Re: [Synoptic-L] Unpicking - an observation
- Ken Olson wrote:
> To show that the Sending is a problem for the Farrer theory, you would haveKen,
> to show not just that it is unique in some way (because all pericopes are
> unique in some way), but that it is unlikely that the way in which it is
> unique could have occurred as a result of the composition of Luke's gospel
> as postulated on the Farrer theory. You haven't done that.
It was you who declared it unique by labelling it as an "exception", which I
take to mean that this was the only one of Downing's four cases in which
*all* of the wholly Markan material had been omitted, and was thus his best
> In what way is the 3ST the 'neatest' solution?Perhaps "most economical" would have conveyed my meaning better, for the 3ST
would overcome the problem in both Downing's best case (assuming it to be
valid), and also in your following (and to my mind convincing) argument that
on the 2ST, Matthew's conflation of Mark and Q in the Beelzebul pericope
would have involved an unprecedented and awkward task.
> Downing was trying to show that, on the Farrer theory, there was a patternPoint taken. Downing's case as it stands does not appear to be strong
> to Luke's avoidance of Matthew's use of Mark, but you need more than one
> example to show a pattern.
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...