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

Synoptic Sources (Was: More on 2427, family resemblances)

Expand Messages
  • Robert B. Waltz
    On Fri, 01 Nov 1996, Stephen C. Carlson ... BTW -- I spelled Ulrich Schmid s name incorrectly. My apologies to him if he s
    Message 1 of 1714 , Nov 1, 1996
      On Fri, 01 Nov 1996, "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>

      >At 03:36 10/31/96 -0700, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
      >>In fact, I once proposed to Ulrich Schmidt (based on the "folkloric"
      >>styles of some of the material in Matthew and Luke) that the two
      >>gospels had at least *six* sources -- Mark, Q1 (parallel to the
      >>Gospel of Thomas), Q2 (Q material not in Thomas), M1, L1, and L2.
      >>Some were written (Mark), some oral (Q1, L2), and some I'm not
      >>sure about.

      BTW -- I spelled Ulrich Schmid's name incorrectly. My apologies to him
      if he's still out there somewhere....

      >First, a minor nit on terminology. It seems to me that the notations
      >Q1 and Q2 are already used in synoptic source criticism to denote the
      >strata of Q according to Kloppenborg (there is also a Q3). Both the
      >Q1 and Q2 layers have parallels to Thomas.

      Hey, it's *my* theory; I'll call it what I want. :-)

      Seriously, I don't care about the terminology; the point is just that
      there seem to have been two Q sources -- one used by Matthew and
      Luke, and probably written; the other known also to the author
      of Thomas, and probably oral. An example of an item in the latter
      is the Parable of the Tares.

      >Second, what do you mean by L1 and L2?

      Arbitrary; one was written from an early date, the other stayed in
      oral tradition much longer.

      I repeat, this is just theorizing based on the folkloric "feeling" of
      the material involved. I have *not* investigated in detail, and I
      don't intend to. If anybody wants to see it, though, here is the
      relevant portion of the discussion with Schmid, which started as
      a discussion of oral tradition:

      >>>>To my mind there are more and more disturbing signals to those mostly naive
      >>>>theories on literary dependency of the synoptics...

      >>>I can't argue with that, either. I think the "four-source" theory much too
      >>>simple. My personal guess is that there were *two* "Q" sources (one written,
      >>>one still in oral tradition). I think that several incidents in Mark were
      >>>also in oral circulation. I also think that "M" and "L" may have been
      >>>composite sources, partly written, partly oral.

      >>Do you feel confident to roughly outline those "composite sources, partly
      >>written, partly oral" as to which parts might be either written or oral?

      >I don't think I have time to do a master's thesis right now, but I'll try. :-)
      >One thing that makes this harder is that almost all of the sources
      >go back to oral tradition; it's just that some came to the evangelists
      >orally and some in written form.
      >Also keep in mind that I am doing this largely from memory; I have never
      >attempted detailed synoptic analysis (remember that about 80% of my more
      >scholarly work has been devoted to Paul and the General Epistles).
      >Finally, keep in mind that I don't believe that really intricate source
      >analysis will ever be entirely accurate. But here's an outline:
      >The infancy narratives are oral.
      >The parts of Q which are *the same* in Matthew and Luke are literary, and
      >probably form the largest part of "written Q."
      >The material common to Matthew and the Gospel of Thomas (e.g. Matt. 13,24-30)
      >is part of "oral Q."
      >Parts of Q where Matthew and Luke show significant differences are usually
      >oral (my feeling is that "written Q," composed almost entirely of sayings
      >of Jesus, was copied very precisely by both Matthew and Luke. Anything
      >that shows large differences comes from something else). An excellent
      >example is Matt. 25,14-30. I think it almost certain that Matthew's version
      >was oral -- and that the variants it showed are the result of survivals
      >of that oral tradition.
      >Of Matthew's special material, I think that Matt. 5,17-47 was written
      >and not in Q. So were some of the parables. The rest, I think, is
      >mostly oral, or is something that Matthew himself made up based on
      >OT prophesy.
      >The ending of Luke is oral. I suspect that the differences between Luke's
      >and Mark's passion narratives arrise from an oral source.
      >Most of Luke's parables came to him orally, although he rewrote many
      >of them.
      >Luke's story of Jesus's journey from Galilee to Jerusalem started,
      >I think, as a written source, but one that he supplemented heavily.
      >If one believes that the ending of Mark has been lost, I think it more
      >likely that Matthew preserves it than that Luke does.

      Bob Waltz
    • Julian Goldberg
      The complete Hebrew Scriptures (Hebrew Bible) or TANAKH (Torah-Law, Neviim-Prophets, Ketuvim-Writings) based on the Masoretic Hebrew text with vowels and
      Message 1714 of 1714 , Feb 4, 1997
        The complete Hebrew Scriptures (Hebrew Bible) or TANAKH (Torah-Law,
        Neviim-Prophets, Ketuvim-Writings) based on the Masoretic Hebrew text
        with vowels and cantillation marks in one complete compact black hard
        covered volume which measures 12 cm x 19 cm with over 1360 pages that
        have been arranged according to traditional chapter and verse divisions
        along with larger Hebrew letter printing and thicker paper pages for a
        volume of this size. Each book is $ 20.00 (U.S.) postpaid ($ 15.50 for
        the book plus $ 4.50 for postage) and can be ordered directly from:

        Julian Goldberg, 260 Adelaide St., E., # 215, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
        M5A 1N0.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.