Re: [XTalk] Re: Literacy, Memory, and Traditions about Jesus
- Thanks Mark,
> John Kloppenborg, ³Variation in the Reproduction of... a whole host of fascinating questions emerge:
> 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
> ... In fact, the high-end verbatim agreement is very
> unusual in antiquity.
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
Perhaps K has addressed these kinds of questions in his article.
Just some thoughts.