10Re: Synoptic-L Test
- Feb 11, 1998At 1:51 AM -0600 2/11/98, Mahlon H. Smith wrote:
>Carl William Conrad wrote:I just want to say that I certainly didn't mean to exclude questions of how
>> > reonstructed non-surviving sources."
>> But presumably we are talking about WRITTEN sources here, however
>> hypothetical, and not just about oral tradition, I presume.
>I'll accept your qualification, Carl, as long as it is not designed to
>exclude consideration of the interrelationship of oral tradition &
>written documents in the formation of the synoptic gospels. I don't see
>how a purely literary definition of the synoptic problem can be defended
>at this stage in the history of gospel research. Let me see if I can
>integrate what we have so far into a succinct definition:
>"The synoptic problem is (1) an inquiry into the existence and nature of
>the literary relationship between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and
>Luke,(2)investigation of reconstructed non-surviving written sources,
>and (3)exploration of the influence of oral tradition upon the
>development of manuscripts of these gospels."
oral traditions enter into the written versions; I simply meant to say that
I think the study of oral tradition itself is more or less extraneous to
discussion of Synoptic relationships as such, though not without relevance.
And I think Mahlon's definition is an excellent one. I'll buy it.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@... OR cconrad@...
- << Previous post in topic