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

[Synoptic-L] Similarities and differences

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Tim Reynolds comments -- ... Tim, I was writing about the Ur-Gospel Hypothesis of G. E. Lessing. Lessing maintained that the three
    Message 1 of 1 , May 16 3:07 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Brian Wilson wrote --
      >
      >"the verbal similarities in Greek between the synoptic gospels are
      >strong and detailed in many places ... Independent translators do not
      >produce such close similarity in wording."
      >
      Tim Reynolds comments --
      >
      >But independent transcribers produce verbal identities, not
      >"similarities", however strong and detailed.
      >
      Tim,
      I was writing about the Ur-Gospel Hypothesis of G. E. Lessing.
      Lessing maintained that the three synoptic gospels were independent
      translations of the same Hebrew/Aramaic Ur-gospel. I maintain that this
      hypothesis is untenable because the Greek wordings of the synoptic
      gospels are so closely similar (for instance in the Parable of the
      Sower), that it is extremely unlikely that they are independent
      translations. Independent translators do not produce such closely
      similar wording.
      >
      >This is the problem: the synoptic texts are too different to be
      >transcription and too similar to be independent.
      >
      Obviously manuscripts of all three synoptic gospels are not variant
      manuscripts of the same book, each being a separate book in its own
      right. In that sense they are "too different to be transcription" and
      are "too similar to be independent".
      >
      >The explanation -- better, the generation -- of such a situation is the
      >criterion of a successful synoptic relation model.
      >
      Yes. We have to put forward a hypothesis of the documentary relationship
      between the synoptic gospels which has no difficulty in accounting for
      both the observed *similarities*, and also the observed *differences*,
      between the synoptic gospels. For instance, if someone puts forward a
      hypothesis which cannot account for the minor agreements of Mt and Lk
      against Mk, then it fails.

      Might it not also be said that the synoptic gospels are so closely
      similar in wording, some of the similarity being verbatim, that a
      synoptist who used either of the other synoptic gospels must have been a
      plagiarist, and would have been rejected as such at the time of writing
      of his gospel?

      Best wishes,
      BRIAN WILSON

      EM brian@... HP www.twonh.demon.co.uk TEL+44(0)1480385043
      Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE18 8EB,UK
      > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
      > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
      _
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.