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

Re: [XTalk] Re: Literacy, Memory, and Traditions about Jesus

Expand Messages
  • Rikk Watts
    Thanks Mark, ... ... a whole host of fascinating questions emerge: What might this imply about using other ancient copying practices as some kind of standard
    Message 1 of 15 , Sep 4, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks Mark,

      > John Kloppenborg, ³Variation in the Reproduction of
      > the Double Tradition and an Oral Q?,² ETL 83/1 (2007): 53-80.
      > Kloppenborg points out, rightly, that the level of agreement between
      > the Synoptics is very high compared with other parallel documents in
      > antiquity.
      > ... In fact, the high-end verbatim agreement is very
      > unusual in antiquity.

      ... a whole host of fascinating questions emerge:

      What might this imply about using other ancient copying practices as some
      kind of standard for determining Synoptic relationships? Wouldn't it
      suggest caution in employing, as a comparative base, other literature that
      does not exhibit this kind of fidelity to sources? Might this suggest
      instead that what might be considered a normal variation in the broader
      literature is not normal for the Synoptics and hence indicative of not
      following a source? I.e. a given divergence in the Synoptics is actually a
      stronger indicator of not following a source than it would have been in the
      broader literary world. Doesn't this suggest taht the most reliable guide
      is to use the Synoptics themselves as our base (as in the past); i.e. see
      what they do when they are following material, and then weigh divergences in
      that light? Might this suggest that there is more special material in Mt,
      Mk, Lk than previously thought?

      Has anyone thought about why the Synoptics have this unusually high level of
      agreement (I'm assuming from what you've said that K regards the Synoptics
      as unique in this respect)?

      What does this say about what they thought they were doing and how they
      regarded the materials they were handling? E.g. what does it mean when, for
      sake of argument, Matt or Lk decide not to follow Mark and add their own
      special material?

      Perhaps K has addressed these kinds of questions in his article.

      Just some thoughts.

      Rikk
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.