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

Re: [Synoptic-L] A single-sourced DT?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 5 , Jul 18, 2007
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 5 , Jul 19, 2007
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 5 , Jul 19, 2007
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 5 , Jul 20, 2007
          View Source
          • 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.