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

Expand Messages
  • owner-synoptic-s@bham.ac.uk
    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.
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 31, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      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.
      Sender: owner-synoptic-s@...
      Precedence: bulk

      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


      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.