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

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

Expand Messages
  • Ronald Price
    ... Jeff, Presentation? Is it possible that you are referring to: Peter ..... did not make an orderly exposition of the sayings (LOGIWN) of the Lord ? If so,
    Message 1 of 47 , Jul 3, 2011
      On 02/07/2011 18:09, "Jeff Peterson" <peterson@...> wrote:

      > One basic problem I have with your theory is that Papas doesn't define *
      > logia* in the way you do; as quoted by Eusebius, Papias describes Mark as a
      > presentation of the *logia*, .....

      Jeff,

      Presentation? Is it possible that you are referring to: "Peter ..... did not
      make an orderly exposition of the sayings (LOGIWN) of the Lord" ? If so,
      then I don't see how you deduce that Mark consists of a collection of LOGIA.

      > ..... Matthew, in contrast, .....

      There may be a contrast, but I doubt whether Papias intended it as such.
      Eusebius has the Papias reference to Matthew immediately following his
      reference to Mark, but Papias may have made these statements in different
      places at different times.

      > [Farrer] notes that the title of Papias' book (which to
      > judge from Eusebius' quotations was by no means limited to the teachings of
      > Jesus) was *Exposition of the *Logia* of the Lord.

      This would indeed seem to be the case. But we should not assume that Papias
      always used a word in the same sense. People often use words to have
      different meanings at different times. For instance, many Q scholars during
      the last few decades have broadened the meaning of the word "gospel" to
      include Q.

      > The fragments of Papias
      > supply no evidence for the existence of a written collection of Jesus'
      > sayings along the lines of Q or the *Gospel according to Thomas.

      Papias wrote (R.E.Brown's translation):

      "Now Matthew arranged in order the sayings [logia] in the Hebrew [=Aramaic?]
      language, and each on interpreted/translated as he was able."

      Duling & Perrin, "The New Testament", 3rd. Edn., p.330:

      "... the most common view ... [concerning the Papias saying] is that .....
      logia meant ³sayings², its usual meaning"

      Note especially the last three words. So I contend that this fragment of
      Papias does supply evidence for a written collection of the sayings of
      Jesus.

      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, 2011
        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.