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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.