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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Added a page to my site, an alternative to the 3SH

Expand Messages
  • dgentil@sears.com
    Hello Ron, Ron Price writes: Your idea (which I have not quoted here because of the peculiar format in which it was posted!) should be given a good try for
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Ron,

      Ron Price writes:
      Your idea (which I have not quoted here because of the peculiar format in
      which it was posted!) should be given a "good try" for lateral thinking

      Dave:
      I can't even really take credit for the idea, it came up in another
      discussion as an alternative. (And apologies for the odd format).

      Ron:
      For your suggestion implies that there were
      dozens of substantial alterations to the text of Luke prior to the earliest
      extant divergences of the textual tradition.

      Dave:
      Yes, that is what would be needed. And the fact that we don't have those
      hypothetical early versions of Luke certainly is an argument against the
      idea. I think we would have to speculate that "a copy of record" somewhere
      was made to look more like Matthew, and that all existing copies descend
      from that copy. In addition to an early substantial change, there may have
      been other minor changes in the same direction. Earlier versions of Luke
      may not have been widely distributed, and in fact might have been actively
      destroyed by proto-orthodox believers, if the original Luke contained
      material that did not sit well with their view.

      As I said, there and arguments for and against this view, apart for my
      study. But the study itself can not support one over the other.


      David Gentile,
      M.S. Physics, M.S. Finance
      Hoffman Estates, IL




      Ron Price
      <ron.price@virgin To: Synoptic-L elist <Synoptic-L@...>
      .net> cc:
      Sent by: Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Added a page to my site, an
      owner-synoptic-l@ alternative to the 3SH
      bham.ac.uk


      03/03/2004 04:51
      AM






      Dave,

      You suggest that large parts of what we call Q could have been adaptations
      of the text of Luke by copyists who were familiar with Matthew.

      Your idea (which I have not quoted here because of the peculiar format in
      which it was posted!) should be given a "good try" for lateral thinking,
      but
      a "fail" for feasibility. For your suggestion implies that there were
      dozens of substantial alterations to the text of Luke prior to the earliest
      extant divergences of the textual tradition. But I have investigated the
      original text of all except the smallest NT documents, and can show that
      only in John are there more than a handful of substantial pre
      text-tradition
      alterations. (By "substantial" I mean altering the text size by more than
      around 40 letters or 8 words.)

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      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@...






      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Ron Price
      ... Dave, But, as I tried to indicate in my previous posting, I can identify fairly closely what the author of Luke wrote, and can therefore rule out any
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 3, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Dave Gentile wrote:

        > .....the fact that we don't have those
        > hypothetical early versions of Luke certainly is an argument against the
        > idea. I think we would have to speculate that "a copy of record" somewhere
        > was made to look more like Matthew, and that all existing copies descend
        > from that copy. In addition to an early substantial change, there may have
        > been other minor changes in the same direction. Earlier versions of Luke
        > may not have been widely distributed, and in fact might have been actively
        > destroyed by proto-orthodox believers, if the original Luke contained
        > material that did not sit well with their view.

        Dave,

        But, as I tried to indicate in my previous posting, I can identify fairly
        closely what the author of Luke wrote, and can therefore rule out any "early
        substantial change(s)" of the sort you mention.

        Ron Price

        Derbyshire, UK

        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.