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,
      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.