Adam

digitool.library.mcgill.ca/thesisfile43909.pdf
Don't double-click, that brings up the error of trying to access it while it's open. Maybe only one person can be reading it at a time?

Full title: An examination of historical reliability in the synoptic gospels : with special reference to W.L. Knox's "Sources of the synoptic gospels"
By chance I found yet another dissertation on-line. I doubt they get many hits (booksellers get no money thereby). "Read-only" seems also to mean we can't copy and paste to here. Another problem with these PDFs is that you may not be able to open a new screen (like to FRDB here), so have any other screens you want opened first. So how do we find this good stuff unless we already know who wrote a dissertation?

The thesis statement acknowledges sources underneath Mark and seems favorable to W. L. Knox's Twelve-Source, which is the special study of his thesis.
On page 13 Rawlinson Dismisses E. Meyers's earlier presentation of the Twelve-Source due to the "persistence throughout the Gospel of the very peculiar....style." V. Taylor likewise sees "no reason to trace them to a documentary source."

As I read farther I will present additional posts, particularly if they are relevant to my Gospel Eyewitnesses theory.

Bronzeage

I am not going to google "Harry Kuntz".

Adam

A. E. J. Rawlinson is correct that there is a persistent Marcan style. I discovered that by my own study in 1967. That fits, however, with my own source-criticism that the author both translated Aramaic sources and made additions in Greek. Vincent Taylor is wrong that we cannot trace documentary sources: Proto-Luke and an earlier Mark translated Twelve-Source independently from Aramaic, thus those sections of Mark are more different from Luke than the Peterine sections that Luke copies from the Greek Mark.

Adam

Kuntz's summary on pg. 161 is that tracts probably underlie Mark, but this is conjectural regarding Luke. He cannot verify Knox's division.

Incidentally, the final note is to R. W. Funk of Jesus Seminar fame, that some was put together prior to inclusion, but that does not mean that the bulk of it was.

The type of detailed commentary here seems as subjective as Form Criticism, making little use of style except for use of "Twelve" vs. "disciples". None of the derivations agree with mine, whether Wilfred Knox's, Eduard Meyer's, S. E. Johnson's, or C. H. Dodd's. (See the comparative tables on pg. 49-51.) None seems concerned to detect where Mark and Luke stem from an Aramaic source as against copying Mark into Luke. Has no one else noticed this? The Twelve-Source concept died because the initial separation was wrong, but no one else tried significant variations on it?

Vorkosigan

What are the arguments that no Aramaic source was used?

Vorkosigan

LegionOnomaMoi

This isn't a dissertation. Hence the part about "submitted... in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Sacred Theology". It's a for a pre-doctorate graduate degree, not a doctorate (and thus is a thesis, not a dissertation).

"The "read-only" is designed to prevent modification. The bigger problem is that it is almost certainly scanned (or something similar) and thus the text is more like a picture file rather than actual text. So when you copy and past it you get this:

Generally speaking, the only people who read these have access to various databases like Proquest Dissertations and Theses (PQDT). They also come across relevant works in various other technical sources (journals, conference proceedings, monographs, academic books, etc.) which they can either get at their library or request through interlibrary loan (public libraries can do this too, but I have no idea if they can get the same materials as your average univerity library).

Adam

For all the concern for detailing sources, the nature of the source languages is beyond what this thesis concerned itself with. Matthew Black is cited re Aramaic, semitic characteristics are mentioned, but languages other than Greek are largely ignored. (Page 109) Of course, if both sources were Aramaic, the language of the source would not aid in source-separation if both wre translated by the same person.

Yellum Notnef

A most unfortunate name. Wow.

outhouse

stop it bud


you are so off base here its not funny.





why would the roman pagan authors writing about this, decades after his death, have any contact with the real apostles???

those who wrote the scripture, were not the oppressed jews jesus traveled with PERIOD.



if these accounts were written by eye witnesses, it would be obviously jewish, but its far from peasant jew material.

it also would contain valid historical writings, which we dont have, it surely wouldnt have left us with the BS legend's they try and shove down our throat.

you also would not have a bunch of copied material and the multiple sources we see in all the works today

stop the garbage

Adam

Form Criticism has gotten us into this dead end where little is felt to be known about Jesus. No matter. The return to eyewitnesses is notable:
Die apostolische Herkunft der Evangelien nach H. J. Schulz = The Apostolical Origin of the Gospels according to H. J. Schulz, 1994.
Robert K. McIver. Memory, Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels. SBL: 2011.
Pg. 130 "consistent with...eyewitness accounts" in the gist, not all details.
Pg. 156 such inconsistencies "are precisely the type of variations one might expect of various eyewitness reports of the same event."
Die Rückkehr der Augenzeugen
Eine neue Entwicklung in der Evangelienforschung by
Rainer Riesner_ lists Samuel Byrskog, Richard Bauckham, and Martin Hengel as setting aside Form Criticism and acknowledging eyewitnesses for the gospels.
Even in 1933 Vincent Taylor made a wise-crack that I will try to translate back from Riesner's German:
Frage nach den Augenzeugen trifft die Formgeschichte an einer sehr verwundbaren
Seite. Wenn es nach ihren Vertretern ginge, dann müßten die Jünger
unmittelbar nach der Auferstehung Jesu in den Himmel aufgefahren sein.
"Questions about eyewitnesses Form Criticism treats in a remarkable way. Regarding its informants, the disciples must have ascended into Heaven immediately after the Resurrection!"