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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: A complete list of the graphical representation of first-order gospelrelationships

Expand Messages
  • David Gentile
    ... Thanks. ... It also contains (almost) the 2SH, Luke is dependant on a proto-Mark instead of Mark. It can also account for any argument for Lukian priorty
    Message 1 of 3 , Oct 26, 2001
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      > Pretty interesting. This synoptic theory #862:
      >
      > K->M a->K a->L a->b b->M b->L
      >
      > where you have named "a" as Lk1.0 and "b" as Mt1.0.

      Thanks.

      >
      > Structurally, it is basically the Farrer Theory,
      > but with a proto-Mark and proto-Matthew in place
      > of their respective canonical versions. The final
      > Mark and Matthew are descendents of their respective
      > proto-versions and Matthew being further dependent
      > on Mark.

      It also contains (almost) the 2SH, Luke is dependant on a proto-Mark instead
      of Mark.
      It can also account for any argument for Lukian priorty the the JSH might
      make.

      >
      > The difference between this quasi-Farrer and your
      > explanation is that you characterize "a" as a proto-Luke
      > not a proto-Mark. Why did you decide this?
      >

      I called it Lk1.0 here, because Brian had named it that in the previous
      post.
      "Proto-Mark/Luke" might be most accurate, since if you are looking in a
      synopsis
      the triple agreements, and the Mk/Lk agreements against Mt would be
      attributed to it.

      Dave Gentile
      Riverside, Illinois


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.