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

Re: [Synoptic-L] A pleasing literary arrangement?

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... Excuse me ... what what?? Jeffrey Gibson -- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.) 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1 Chicago, IL 60626 jgibson000@attbi.com Synoptic-L
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 15, 2003
      Tim Reynolds wrote:

      > Note that Papias knows Mk exists but doesn't cite it, because it's
      > under guard in Alexandria.

      Excuse me ... what what??

      Jeffrey Gibson
      --

      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

      1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
      Chicago, IL 60626

      jgibson000@...



      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Ron Price
      ... Leonard, If there were an infinite set of suitable contenders, you would be right. But pleasing literary arrangements are not that common. Consider the
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 16, 2003
        Leonard Maluf wrote:

        >Does it really support your contention that sQ = TA LOGIA, or does this
        >particular piece of evidence support only the conclusion that sQ cannot be
        >excluded a priori from an infinite set of hypothetical or real namable
        >sources, any of which could = TA LOGIA? In which case, not much has been
        >gained. Help me with my logic here.

        Leonard,

        If there were an infinite set of suitable contenders, you would be
        right.
        But pleasing literary arrangements are not that common. Consider the
        canonical gospels, for instance. Only one of them has any reasonable
        claim in practice, for in only one (Matthew) is the literary arrangement
        sufficiently obvious to be widely recognized.

        Apart from sQ I am not aware of *any* other serious contender,
        historical or hypothetical, which could fit Papias' description of TA
        LOGIA. Q, of course, is ruled out anyway (whether pleasing or not)
        because it was supposedly written originally in Greek.

        Ron Price

        Derbyshire, 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@...
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 3/16/2003 12:20:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, ... Ron, I was making a purely logical point, to which I do not believe you have responded. If
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 16, 2003
          In a message dated 3/16/2003 12:20:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, ron.price@... writes:


          Leonard,

            If there were an infinite set of suitable contenders, you would be
          right.
            But pleasing literary arrangements are not that common. Consider the
          canonical gospels, for instance. Only one of them has any reasonable
          claim in practice, for in only one (Matthew) is the literary arrangement
          sufficiently obvious to be widely recognized.

            Apart from sQ I am not aware of *any* other serious contender,
          historical or hypothetical, which could fit Papias' description of TA
          LOGIA. Q, of course, is ruled out anyway (whether pleasing or not)
          because it was supposedly written originally in Greek.



          Ron, I was making a purely logical point, to which I do not believe you have responded. If the "evidence" you cite from Brown that the Logia of Papias, on the basis of the meaning of the term syntassein, could refer to a text with "a persuasive or *pleasing literary arrangement* or even to a fuller account" amounts to saying that sQ as you define it could qualify, this is not really the same as saying that Brown's quote "supports" your identification of sQ with the Logia. I am also unable to accept your suggestion that none of the Gospels except Matthew would pass the qualifications of syntassein as defined by Brown, or by anyone else for that matter. Also, remind me: do you see sQ and/or the Logia of Papias as possibly to be identified with the Hebrew Matt of tradition?

          Leonard Maluf
        • Tim Reynolds
          ... v. Morton Smith s Clement letter tim Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@bham.ac.uk
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 16, 2003
            on 3/15/03 2:54 PM, Jeffrey B. Gibson at jgibson000@... wrote:

            >
            >
            > Tim Reynolds wrote:
            >
            >> Note that Papias knows Mk exists but doesn't cite it, because it's
            >> under guard in Alexandria.
            >
            > Excuse me ... what what??
            >
            > Jeffrey Gibson

            v. Morton Smith's Clement letter

            tim


            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Ron Price
            ... Leonard, Let s say that it provides a measure of support. For a document which has a pleasing literary arrangement is *more likely* to match Papias
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 17, 2003
              Leonard Maluf wrote:

              >Ron, I was making a purely logical point, to which I do not believe you
              >have responded. If the "evidence" you cite from Brown that the Logia of
              >Papias, on the basis of the meaning of the term syntassein, could refer to
              >a text with "a persuasive or *pleasing literary arrangement* or even to a
              >fuller account" amounts to saying that sQ as you define it could qualify,
              >this is not really the same as saying that Brown's quote "supports" your
              >identification of sQ with the Logia.

              Leonard,

              Let's say that it provides a measure of support. For a document which
              has a pleasing literary arrangement is *more likely* to match Papias'
              description than a document which does not have such an arrangement.

              >Also, remind me: do you see sQ and/or the Logia of Papias as possibly to be
              >identified with the Hebrew Matt of tradition?

              I suppose it's possible that someone in the tradition misunderstood
              Papias' statement about TA LOGIA, thinking it referred to Matthew's
              gospel. If this was so, then there is a link, though no identity.
              Even R.E.Brown concedes that Matthew's gospel was originally written
              in Greek. But interestingly he wrote that we shouldn't too facilely
              dismiss Papias' statement as complete fiction or ignorance. Sadly, many
              modern scholars seem to have done just that. Thus e.g. Kloppenborg
              wrote: "The origin of the speculation, Papias' statement about Matthew,
              is legendary at best" (_Excavating Q_, p.80). The only evidence
              Kloppenborg appears to provide for this slur is that Papias' statement
              does not fit his deductions from the Two Source Theory. He is thus using
              a questionable theory to dismiss a crucial piece of evidence. Need I say
              more?

              Ron Price

              Derbyshire, 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.