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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Documentary Independence?

Expand Messages
  • Tim Reynolds
    on 24/9/04 8:53 PM, Tim Lewis at tlewistlewis@yahoo.com.au wrote: Tim: Consider the verbal differences for Mt 22:41-45 // Mk 12:35-37 // Lk 20:41-44 (on
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 27, 2004
      Re: [Synoptic-L] Documentary Independence? on 24/9/04 8:53 PM, Tim Lewis at tlewistlewis@... wrote:


      Tim:

      Consider the verbal differences for Mt 22:41-45 // Mk 12:35-37 // Lk 20:41-44 (on David’s Lord). Apart from all quoting Psalm 110 the only verbal agreement in the first verse is absolutely minimal (PWS, DAUID). The ‘punch line’ (though sounding identical when in translated into English) provides no evidence for any direct dependence in Greek. Matthew and Luke agree against Mark with OUN and KALEI but with different words in between (and all also have differing word order). Redaction/direct dependence source theories are inadequate for explaining a pericope such as this one.



      The thing is, these texts are neither dependent, if that means transcription, nor, clearly, independent.  So what sort of transmission generates texts in this odd relation?  ³Auditory piracy², the Shakespeareans call it.  Every synoptic model on the table assumes without question that the medium of transmission was a codex open before the redactor, if that¹s what we are to call him.  If that was not the case, all these models are prima facie incorrect.

      Read any one of these three passages (or any triple trad passage) to any Scripture-literate person and ask him or her which gospel it¹s from.  They¹re like three versions of a joke.  It¹s the same joke, entirely faithful, but perforce in the redactor¹s idiolect  (punchlines, as you may be suggesting, are a special case).

      Xaipe,


      Tim (Reynolds)
      Long Beach CA
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.