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

Expand Messages
  • owner-synoptic-s@bham.ac.uk
    ... I ... do ... point ... to ... next ... highly ... better ... least ... informed ... Sender: owner-synoptic-s@bham.ac.uk Precedence: bulk This is the
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 31, 2000
      >
      > Matti Myllykoski asks about models for dealing with the minor agreements.
      I
      > discuss this problem in chap. 1 in connections with the problems faced by
      > the 2DH.
      >
      > As I indicated in a previous response, I do not have a single answer, and
      do
      > not think that a single answer is adequate to the complexity of the
      > phenomena of the MAs. My main point in chap. 1 is that from a logical
      point
      > of view, the MAs constitute a problem for the 2DH *not* because they are
      > 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
      to
      > be invoked, and in which case.
      >
      > 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
      next
      > to impossible that Matthew and Luke used the *same* copy of Mark or that
      > what eventually became canonical Mark was identical with either; and
      highly
      > likely that copies of Mark differed in at least minor transcriptional ways
      > 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
      better
      > one in any particular case. I do think that Neirynck (in his minor
      > 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
      least
      > my credulity). In these cases, (2) or (3) do work, but i have not grounds
      > for choosing one over the other. That's the rub: we are truly badly
      informed
      > about the stages of composition and transmission that we would really like
      > 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.
      >
      > best
      > jskv
      >
      >
      Sender: owner-synoptic-s@...
      Precedence: bulk


      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@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.