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

A single-sourced DT?

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    In rereading parts of the introduction to Fleddermann s Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary , I m reminded of the oddity of a basic assumption made (but rarely
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 18, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      In rereading parts of the introduction to Fleddermann's "Q: A Reconstruction
      and Commentary", I'm reminded of the oddity of a basic assumption made (but
      rarely acknowledged) by both 2ST and Farrer supporters, namely that the
      Double Tradition had a single source.

      Suppose Mark was not extant, and we tried to reconstruct the source behind
      Matthew and Luke. What would we end up with? Well the "Double Tradition" in
      this scenario would consist primarily of parts of Mark, and secondarily of
      the material usually designated as "Q". In other words the "Double
      Tradition" would have had more than one source (assuming, as most believe,
      that there never was a document equivalent to 'Mark+Q').

      Surely therefore every synoptic investigator should take seriously the
      possibility (arguably the likelihood), according to this highly relevant
      analogy, that the DT also had more than one source.

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • John Lupia
      ... [snip] By definition QED the DT is material common to MT & LK not found in MK. So parts of Mark . . . is contrary to the definition. John John N. Lupia,
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 18, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:

        > In rereading parts of the introduction to
        > Fleddermann's "Q: A Reconstruction
        > and Commentary", I'm reminded of the oddity of a
        > basic assumption made (but
        > rarely acknowledged) by both 2ST and Farrer
        > supporters, namely that the
        > Double Tradition had a single source.
        >
        > Suppose Mark was not extant, and we tried to
        > reconstruct the source behind
        > Matthew and Luke. What would we end up with? Well
        > the "Double Tradition" in
        > this scenario would consist primarily of parts of
        > Mark,
        [snip]

        By definition QED the DT is material common to MT & LK
        not found in MK. So parts of Mark . . . is contrary to
        the definition.

        John

        John N. Lupia, III
        Beachwood, New Jersey 08722 USA; Beirut, Lebanon
        Fax: (732) 349-3910
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/
        God Bless Everyone


        ____________________________________________________________________________________
        Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
        Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
        http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
      • Ron Price
        John and Mark, Thanks for your replies, but you both appear to have missed my point. ... Yes. ... Eric does something different, for he posits a scenario in
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 19, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          John and Mark,

          Thanks for your replies, but you both appear to have missed my point.

          Mark Matson wrote:

          > have you seen the article by Eric Eve, entitled "Reconstructing Mark: A
          > Thought Experiment" in Questioning Q. ?

          Yes.

          > He essentially does this for Mark.

          Eric does something different, for he posits a scenario in which Q is extant
          as well as Matthew and Luke. I am positing that only Matthew and Luke are
          extant.

          - - - - - - -

          John Lupia wrote:

          > By definition QED the DT is material common to MT & LK
          > not found in MK. So parts of Mark . . . is contrary to
          > the definition.

          My "Double Tradition" (note the quote marks) was referring to the posited
          scenario in which, in the absence of an extant Mark, we tried to reconstruct
          the source(s) of Matthew and Luke. It would include the majority of what we
          now know as Mark because what we know as Triple Tradition would become
          "Double Tradition" in the absence of Mark.

          - - - - - - -

          Thus the "Double Tradition" in my scenario would consist of the Double
          Tradition as we know it plus the Triple Tradition as we know it, and these
          would be inextricably mixed together. We (Farrer, 2ST and 3ST advocates
          alike) know that this "Double Tradition" has more than one source (Mark plus
          at least one other).
          So surely scholars should acknowledge the possibility (and arguably on the
          basis of the posited scenario, the probability) that our Double Tradition
          has more than one source?!


          Ron Price

          Derbyshire, UK

          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
        • John Lupia
          Dear Ron: I have to commend you for at least trying
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 19, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Ron:

            I have to commend you for >at least trying< to
            contemplate a world without the Gospel of Mark in
            which Matthew and Luke composed their canonical
            Gospels. Many do this at varying degrees of success.
            Having been convinced of Markan priority in my youth
            and setting out to write huge tomes based on that
            principle I think I began to attain objectivity on
            this around 1993. So what I have said and what I am
            here saying is not against you personally Ron.

            However, you see how difficult attaining authentic
            objectivity can be.

            Generally speaking, I find that for a
            Markan-prioritist, even in a world without Mark who
            looms highest on the horizon? Mark! Phantom-Mark,
            Super-Mark, Mark-the-invincible, Ubiquitous-Mark, &c.

            So even the material NOT IN MARK is found --- guess
            where ?? --- PRIMARILY IN MARK!!!

            PROOF (Sorry Ron, but you >DID< volunteer!)
            > Suppose Mark was not extant, and we tried to
            > reconstruct the source behind
            > Matthew and Luke. What would we end up with? Well
            > the "Double Tradition" in
            > this scenario would consist primarily of parts of
            > Mark,
            [snip] (This quote should be cited in a publication on
            the Synoptic Problem and Objectivity.)

            QED : Objectivity unattained!
            Ergo : For a Markan-prioritist, even in a world
            without Mark who looms highest on the horizon? Mark!

            Why would the scenario [as you put it] alter the
            definition of the "Double Tradition" with or without
            quotes? If you mean to say something different then
            say it. I see no need to discuss using the cryptic
            phraseology the "Double Tradition" COMBINED with the
            "Triple Tradition" rather than just simply saying Mt,
            Mk, Lk, or the Synoptic Gospels, since it constitutes
            virtually 100 per cent of Mark. I think the breakdown
            is Mt in the "Triple Tradition" is more than 90 per
            cent and Lk more than 50 per cent, add that to >not
            Mk< or the "Double Tradition", and you have virtually
            the Synoptic Gospels. So why speak in those term? The
            question is rhetorical.


            BTW, I deliberately wrote >their canonical Gospels<,
            not to provoke, but to point out that this view is as
            valid as anyone attempting to argue the contrary in
            favor of evolving mutable texts through time. No, I
            am not looking for a discussion on this--

            Peace,
            John

            --- Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:

            > John and Mark,
            >
            > Thanks for your replies, but you both appear to have
            > missed my point.
            >
            > Mark Matson wrote:
            >
            > > have you seen the article by Eric Eve, entitled
            > "Reconstructing Mark: A
            > > Thought Experiment" in Questioning Q. ?
            >
            > Yes.
            >
            > > He essentially does this for Mark.
            >
            > Eric does something different, for he posits a
            > scenario in which Q is extant
            > as well as Matthew and Luke. I am positing that only
            > Matthew and Luke are
            > extant.
            >
            > - - - - - - -
            >
            > John Lupia wrote:
            >
            > > By definition QED the DT is material common to MT
            > & LK
            > > not found in MK. So parts of Mark . . . is
            > contrary to
            > > the definition.
            >
            > My "Double Tradition" (note the quote marks) was
            > referring to the posited
            > scenario in which, in the absence of an extant Mark,
            > we tried to reconstruct
            > the source(s) of Matthew and Luke. It would include
            > the majority of what we
            > now know as Mark because what we know as Triple
            > Tradition would become
            > "Double Tradition" in the absence of Mark.
            >
            > - - - - - - -
            >
            > Thus the "Double Tradition" in my scenario would
            > consist of the Double
            > Tradition as we know it plus the Triple Tradition as
            > we know it, and these
            > would be inextricably mixed together. We (Farrer,
            > 2ST and 3ST advocates
            > alike) know that this "Double Tradition" has more
            > than one source (Mark plus
            > at least one other).
            > So surely scholars should acknowledge the
            > possibility (and arguably on the
            > basis of the posited scenario, the probability) that
            > our Double Tradition
            > has more than one source?!
            >
            >
            > Ron Price
            >
            > Derbyshire, UK
            >
            > Web site:
            > http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
            >
            >
            >


            John N. Lupia, III
            Beachwood, New Jersey 08722 USA; Beirut, Lebanon
            Fax: (732) 349-3910
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/
            God Bless Everyone



            ____________________________________________________________________________________
            Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
            http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
          • Ron Price
            ... John, Again your conclusion is based on a misunderstanding. Perhaps my wording was not clear enough. I meant ... the Double Tradition in this scenario
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 20, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              I had written:
              >> Suppose Mark was not extant, and we tried to
              >> reconstruct the source behind
              >> Matthew and Luke. What would we end up with? Well
              >> the "Double Tradition" in
              >> this scenario would consist primarily of parts of
              >> Mark,

              John Lupia replied:
              > [snip] (This quote should be cited in a publication on
              > the Synoptic Problem and Objectivity.)
              >
              > QED : Objectivity unattained!
              > Ergo : For a Markan-prioritist, even in a world
              > without Mark who looms highest on the horizon? Mark!

              John,

              Again your conclusion is based on a misunderstanding. Perhaps my wording was
              not clear enough. I meant "... the "Double Tradition" in this scenario would
              consist primarily of parts of material which most scholars in the real world
              attribute to Mark." I did not mean to imply that in this scenario scholars
              would be able to reconstruct the canonical Mark. Indeed I think it unlikely
              that they would be able to do so.

              My argument is that the scenario's "Double Tradition" would in fact (as seen
              from the real world via Farrer, 2ST or 3ST) consist of more than one source,
              but that if Farrer and 2ST supporters apply to my scenario the assumption
              they use in the real world (the Double Tradition has a single source), they
              will therefore arrive at the wrong conclusion. The "Double Tradition" in my
              scenario is analogous to the Double Tradition in the real world, both
              containing a mixture of narrative and sayings (albeit in different
              proportions). Therefore the real world assumption of Farrer and 2ST
              supporters is simplistic. QED.

              Ron Price

              Derbyshire, UK

              Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.