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 Theory. David Inglis had laid out a Synoptic theory in several numbered propositions. I commented on the first of them a
    Message 1 of 9 , Jul 1, 2011
      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 2 of 9 , Jul 1, 2011
        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.