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

Re: [Synoptic-L] A modified 3SH theory

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.