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

6647Re: [Synoptic-L] are all parallelism phenomena bound to support the 2DH?

Expand Messages
  • Thomas R. W. Longstaff
    Sep 3, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I think that Brian makes some very good points here. It is true that
      agreement in wording between any pair of synoptic gospels is consistent with
      Matthew and Luke having indepdently used both Mark and a hypothetical Q. It
      is also true that "any disagreement of wording between any two synoptic
      gospels in parallel passages can be assumed to be the result of at least one
      of them having edited the wording of either Mark or Q, or by simply having
      introduced additional material."

      I agree that the problem with many of the hypotheses offered to "solve" the
      synoptic problem is that they are limited to what is consistent with the
      evidence rather than what is most probable given the evidence. Furthermore,
      they are often based on assumptions about what an author might have done
      rather than careful analyses of what an author has done.

      Dr. Thomas R. W. Longstaff
      Crawford Family Professor of Religious Studies
      Colby College
      4643 Mayflower Hill
      Waterville, ME 04901-8846
      Tel: (207) 872-3150
      FAX: (207) 872-3802

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Brian E. Wilson" <brian@...>
      To: <Synoptic-L@...>
      Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 6:33 AM
      Subject: [Synoptic-L] are all parallelism phenomena bound to support the
      2DH?


      > B. H. Streeter stated that the synoptic problem is to account for the
      > parallelism between the synoptic gospels, that is, for the observed
      > similarities and differences of wording (including similarity of order
      > of that wording) between the synoptic gospels.
      >
      > It seems to me, however, that all parallelism phenomena are bound to
      > support the Two Document Hypothesis. Any agreement in wording between
      > any pair of synoptic gospels is consistent with Matthew and Luke having
      > independently used both Mark and hypothetical Q. This applies even to
      > agreements of Mt and Lk against Mk, since it may be assumed that the
      > major agreements are the result of Matthew and Luke each using Q, and
      > that the minor agreements in the triple tradition are either
      > coincidentally the same alteration to the wording of Mk by both Matthew
      > and Luke, or the result of the assimilation of the text of Lk to Mt,
      > since Mt was the most popular synoptic gospel.
      >
      > Similarly, any disagreement of wording between any two synoptic gospels
      > in parallel passages can be assumed to be the result of at least one of
      > them having edited the wording of either Mark or Q, or by simply having
      > introduced additional material.
      >
      > It would appear that by restricting the synoptic problem to accounting
      > for parallelism between the synoptic gospels, Streeter guaranteed that
      > there could be no evidence against the 2DH.
      >
      > Best wishes,
      > BRIAN WILSON
      >
      > >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/
      >
      > Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
      > > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
      > > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
      > _
      >
      > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      >


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Show all 11 messages in this topic