[Synoptic-L] Osbourne in Rethinking
- I'm just working on a review of _Rethinking the Synoptic Problem_ and
there's a sentence that baffles me, but I'd really like to check that
it's not just me. Grant Osbourne writes the last chapter in the
book, a "Response" to the whole. When discussing the Griesbach
hypothesis, he writes the following:
"In other words, it is easier to explain the use of Mark by Matthew
and Luke than it is the use of Matthew and Luke by Mark. For
instance, while Matthew and Mark have a great deal of material in
common, Matthew nearly always shortens Mark rather than vice versa.
This fits a key text-critical criterion: the shorter version is to
be preferred." (p. 142).
But even if Osbourne's characterisation of the data were accurate
(which it is not), the point of lectio brevior potior is that the
shorter reading is more likely to be more original than the longer
one, is it not? So if one were to draw source-critical conclusions
on the basis of this text-critical criterion, and assuming Osbourne's
questionable characterisation of the data, this would tell in favour
of Matthaean Priority, wouldn't it? To me, this looks like a howler;
do others agree?
Thanks for your help
Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
Birmingham B15 2TT UK
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
- In a message dated 3/11/2003 8:27:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, jlupia2@... writes:
Oui, Larry, vous êtes certainement correct.
Cela veut dire: vous avez certainement raison!