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

A modified 3SH theory

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    As I understand it, the addition of the Mt - Lk arrow to the 2SH (thus creating the 3SH) basically allows for slight editing of text from Mt by aLk to create
    Message 1 of 9 , Jun 30 3:47 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      As I understand it, the addition of the Mt -> Lk arrow to the 2SH (thus
      creating the 3SH) basically allows for slight editing of text from Mt by aLk
      to create the minor agreements. In other words, the 3SH assumes that Q -> Mt
      followed by Q -> Lk is now the double tradition is created, and Mt -> Lk is
      where aLk edits the result slightly. However, using the same arrows, how
      would things change if Q -> Mt followed by Mt - > Lk is what creates the
      double tradition, and then Q -> Lk is where aLk makes the slight edits. This
      gets rid of the problem of how Q became 'lost' if it was so important,
      because with my modification Q is only a minor source for both aMt and aLk.
      If addition, IF we associate Q with the logia (per Ron Price), then this put
      aMt firmly in the 'driving seat' with regard to editing the logia, with aLk
      just performing minor edits later. Thoughts?

      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Chuck Jones
      David, An informational question:  How would Mk and the triple tradition fit into this scenario? Chuck Rev. Chuck Jones Atlanta, Georgia
      Message 2 of 9 , Jun 30 4:10 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        David,

        An informational question:  How would Mk and the triple tradition fit into this scenario?

        Chuck

        Rev. Chuck Jones
        Atlanta, Georgia


        ________________________________
        From: David Inglis <davidinglis2@...>
        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 6:47 PM
        Subject: [Synoptic-L] A modified 3SH theory


         
        As I understand it, the addition of the Mt -> Lk arrow to the 2SH (thus
        creating the 3SH) basically allows for slight editing of text from Mt by aLk
        to create the minor agreements. In other words, the 3SH assumes that Q -> Mt
        followed by Q -> Lk is now the double tradition is created, and Mt -> Lk is
        where aLk edits the result slightly. However, using the same arrows, how
        would things change if Q -> Mt followed by Mt - > Lk is what creates the
        double tradition, and then Q -> Lk is where aLk makes the slight edits. This
        gets rid of the problem of how Q became 'lost' if it was so important,
        because with my modification Q is only a minor source for both aMt and aLk.
        If addition, IF we associate Q with the logia (per Ron Price), then this put
        aMt firmly in the 'driving seat' with regard to editing the logia, with aLk
        just performing minor edits later. Thoughts?

        David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

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




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • David Inglis
        Chuck, no change. Mk is still the primary source for Mt and Lk. David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA P.S. Re. blank lines, etc. This message is written as 3
        Message 3 of 9 , Jun 30 4:49 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Chuck, no change. Mk is still the primary source for Mt and Lk.

          David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

          P.S. Re. blank lines, etc. This message is written as 3 lines, with no blank lines or anything else at the beginning or end, but this P.S. is probably long enough to be ‘wrapped’ onto 2 or more lines by some systems.



          From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Jones
          Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 4:11 PM
          To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A modified 3SH theory

          David,

          An informational question: How would Mk and the triple tradition fit into this scenario?

          Chuck

          Rev. Chuck Jones
          Atlanta, Georgia

          ________________________________
          From: David Inglis <davidinglis2@... <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> >
          To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 6:47 PM
          Subject: [Synoptic-L] A modified 3SH theory


          As I understand it, the addition of the Mt -> Lk arrow to the 2SH (thus
          creating the 3SH) basically allows for slight editing of text from Mt by aLk
          to create the minor agreements. In other words, the 3SH assumes that Q -> Mt
          followed by Q -> Lk is now the double tradition is created, and Mt -> Lk is
          where aLk edits the result slightly. However, using the same arrows, how
          would things change if Q -> Mt followed by Mt - > Lk is what creates the
          double tradition, and then Q -> Lk is where aLk makes the slight edits. This
          gets rid of the problem of how Q became 'lost' if it was so important,
          because with my modification Q is only a minor source for both aMt and aLk.
          If addition, IF we associate Q with the logia (per Ron Price), then this put
          aMt firmly in the 'driving seat' with regard to editing the logia, with aLk
          just performing minor edits later. Thoughts?

          David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA_._,___



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Ronald Price
          ... David, I don t understand this. If Q is taken to be more or less equivalent to the double tradition, as is usually the case in the 2ST, then this source
          Message 4 of 9 , Jul 1, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            On 30/06/2011 23:47, "David Inglis" <davidinglis2@...> wrote:

            > As I understand it, the addition of the Mt -> Lk arrow to the 2SH (thus
            > creating the 3SH) basically allows for slight editing of text from Mt by aLk
            > to create the minor agreements. In other words, the 3SH assumes that Q -> Mt
            > followed by Q -> Lk is now the double tradition is created, and Mt -> Lk is
            > where aLk edits the result slightly. However, using the same arrows, how would
            > things change if Q -> Mt followed by Mt - > Lk is what creates the double
            > tradition, and then Q -> Lk is where aLk makes the slight edits. This gets rid
            > of the problem of how Q became 'lost' if it was so important,
            > because with my modification Q is only a minor source for both aMt and aLk.
            >
            David,

            I don't understand this. If Q is taken to be more or less equivalent to the
            double tradition, as is usually the case in the 2ST, then this source will
            surely only be more minor for aLk.

            The minor agreements relate to the triple tradition, which is where your
            "slight editing" shows up. In regard to the double tradition, are you
            suggesting that in Q -> Lk, Luke merely makes a few 'corrections' to the
            double tradition based on a supposedly more ancient Q? This would be quite a
            difficult procedure if Matthew had substantially altered the order of the Q
            material.

            More crucially, if the double tradition is explained as comprising the
            pericopes which Luke copied from Matthew, you would then have to explain why
            you think there was a Q source. Also it would be a remarkable coincidence if
            in Mt -> Lk Luke copied all of the Q pericopes and no others from Matthew.
            Even if he knew the contents of Q by studying it carefully, extracting each
            of the 60+ repositioned pericopes from Mt would be very difficult.

            If on the other hand you were to start from my radical version of the 3ST
            and alter it by positing that Luke copied the logia material from Mt rather
            than directly from the logia, with perhaps a few minor corrections based on
            the original logia, then this would not explain why (if my analysis is
            correct) Luke has ordered many of the sayings more accurately than Matthew.

            Ron Price,

            Derbyshire, UK

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




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • David Inglis
            Ron, apologies for confusing both you and myself in my post! I was trying to make it short, but in the process took out too much clarifying info. I m in the
            Message 5 of 9 , Jul 1, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Ron, apologies for confusing both you and myself in my post! I was trying to
              make it short, but in the process took out too much clarifying info. I'm in
              the final stages of a stylistic analysis of the synoptics (starting from a
              completely 'agnostic' view of the synoptic problem) that appears to be
              telling me this:

              1. The general order of the form of the gospels as we see them is Mk
              -> Mt -> Lk

              2. Mk was the main source used by Mt, but Mt had access to other
              written material as well.

              3. Mk and Mt were the main sources used by Lk, but Lk had access to
              other written material as well.

              4. The other written source(s) available to Mt and Lk included
              material not in Mk, which was the source for at least some of the agreement
              between Mt and Lk against Mk (both double and triple traditions)

              5. Mt and Lk may have also had access to oral material, but if so we
              have no way of knowing what it was. We assume that it contributed to the Mt
              and Lk sonderguts, but could have also contributed to some of the
              differences in wording in the double tradition.

              Note that I'm not saying here whether the written sources(s) available to Mt
              and Lk were exactly the same or not, but whatever they were they overlapped.
              I'm also not saying that the overlap was Q, or anything like Q. I'm just
              saying that there was some additional common written material available to
              Mt and Lk. Also, whether you believe additional written sources (Q or
              something else) are necessary or not, my analysis is saying that something
              did exist. Finally, this kind of analysis can in no way help with any
              discussion as to which of the synoptics has the 'best' order of pericopes. I
              hope that's a little clearer.

              David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



              From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
              Of Ronald Price
              Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 3:18 AM
              To: Synoptic-L
              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A modified 3SH theory

              On 30/06/2011 23:47, "David Inglis" <davidinglis2@...
              <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> > wrote:

              > As I understand it, the addition of the Mt -> Lk arrow to the 2SH (thus
              > creating the 3SH) basically allows for slight editing of text from Mt by
              aLk
              > to create the minor agreements. In other words, the 3SH assumes that Q ->
              Mt
              > followed by Q -> Lk is now the double tradition is created, and Mt -> Lk
              is
              > where aLk edits the result slightly. However, using the same arrows, how
              would
              > things change if Q -> Mt followed by Mt - > Lk is what creates the double
              > tradition, and then Q -> Lk is where aLk makes the slight edits. This gets
              rid
              > of the problem of how Q became 'lost' if it was so important,
              > because with my modification Q is only a minor source for both aMt and
              aLk.
              >
              David,

              I don't understand this. If Q is taken to be more or less equivalent to the
              double tradition, as is usually the case in the 2ST, then this source will
              surely only be more minor for aLk.

              The minor agreements relate to the triple tradition, which is where your
              "slight editing" shows up. In regard to the double tradition, are you
              suggesting that in Q -> Lk, Luke merely makes a few 'corrections' to the
              double tradition based on a supposedly more ancient Q? This would be quite a
              difficult procedure if Matthew had substantially altered the order of the Q
              material.

              More crucially, if the double tradition is explained as comprising the
              pericopes which Luke copied from Matthew, you would then have to explain why
              you think there was a Q source. Also it would be a remarkable coincidence if
              in Mt -> Lk Luke copied all of the Q pericopes and no others from Matthew.
              Even if he knew the contents of Q by studying it carefully, extracting each
              of the 60+ repositioned pericopes from Mt would be very difficult.

              If on the other hand you were to start from my radical version of the 3ST
              and alter it by positing that Luke copied the logia material from Mt rather
              than directly from the logia, with perhaps a few minor corrections based on
              the original logia, then this would not explain why (if my analysis is
              correct) Luke has ordered many of the sayings more accurately than Matthew.

              Ron Price,

              Derbyshire, UK

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

              ,___



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Matson, Mark (Academic)
              Two comments: 1. If you have proposition #3, I m not sure why you need to explain any material that has agreement between Mt and Lk against Mk. (your
              Message 6 of 9 , Jul 1, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Two comments:

                1. If you have proposition #3, I'm not sure why you need to explain any material that has "agreement between Mt and Lk against Mk." (your proposition #4) Wouldn't any Lukan material that is common to Matthew be able to be explained by using Matthew?

                2. If you modify your proposition #4 (perhaps collapse it with #5) to allow for various additional sources that might be either written or oral (without any pre-condition that it is a unified document), you essentially have the position many of us who are attracted to the Farrer theory hold.

                Speaking for myself, my biggest problem is the hypothetical document Q that serves to explain material that Luke would have received from Matthew. If Luke knew Matthew, we are then left with fewer issues. But we do have sondergut material, and we do have variants in the Matthew material that might not always be explainable by Lucan editorial tendencies. So might there have been various sources, oral and/or written, that Luke used also? Sure. I just get nervous with postulating "a" document for which there is little or no evidence.

                Mark A. Matson
                Academic Dean
                Milligan College
                423-461-8720
                http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm


                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                > Of David Inglis
                > Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 12:40 PM
                > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] A modified 3SH theory
                >
                > Ron, apologies for confusing both you and myself in my post! I was trying
                > to make it short, but in the process took out too much clarifying info.
                > I'm in the final stages of a stylistic analysis of the synoptics (starting
                > from a completely 'agnostic' view of the synoptic problem) that appears to
                > be telling me this:
                >
                > 1. The general order of the form of the gospels as we see them is Mk
                > -> Mt -> Lk
                >
                > 2. Mk was the main source used by Mt, but Mt had access to other
                > written material as well.
                >
                > 3. Mk and Mt were the main sources used by Lk, but Lk had access to
                > other written material as well.
                >
                > 4. The other written source(s) available to Mt and Lk included
                > material not in Mk, which was the source for at least some of the
                > agreement between Mt and Lk against Mk (both double and triple traditions)
                >
                > 5. Mt and Lk may have also had access to oral material, but if so we
                > have no way of knowing what it was. We assume that it contributed to the
                > Mt and Lk sonderguts, but could have also contributed to some of the
                > differences in wording in the double tradition.
                >
                > Note that I'm not saying here whether the written sources(s) available to
                > Mt and Lk were exactly the same or not, but whatever they were they
                > overlapped.
                > I'm also not saying that the overlap was Q, or anything like Q. I'm just
                > saying that there was some additional common written material available to
                > Mt and Lk. Also, whether you believe additional written sources (Q or
                > something else) are necessary or not, my analysis is saying that something
                > did exist. Finally, this kind of analysis can in no way help with any
                > discussion as to which of the synoptics has the 'best' order of pericopes.
                > I hope that's a little clearer.
                >
                > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
                >
                >
                >
                > From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                > Of Ronald Price
                > Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 3:18 AM
                > To: Synoptic-L
                > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A modified 3SH theory
                >
                > On 30/06/2011 23:47, "David Inglis" <davidinglis2@...
                > <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> > wrote:
                >
                > > As I understand it, the addition of the Mt -> Lk arrow to the 2SH
                > > (thus creating the 3SH) basically allows for slight editing of text
                > > from Mt by
                > aLk
                > > to create the minor agreements. In other words, the 3SH assumes that Q
                > > ->
                > Mt
                > > followed by Q -> Lk is now the double tradition is created, and Mt ->
                > > Lk
                > is
                > > where aLk edits the result slightly. However, using the same arrows,
                > > how
                > would
                > > things change if Q -> Mt followed by Mt - > Lk is what creates the
                > > double tradition, and then Q -> Lk is where aLk makes the slight
                > > edits. This gets
                > rid
                > > of the problem of how Q became 'lost' if it was so important, because
                > > with my modification Q is only a minor source for both aMt and
                > aLk.
                > >
                > David,
                >
                > I don't understand this. If Q is taken to be more or less equivalent to
                > the double tradition, as is usually the case in the 2ST, then this source
                > will surely only be more minor for aLk.
                >
                > The minor agreements relate to the triple tradition, which is where your
                > "slight editing" shows up. In regard to the double tradition, are you
                > suggesting that in Q -> Lk, Luke merely makes a few 'corrections' to the
                > double tradition based on a supposedly more ancient Q? This would be quite
                > a difficult procedure if Matthew had substantially altered the order of
                > the Q material.
                >
                > More crucially, if the double tradition is explained as comprising the
                > pericopes which Luke copied from Matthew, you would then have to explain
                > why you think there was a Q source. Also it would be a remarkable
                > coincidence if in Mt -> Lk Luke copied all of the Q pericopes and no
                > others from Matthew.
                > Even if he knew the contents of Q by studying it carefully, extracting
                > each of the 60+ repositioned pericopes from Mt would be very difficult.
                >
                > If on the other hand you were to start from my radical version of the 3ST
                > and alter it by positing that Luke copied the logia material from Mt
                > rather than directly from the logia, with perhaps a few minor corrections
                > based on the original logia, then this would not explain why (if my
                > analysis is
                > correct) Luke has ordered many of the sayings more accurately than
                > Matthew.
                >
                > Ron Price,
                >
                > Derbyshire, UK
                >
                > http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html
                >
                > ,___
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
              • E Bruce Brooks
                To: Synoptic / GPG, On: Synoptic Theories. David Inglis, commenting on Ron Price s theory and presenting his own, began this way: The general order of the
                Message 7 of 9 , Jul 1, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  To: Synoptic / GPG, On: Synoptic Theories. David Inglis, commenting on Ron
                  Price's theory and presenting his own, began this way: " The general order
                  of the form of the gospels as we see them is Mk -> Mt -> Lk." BRUCE: There,
                  it seems to me, is the problem, right there at the beginning. The statement
                  seems unarguable as it stands, but the Gospels *as we see them* appear to be
                  the end product of an evolution, and it is just possible that Synoptic
                  relations are better stated in terms of the earlier stages of that
                  evolution, which chiefly amounts to the difference between what I call Luke
                  A and Luke B. Associated with the jump from Luke A to Luke B, which is when
                  Luke revisited his composition in the light of Matthew, are a set of
                  relocations of material previously placed in Markan order. I will shortly
                  begin a review of those relocated passages, which will go to the small study
                  group (the details are too large for a paragraph, and seemingly the Synoptic
                  server can comfortably handle nothing above a paragraph). But if someone
                  here present is interested in such things, I can arrange to share with them
                  individually. Write me offlist. / E Bruce Brooks, UMass Amherst
                • E Bruce Brooks
                  To: Synoptic / GPG, On: Synoptic Theory. David Inglis had laid out a Synoptic theory in several numbered propositions. I commented on the first of them a
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jul 1, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    To: Synoptic / GPG, On: Synoptic Theory. David Inglis had laid out a
                    Synoptic theory in several numbered propositions. I commented on the first
                    of them a moment ago. Of the third, Mark Matson has meanwhile observed, "
                    Wouldn't any Lukan material that is common to Matthew be able to be
                    explained by using Matthew?" BRUCE: That, if memory serves, has been tried
                    and found wanting; the directionality between Mt and Lk cannot plausibly be
                    shown to run in only one direction. To follow up my note just posted, I will
                    in days to come also be running through the Mt/Lk common material, piece by
                    piece, to determine its directionality, and see what sort of Luke A and what
                    sort of Matthew those results lead to. Preliminary indications seem to me
                    favorable (Luke in particular is much more self-consistent in Luke A than he
                    has seemed to be, to previous commentators, in Luke A/B taken together). Of
                    course there are no guarantees about the future; we shall see. But I repeat
                    my earlier offer: If anyone here present happens to be interested in these
                    details (in addition to those already posted on Synoptic, from 2006 to the
                    current season, inclusive), and would like to see and respond to some of
                    those suggestions, they are welcome to write me off-list to be included in
                    the discussion. Best wishes of the weekend to everyone, / E Bruce Brooks,
                    UMass Amherst
                  • David Inglis
                    Mark Matson: 2. If you modify your proposition #4 (perhaps collapse it with #5) to allow for various additional sources that might be either written or oral
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jul 1, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Mark Matson:

                      2. If you modify your proposition #4 (perhaps collapse it with #5) to allow
                      for various additional sources that might be either written or oral (without
                      any pre-condition that it is a unified document), you essentially have the
                      position many of us who are attracted to the Farrer theory hold.

                      David Inglis:

                      Mark, I'm having trouble understanding your point. My analysis is telling me
                      that both Mt and Lk had access to some common written material that is not
                      part of Mk. Whether this was a single document, multiple notebooks, etc. is
                      impossible to tell, as is the question of whether any of the Mt or Lk
                      sondergut material came from written material that they did not have in
                      common. However, as soon as you allow for Mt and Lk to have ANY common
                      written material not in Mk (which I do), then surely you're no longer in FH
                      territory, aren't you? So, are you suggesting that there is some sort of
                      'sliding scale' between the FH and 3SH, with you close to the FH end, and me
                      perhaps somewhere between you and the 3SH?

                      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



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