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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Mark and Jesus

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    BRUCE: I invariably refer to Markan priority as my own conclusion from careful observation of the evidence, both macro (eg, the Trajectory arguments, which
    Message 1 of 47 , Jul 3, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      BRUCE: I invariably refer to Markan priority as my own
      conclusion from careful observation of the evidence, both macro (eg, the
      Trajectory arguments, which invariably show Mark as the least developed
      of
      the Gospels, theologically and narratively) and micro (the many parallel
      passages, many of them with lousy Markan Greek corrected by his
      successors,
      discussed over the years, by me and others).

      Likewise invariably, when this comment about Mark's "lousy" Greek is
      made, I wonder aloud whether designating Mark's Greek as "less
      literary" or "more colloquial" does not aptly satisfy the actual data
      of the texts, and simultaneously render an argument for Markan priority
      on this basis more tenuous. Examples of the tendency to popularize
      (vulgarize?) in modern Bible translations, and especially in modern
      homiletic paraphrase, compared with the highly literary KJV of the
      Gospel texts, may not present a precise analogy to the phenomenon of
      Mark's Greek in comparison with that of the other Synoptics, but there
      is perhaps some relevancy here. I am not sure that Bruce's Greek is
      sufficiently advanced to enable him to distinguish between simply
      unlettered Greek and potentially deliberate "street talk" level Koine
      of a possible late Mark, aimed at a rough and unlettered audience.

      Leonard Maluf
    • 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
      • 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.