RE: [Synoptic-L] A modified 3SH theory
- 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
> -----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
> 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
> > to create the minor agreements. In other words, the 3SH assumes that Q
> > ->
> > followed by Q -> Lk is now the double tradition is created, and Mt ->
> > Lk
> > where aLk edits the result slightly. However, using the same arrows,
> > how
> > 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
> > 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
> 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
> Ron Price,
> Derbyshire, UK
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
- 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
- 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,
- 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.
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]