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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Definition of Minor Agreements

Expand Messages
  • Ken Olson
    David, My understanding of Minor Agreements is that the term is only meaningful in the triple tradition where 2 can agree against 1. In practice it s a 2DH
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 29, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      David,

      My understanding of Minor Agreements is that the term is only meaningful in the triple tradition where 2 can agree against 1. In practice it's a 2DH term, and means agreements of Mt and Lk against Mk. Mk-Mt agreements and Mk-Lk agreements don't have their own standard term in common use (though scholars certainly discuss them under various labels) and are not considered "minor".

      Best,

      Ken

      Ken Olson
      PhD Cand.
      Duke Religion

      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      From: davidinglis2@...
      Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:29:26 -0700
      Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Definition of Minor Agreements




























      Apologies for continuing this topic, but I would like to be sure of something: Whether it�s a minor agreement, a major agreement, or a Mark-Q overlap, it�s still part of the triple tradition. Yes or no? Are there any other terms for �sub-divisions� of the triple tradition that are in common use?



      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


















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