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

[Synoptic-L] The Three Source Hypothesis

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Ron Price wrote - ... Ron, Nonetheless, they are all instances of duplication which Au_Luke allowed in his gospel. I think it is a hard task to try and show
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 8, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Ron Price wrote -
      >
      >Six of these cases result, I believe, from the overlap of the written
      >sources Mark and sQ. Many others involve repeated phrases and clauses
      >which do not make sense in isolation.
      >
      Ron,
      Nonetheless, they are all instances of duplication which Au_Luke
      allowed in his gospel. I think it is a hard task to try and show that
      Au_Luke disliked duplication. I would again suggest that Luke actually
      welcomed duplication even though his gospel does not include some
      duplications found in Mark or Matthew. I think Luke was for duplication,
      not against it, on balance.
      >
      >O.K., so you force me to be more precise. Rather than say that Au_Luke
      >didn't like duplication as such, I will say that (s)he did not like
      >duplicating pericopae, and normally only did so when a pericope
      >appeared in both favoured written sources, Mark and sQ.
      >
      The point is that we actually do observe a lot of duplication (of
      various sizes of pieces of material) in Luke, but virtually no clear
      triplets of pieces of material of similar sizes to those found
      duplicated. If the 3SH describes what happened, then, since Mark and Q
      overlapped, and both feed into Matthew, and since Q, Mark and Matthew
      (containing duplication) all feed into Luke, is it not rather surprising
      that there are so few clear triplets in Luke? Luke should contain
      plentiful clear triplets if the 3SH is what happened. Where are they?
      >
      >we know for certain that Au_Mark knew at least **some** Aramaic (Mark
      >5:41 etc.).
      >
      All the instances of an Aramaic phrase accompanied by its Greek
      translation in the Gospel of Mark may have been taken by Au_Mark from
      his documentary source material. On the Greek Notes Hypothesis, this is
      probably what happened. It seems to me that the occurrence of Aramaic
      expressions in Mark therefore does not imply that we know that Au_Mark
      knew any Aramaic.

      More generally, I would suggest that from the Gospel of Mark alone we
      know nothing of what Au_Mark knew, because Au-Mark does not tell us
      which wording he supplied as redaction, and which wording in his Gospel
      is tradition which he reproduced from his source material.

      Best wishes,
      BRIAN WILSON

      E-MAIL : brian@... HOMEPAGE
      SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
      10 York Close, Godmanchester, www.twonh.demon.co.uk
      Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE18 8EB, UK
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.