan dependencies on Matthew.
        I had all three flagged in the relevant colour long since,
        but had thought the agreements coincidental edits.
        However, the pattern of "not following then following later"
        might well be one worth pursuing as a possible Lukan
        editorial trait.

        In an earlier edit Mark 3.7 has polu plhqos Matt.4.25 oxloi polloi
        and Luke a neatly differentiated oxlos polus of disciples and
        plhqos polu of the people! Also with diverse lists of the regions
        from which this crowd came!

        David M.




        ---------
        David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


        --
        The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
        Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.