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

Re: Jones Re: [Synoptic-L] An open appeal to FT supporters

Expand Messages
  • Chuck Jones
    Bob, Mark is in form identical to Mt and Lk.  So similar, in fact, that some scholars argue that Mt was Mk s source.  To say that Mark used oral sources when
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 21, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Bob,

      Mark is in form identical to Mt and Lk.  So similar, in fact, that some scholars argue that Mt was Mk's source.  To say that Mark used oral sources when his product is identical to two works that we know used written sources has nothing to do with Occam's Razor.  It is a departure from the evidence that is inexplicable except for, I fear, a bias towards oral vis a vis lost written sources.  I believe this bias is unconscious--and I have no I idea what it's origin would be--but I do believe it is way down in the axiomatic-worldview level for the folks who hold the bias.

      Seems to me.

      Rev. Chuck Jones
      Atlanta, Georgia


      ________________________________
      From: Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...>
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 6:07 PM
      Subject: Jones Re: [Synoptic-L] An open appeal to FT supporters


       
      At 01:52 PM 2/21/2012, Chuck Jones wrote:
      >Mark,
      >
      >Very good post.
      >
      >I'm curious why you would conclude that the Mark, Mt and Lk sources were oral.

      I don't recall that Mark wrote that *all* of their sources were oral,
      but rather that some of the sources they used were oral.
      We say that Mark used oral sources because we do not have any written
      source material that has survived. Of course, this doesn't mean that
      there weren't any, only that they haven't survived. But to claim that
      Mark had written source(s) that we don't know about falls under
      Occam's Razor. But we could go one more step with Occam's Razor and
      say that Mark just made it all up (as some reputable scholars such as
      Ted Weeden assert, IIRC)

      Similarly, we say that in addition to Mark, Matthew had other sources
      that he either made up, or got from an unknown written source
      (possibly including Q), or from oral source(s). And finally, of
      course, by the same logic, Luke used Mark, and Matthew or Q), but he
      also had special material that he got either from an oral or unknown
      written source.

      The alternatives to positing oral sources for all three are basically
      (1) They used an unknown written source, e.g. "Special Matthew" or
      "Special Luke", or
      (2) They made it all up.

      Option #2 is fairly common in academic circles today. But Option #1
      is fairly rare.

      That is my impression, anyway.

      Bob Schacht
      Northern Arizona University

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.