Re: [Synoptic-L] 2SH vs. 4SH
- 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
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 Mealand, University of Edinburgh
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.