in his las mail, John C. Poirier wrote about Solages :
> Yet the way in which he arrives at the Two-Source theory
> is so problematic that one suspects that he had that theory
> as his goal.
I think not, because he claims (in the book refered here after)
that he was leaded by a matthew-priority a priori. It looks as
if he has been convinced just by its computations, but in fact,
they may have reflected the same basic evidences that induces
the success of 2SH among 20c. scholarship.
in his penultimate mail, John C. Poirier wrote :
> In his *Synopse Grecque des Evangiles* (French original and English
> translation both 1959), Bruno de Solages discusses the category of
> agreement that we all know as "the minor agreements," yet he never uses
> the term.
I have a question, and some comments, about Solages.
First, Solages was a scholar, but not a specialist of synoptic
problem. He was director of the Catholic University of Toulouses,
and had got Lagrange as professor at the Ecole Biblique.
But in the book of him I read this week-end, he ackowledges
that textual critic and redaction process are not his principal
occupation. Most of his references are out of date.
Just to show it : this book is called : "Critique des Évangiles
et méthode historique, l'exégèse des synoptiques selon R. Bultmann",
and is dedicated to the critics of Bultmann's methods. The book is
dated to 1972. I think Solages was perhabs not up-to-date.
Some aspects of this book about Bultmann are interesting for
the synoptic problem, because Solages adresses many aspects
of the transmission, looking for analogies in other fields
than bible study.
And his critics of Bultmann are some of the most argumented
I ever seen, even if it looks some time angry and vindicatous.
The rigidity of "forms" and the arbitrary critical decision of
Bultmann are well enlighted.
On the other hand, his arguments on synoptic are absolutely not
convincing, because he claims for a high formalism in statistic,
but produces a high quantity of approximations and simplifications
to reach a sustainable formalism, and more than half of approximations
and simplifications are obviously false and lead to fakes. For instance,
Solages considers a multi-stage process as absolutely equivalent
to an independant derivation from a lost document (ala Brian Wilson).
And for him, an ur-Markus process is equivalent to 2SH.
Now, my question.
At the core of synoptic problem, Solages gave a strange observation
about triple tradition, and I would like to get some precision from
those one (John?) that read his other books : he give the number of
triple tradition pericopae that appear in the same order in the three
synoptic, the numbers of pericopae that appear in the same order in
each pear of gospels and not in the third, (Mark and Matthew and not
Luke, Luke and Mark and not Matthew, etc.) and the number of pericopae
whose order differs in the three synoptics.
the result is :
* constant order in synoptic : 43 (68)
* Mark+Matthew : 14 (22)
* Mark+Luke : 14 (15)
* Luke+Matthew : 0 (0)
* no common order : 2 (2)
the second number is computed on the whole gospel. The first one, is
presented as more representative, since computed without beginning
and end of the gospel (Mk 1:1-20 and 14:1-16:8).
The strange phenomenon is naturally the 0 connexion between Luke and
Matthew, that Solages presents as an evidence for a no connexion
dependency between Mark and Matthew. (There are possible objection
against such a conclusion, I know, and do not want to discuss it)
Solages gives no precision about his computation, and I would like
to know how he defines this order, and computes the pericopae.
And also : is it a discovery from him, or is it a well known phenomenon ?
PS : about the penetration of "Minor agreements" in french scholarship.
> Was it not yet a widely used term when de Solages wrote the bulk of his
> study (perhaps being used mostly by the Oxford school at that time)?
> Was it slow in penetrating French scholarship?
In fact, I do not know if "Minor agreements" is considered as
a significant problem in french scholarship. If I well remember,
I read it only in translations from english books.
But If I am right, "minor agreements" is highly related to
the perspective of 2SH, which is not the majority view in
french scholarship. Multistage theories (Hermant, Rolland,
Boismard) are far more popular in France among synoptic
problem specialists, and even exegesis that deals with 2SH
ackoledges in the same time that it is just a conventional
use, and not a precise image of reality.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...