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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Few (OLIGOS) in synoptic aphorisms

Expand Messages
  • Ronald Price
    ... Bruce, When I first started to investigate the gospels from a historical point of view, I also thought Mark would be the best place to look. Indeed Mark is
    Message 1 of 47 , Jul 2 8:42 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      On 02/07/2011 15:19, "Bruce Brooks" <brooks@...> wrote:

      > It would surely be remarkable if the Second Tier Gospels, singly or jointly,
      > had a better pipeline to Jesus than the earlier Mark.
      >
      Bruce,

      When I first started to investigate the gospels from a historical point of
      view, I also thought Mark would be the best place to look. Indeed Mark is
      the best source for the passion and death of Jesus, though of course it
      needs to be approached using the tools of biblical criticism.

      But Mark is not the best source for the teaching of Jesus. This is because
      the authors of the gospels of Matthew (ca. 90 CE) and Luke (ca. 95 CE) were
      more historically dependable than Mark in their copying of the aphorisms
      recorded (as Papias noted) by the apostle 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
      David Mealand wrote: So for instance to step aside from Q and M, let us consider the special Lukan material. It would be useful there to review and update
      Message 47 of 47 , Jul 26 10:08 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        David Mealand wrote:

        So for instance to step aside from Q and M, let us consider the special Lukan material. It would be useful there to review and update existing studies to see if the "L" material is a) internally consistent or not and b) differs from the editorial style of the author of Gospel number 3. Could this be an issue on which 2SH and FGT adherents might proceed in unison? Or am I being unduly optimistic here?

        David, some information can be gleaned from the stylistic analyses of the categories in the HHB concordance performed by both Dave Gentile and myself. The following 4 collections of words (HHB categories) are useful here, I think:

        · 002 – Words used in passages unique to gLk (i.e. sondergut Lk)

        · 012 – Words used in gLk in passages shared with gMk but not gMt, where the words are not in gMk

        · 102 – Words used in gLk in passages shared with gMt but not gMk, where the words are not in gMt (i.e. double tradition words not in gMt)

        · 112 – Words used in gLk in passage shared with both gMt and gMk, where the words are not in either gMt or gMk (i.e. triple tradition words not in gMt or gMk)

        Both Dave G and I have similar findings: The frequencies with which specific words are used (profiles) are similar in 002, 012, and 112, while the profile of 102 is different. In particular, I find that the similarity between the profiles of 002 and 112 is one of the greatest in my analysis, i.e. sondergut Lk is stylistically similar (at least, so far as word frequencies are concerned) to the unique Lukan parts of the triple tradition. From this I infer that 002 is unlikely to contain passages from different sources, or, if it does, that aLk has generally ‘massaged’ the text from the different sources into his own style.

        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.