> Matti Myllykoski asks about models for dealing with the minor agreements.
> discuss this problem in chap. 1 in connections with the problems faced bydo
> the 2DH.
> As I indicated in a previous response, I do not have a single answer, and
> not think that a single answer is adequate to the complexity of thepoint
> phenomena of the MAs. My main point in chap. 1 is that from a logical
> of view, the MAs constitute a problem for the 2DH *not* because they areto
> insoluble on the 2DH, but because they are solvable in too many different
> ways, and we are not in a position to know which kinds of solution ought
> be invoked, and in which case.next
> From the point of view of what we know or can surmise about the actual
> composition and early transmission of the Synoptic Gospels, several
> solutions are both logically possible and historically credible:
> 1) "coincidental redaction", especially in the case of features of Markan
> style that Matthew and Luke ordinarily alter (and hence, will sometimes
> alter in the same or similar fashions);
> 2) recensional explanations (either Ur- or Deutero-Markus), since it is
> to impossible that Matthew and Luke used the *same* copy of Mark or thathighly
> what eventually became canonical Mark was identical with either; and
> likely that copies of Mark differed in at least minor transcriptional waysbetter
> and perhaps in more substantial ways;
> 3) transmissional explanations: that the vagaries of transcription have
> created some of the MAs (and no doubt effaced others); and
> 4) the influence of Q or other non-Markan materials on certain pericopae.
> From a historical point of view, each of these is perfectly possible and
> analogies can be found for each. From an epistemological perspective,
> however, we are simply not in a position to *know* which model is the
> one in any particular case. I do think that Neirynck (in his minorleast
> agreements book) has provided statistical data that goes a long way to
> justifying (1). There are, however, as everyone knows, certain MAs such as
> MArk 14:65 for which that sort of explanation strains credulity (or at
> my credulity). In these cases, (2) or (3) do work, but i have not groundsinformed
> for choosing one over the other. That's the rub: we are truly badly
> about the stages of composition and transmission that we would really likeSender: owner-synoptic-s@...
> to know about and which would solve many of our problems. And it makes no
> sense to me to try to force a solution when the data is simply not there.
This is the _Excavating Q_ Seminar (Oct. 23 -- Nov. 10 2000).
Please send your messages to Synoptic-S@...
Please send all other correspondence to Synoptic-S-Owner@...