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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Mark and Jesus

Expand Messages
  • Ronald Price
    On 02/07/2011 18:34, Bruce Brooks wrote: ... that the Apostle wrote the Gospel, is self-refuting ... Bruce, I never suggested he
    Message 1 of 47 , Jul 3 2:58 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      On 02/07/2011 18:34, "Bruce Brooks" <brooks@...> wrote:

      ... that the Apostle wrote the Gospel, is self-refuting ...

      Bruce,

      I never suggested he did.

      > Comparison of gMt's Jesus sayings and gMk's Jesus sayings is surely
      > required before giving our assent to a voice from 2c Hierapolis, .....
      >
      For every posited logia saying I have compared the Markan version, where it
      exists, to the Matthew/Luke version(s). See for example the comments on
      sayings A2, A4, A19, B1, B7, B10, B14, C1, C7, C10, C17, C18 and C21 on the
      web page below. The Markan version is almost always the furthest from the
      original. In this respect my conclusions are apparently similar to those of
      the IQP in regard to Q. Fleddermann goes even further: "Everywhere in the
      overlap texts Mark is secondary to Q" (Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary,
      p,182).

      > Mt is not only later, but is derivative from Mk, .....
      >
      Indeed, but on my synoptic theory, many aphorisms in Mt were derived from
      the logia (ca. 45 CE).

      > ... and is concerned to rewrite Mk in various ways. This does not speak well
      > for him as
      > preserving intact any matter he has from any other source.
      >
      He probably had slightly more respect for the recorded sayings of Jesus than
      he did for the more recent Markan source.

      Ron Price,

      Derbyshire, UK

      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_ntsQ.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.