Steven Avery

Thank you, Stephen. Do either of these books discuss the Prologues much in the context of the Messiahology debates of the times ? Evidence of Tradition sure sounds like it should.

And I see if I want to purchase the books without giving (financial?) credit to Internet Infidels I have to get from point A to point B in another way. Or purchase from Abebooks :-)

S.C.Carlson

No. Evidence of Tradition just presents the evidence (both original language and in English translations) with no analysis at all.

The Order of the Synoptics also presents a lot of external evidence for the authorship of the synoptics, but its analysis is in support of the Griesbach (Matt-Luke-Mark) model.

I don't know anything about how to do that, and, even if I did, it would be rude to our hosts to explain how.

Stephen

Toto

The Amazon program provides a small amount of the funds needed to subsidize this board. You can provide further support here.

Have you considered the irony of atheists promoting Bible study?

Ben C Smith

Know thy enemy.

Toto

Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
-- Isaac Asimov (source unknown)

Ben C Smith

Well, now I have (at last). I already had the Matthean one translated, and recently translated the Johannine one too, but now I have laid my hands on both books recommended by Stephen. Orchard does not give a translation, only a brief summary, but Theron has them translated in full with the original Latin alongside, bless his heart.

I went back and checked my Matthean and Johannine translations against his, and found that what I lack most as a translator is, at least in this case, confidence. I found I was usually hitting the constructions fairly well, but it was still very fuzzy what was being said. But Orchard (echoing your yuk, Roger) succinctly explains this phenomenon as regards the Monarchian prologues:

Nevertheless the theological parts of these Prologues are written in such an involved and labored style that it is almost impossible fully to understand what they are trying to convey!

Indeed!

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

Thanks for putting it on your page, Ben.

Please note that Christopher Tuckett, "Response to the Two-Gospel Hypothesis" in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium (ed. David L. Dungan; BETL 95; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), mentions that the most interesting part of the Markan Monarchian prolog, "quam in prioribus vicerat" should mean "which in the opening paragraphs he conquered."

For this interpretation, Tuckett credits John Chapman, Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels (Oxford: Clarendon, 1908), 234, which I have not read.

Stephen

Ben C Smith

That was not how I had read it, of course, but it makes sense. The prioribus would be the previous parts, not previous works as I have it in my translation.

I will probably change my page on that point. Thanks for the info.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I decided to simply delete my comments on that matter. While which he conquered in the early going is fuzzy as to exact meaning, it is no more fuzzy than most of the rest of these prologues. And what Orchard proposes involves (A) a textual emendation that (B) ends up conflicting with the order of gospel composition clarified in the Lucan prologue, in which Matthew and Mark are already written.

I have also added a link on that page to the Marcionite prologues to the Pauline epistles, which were an absolute breeze to translate compared to the Monarchian.

Ben.