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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Synoptic-L

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 3 , Jan 19, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      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,

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

      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.