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

[Synoptic-L] Re: Fatigue

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    Mark Goodacre s Fatigue in the Synoptics represents an important step forward towards the solution of the Synoptic Problem. The examples of fatigue by
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 8, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark Goodacre's "Fatigue in the Synoptics" represents an important
      step forward towards the solution of the Synoptic Problem. The examples
      of fatigue by Matthew and Luke in the use of Mark present significant
      further evidence of Markan priority.
      Some of the double tradition examples of fatigue likewise constitute
      significant evidence, this time against the 2ST. However all five
      examples can be explained just as well by the 3ST as by the Farrer
      Theory.
      (1) Centurion's Boy: Luke's account was based on Matthew in the 3ST, so
      the 3ST and Farrer explanations are identical here.
      (2) Talents/Pounds: ditto.
      (3) Luke was in a 'Markan block' (i.e. following Mark) when he wrote THS
      POLEWS EKEINHS (Lk 9:5). But Mark doesn't mention a "town". The
      explanation appears to be similar in 2ST, 3ST and Farrer: Luke was
      remembering another source (Q, sQ or Matthew respectively).
      (4) In Lk 10:23-24 Luke appears to omit Matthew's KAI TA WTA hUMWN hOTI
      AKOUOUSIN. The phrase is not in _The Critical Edition of Q_, so the 2ST
      appears to have a problem here. In Farrer, Luke's fatigue was when using
      Matthew; in the 3ST the fatigue was when using sQ.
      (5) The use of TOUTWN for "these" little ones in Lk 17:2 is more
      interesting. It has no referent in its context in _The Critical Edition
      of Q_, so the 2ST appears to have a problem. Mark Goodacre, on the
      Farrer Theory, explains it as fatigue when copying Matt 18:6-9.
      Following Davies & Allison (_Matthew_,II,pp.228-229) I take "little
      ones" to have referred originally (and in my sQ) to Jesus' disciples.
      Thus if "he said to his disciples" (Lk 17:1) was in sQ as an
      introduction to the millstone saying, then the editor of sQ had
      carefully provided the referent, which Luke correctly copied. Thus it is
      Matthew who is mistaken because (following Mark's gospel?), he
      incorrectly omitted the introduction and took "a child" as the referent.

      Ron Price

      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

      e-mail: ron.price@...

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

      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.