Another mail, with some new questions to Brian :
> >Why did he not harmonize it?
> I understand your question here to be that if the Greek Logia
> contained both the Genealogy of Luke 3 and the Table of Descent of
> Matthew 1, and if Matthew might have thought that these two could have
> been harmonized, then why did he not in fact harmonize them?
No, my question was probably not clear. According you, story dualities
are due to an early redactor that re-used stories, merging them with
others. Why did he not operate such an harmonisation on the genealogy ?
I agree that your vision of Matthew, Mark and Luke independently
editing the greek notes is logic (when admiting that heavy deleting
edition was possible, many objections remaining possible at this step)
But the main great trouble in your theory relies in the original
documents : your Greek Notes, and the aramaic logia, look as some
monstruous features, a kind of objects that nobody has ever seen.
Thus it is my main question : do we have an example of such
incoherent and fuzzy set of notes in antiquity ? For instance :
if we have no document with such two contradicting genealogies
for a single guy, do we have just evidence about their existence ?
> >And I do not see any justification in Papias testimony that would give
> >to elder tradition a special status compared to all other tradition
> >transmission around the world.
> But scholars do see the tradition of the Elder as very special. The
> tradition is very early and extraordinary. The Logia Translation
> Hypothesis makes very good sense of this tradition, I would suggest.
You alledged the testimony of Papias. Explain how it fits better
your theory than any other theories, particularly when considering
the trouble of the double genealogy. If you do not, then your
invocation to Papias is useless, and could be criticized as
> >If I well understand text critics, there is a global explanation for
> >discrepancies found in gospels : they are the result of step by step
> >redaction process, when at a given step the redactor wanted to
> >harmonise the different tradition which were all considered as
> >respectable, and he had no witnesses anymore to check the better
> >tradition, so that he kept the whole, through harmonisation.
> I think the idea that the synoptic problem can be solved by positing
> such "step by step redaction process, when at a given step the redactor
> wanted to harmonise the different tradition" is basically the line of
> thinking advocated by Boismard. The result is a set of documentary
> hypotheses that are so complicated that they are way beyond being
> checked against the data. In my view, the synoptic problem is to put
> forward a hypothesis of the documentary relationship between the
> synoptic gospels that can be checked against the observed data.
* There is a problem of logic with the previous paragraph : even if
the theory of Boismard is "way beyond being checked against the data"
(and in fact I think it is not) and even if "step by step redaction
process" would be a Boismardian exclusive line (obviously it is not)
your defense looks weak : you may not alledge the impossibility to
check Boismardian theory in details as an argument against global
ideas that inconsistencies have been accumulated little by little
in gospel material, and that they are due to harmonisation trends
between different contradicting traditions.
* "step by step redaction process" is definitly not a Boismardian
invention : lost of synoptic theorists try to define a sequence of
redaction, using concept as harmonisation, progress, marginal
interpolation, enhancement of a basic story, and so on. It may
be wrong, but for my humble eyes, it looks as the most
well-established basis in scholarship.
* I do not want to come back on the validity of Boismard. I just
observe that whatever you claim, we observe at least a lack of
confirming data for your theory. Where are the data that allow to
imagine seriously a double genealogy in a single document (this
thread) ? Where did you face the compatibility of your greek note
hypothesis with the distribution, in triple tradition, of your own
story dualities (the story duality thread) ?
> >the discrepancies in your greek notes would have been worse than
> >all what we know today in the canonical. (for instance : double
> In fact the point you make here is *support* for the LTH. The LTH
> explicitly states that the Greek Logia were **not** one continuous book
> (as was each synoptic gospel) but were a collection of dozens of short
> reports each of which was self-contained.
For each strange characteristic you posit to your greek notes,
it would be great if we had an example of attested old document,
either christian, jewish or pagan, presenting that characteristic.
Or let us think your greek notes are kinds of triceratops eggs
landing on first century Roman Empire.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...