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

2SH vs. 4SH

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    From what I understand about both the 2SH and the 4SH, I can t see how the 4SH adds any explanatory power to the 2SH, unless in the 2SH you explicitly state
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 2, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      From what I understand about both the 2SH and the 4SH, I can't see how the
      4SH adds any explanatory power to the 2SH, unless in the 2SH you explicitly
      state that Mt and Lk can't have their own different written sources. Is
      there some 'unwritten rule' in the synoptic problem that says that the three
      synoptic authors don't use any written sources unless it's explicitly
      stated?

      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Mealand
      David Inglis wrote----------- From what I understand about both the 2SH and the 4SH, I can t see how the 4SH adds any explanatory power to the 2SH, unless in
      Message 2 of 2 , Jul 3, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        David Inglis wrote-----------
        From what I understand about both the 2SH and the 4SH, I can't see how the
        4SH adds any explanatory power to the 2SH, unless in the 2SH you explicitly
        state that Mt and Lk can't have their own different written sources. Is
        there some 'unwritten rule' in the synoptic problem that says that the three
        synoptic authors don't use any written sources unless it's explicitly
        stated?
        ------------------------

        If by 4SH what is meant is Mk + Q + M + L then I don't
        think that positing M and L much affects the debate
        over explaining the triple and double traditions. It
        is to my mind a further issue at stake here as to whether
        much of the the single Matthean or Lukan material is due
        to a main further source, or not. I suspect that many
        who hold 2SH would in fact probably hold some kind of
        M and L even if they don't say much about them. There is
        some cautious good sense in Fitzmyer, Luke, 82-85.

        JBL 111.4.724 has a review of Sondergut...Lukas by Petzke
        and I am sure there is plenty more that ATLA will find,
        e.g. Rehkopf 1959.

        Gaston's 1973 stats distinguish words whose standard deviations
        point to L and those which point to "Lk ed".
        Goulder, of course, took a very different view.

        David M.



        ---------
        David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


        --
        The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
        Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.