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

[Synoptic-L] Re: Synoptic-L

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic-L In Response To: Joe Weaks On: Synoptic Relations From: Bruce JOE: There is a larger list of possible relationships running around somewhere. I
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 19, 2005
      To: Synoptic-L
      In Response To: Joe Weaks
      On: Synoptic Relations
      From: Bruce

      JOE: There is a larger list of possible relationships running around
      somewhere. I can't recall where at the moment.

      BRUCE: Probably Stephen Carlson's web site. It includes all permutations for
      up to two conjectural texts. Huge. Eliminating those options one by one is
      going to be a major project. Hence my thought of concentrating on the
      Synoptic fraction, which will have its own shape even if it is only part of
      the larger story.

      JOE: This "history" part you make reference to is really the aspect of the
      subject that renders this kind of listing close to pointless, isn't it?

      BRUCE: My fault. I said that the 25-option list might be more "historically
      adequate," meaning that it includes options that people have actually held
      in the past, in particular the classical position that the Synoptics are not
      literarily interrelated (my option 1, or A, B, C). This is of course only
      the Synoptic portion of that position, and doesn't include conjectural texts
      (their Q). But the Synoptic relation can be evaluated, it seems to me, apart
      from any additional conjectural texts, in the usual literary way. Perhaps
      therefore not without use in considering past positions, as well as in
      investigating the situation de novo (which is what I recommend: this subject
      has too much baggage).

      JOE: The historicity of is all makes the list infinite. B could've REALLY
      known A, while C has passing knowledge of it and B, or not.

      BRUCE: As far as I can see, this is my option #20, A > B >> C. I don't think
      it makes a difference in the relationship (only the details, or the relative
      strengths of certain parts of it) to say "B *really* knew A" versus "B
      *passingly" knew A," versus "B intermittently attended to A." If the A/B
      relationship is determined to be A > B (and if that direction is consistent
      throughout both texts, which needs to be verified), then *how much* of A was
      used by B, and how accurately or freely, is a subordinate matter. It affects
      the style, not the form, of the relationship. As far as I can see. The
      category doesn't tell all, but it tells something helpful.

      JOE: A's version of B could've been quite different than C's version.
      (Certainly the case, in fact)

      BRUCE: Well, if there is any certainty out there, I certainly want to know
      about it. Details or references welcome. The instance of "B not equaling B"
      that I am most acquainted with is the Ur-Marcus line of thought, one variant
      of which has it that (for instance) the copy of B used by A was not
      identical to the copy of B used later by C. It seems to me that this
      particular line has largely dissipated, in that people tended to find that
      Ur-Marcus increasingly converged with Marcus. My own impression (but in
      giving it I am getting ahead of the story, and summarizing things I haven't
      reported) is that Mark was indeed used by Matthew, a slightly different
      version was later used by Luke, and a still different version is our present
      canonical Mark, that is, is now used by us. But all that needs
      demonstration. I didn't mean to get into demonstration (not in one note),
      just to provide a helpful list in advance of investigation.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Joseph Weaks
      ... Thanks for the clarification. I understand a little better now your goals here. ... Right. I think, then, that we are talking apples/oranges. You re
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 19, 2005
        On Jan 19, 2005, at 4:00 PM, E Bruce Brooks wrote:
        > JOE: This "history" part you make reference to is really the aspect of
        > the
        > subject that renders this kind of listing close to pointless, isn't it?
        >
        > BRUCE: My fault. I said that the 25-option list might be more
        > "historically
        > adequate," meaning that it includes options that people have actually
        > held
        > in the past,

        Thanks for the clarification. I understand a little better now your
        goals here.

        > JOE: The historicity of is all makes the list infinite. B could've
        > REALLY
        > known A, while C has passing knowledge of it and B, or not.
        >
        > BRUCE: As far as I can see, this is my option #20, A > B >> C. I don't
        > think
        > it makes a difference in the relationship (only the details, or the
        > relative
        > strengths of certain parts of it)... It affects
        > the style, not the form, of the relationship. As far as I can see. The
        > category doesn't tell all, but it tells something helpful.

        Right. I think, then, that we are talking apples/oranges. You're
        centering on the theory, and I tend to care more about real implication
        for interpretation.

        > JOE: A's version of B could've been quite different than C's version.
        > (Certainly the case, in fact)
        >
        > BRUCE: Well, if there is any certainty out there, I certainly want to
        > know
        > about it. Details or references welcome. The instance of "B not
        > equaling B"
        > that I am most acquainted with is the Ur-Marcus line of thought
        > ...My own impression (but in
        > giving it I am getting ahead of the story, and summarizing things I
        > haven't
        > reported) is that Mark was indeed used by Matthew, a slightly different
        > version was later used by Luke, and a still different version is our
        > present
        > canonical Mark, that is, is now used by us.

        Bruce, I had in mind several things here, but I did not have in mind an
        old Ur-Marcus theory. Your "own impression" is mine as well, and could
        hardly be any other way. It's nothing but provocative to speak of
        certainty here, but I don't mind saying that Matthew's Mark was
        certainly different than Luke's Mark. I would recommend David Parker's
        "Living Text of the Gospels" on that point.

        Good luck on the project,
        Joe

        **************************************************************
        Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
        Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
        Ph.D. (Cand.), Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
        j.weaks@...

        The Macintosh Biblioblog http://macbiblioblog.blogspot.com
        "All things Macintosh for theB ible Scholar"
        **************************************************************


        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.