Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hatsoff · 11-30-2007, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I have a page on my site that discusses examples of direction of dependence arguments. This page is intentionally presented as neutrally as I am capable of presenting it; you will find examples of each synoptist copying from each other in no overall pattern, based purely on how strong I feel the argument is. There is thus absolutely no firm result in terms of the synoptic problem; the whole point (much like that of your OP) is to try to think along new lines.

Thankyou, that's extremely helpful! I see that Goodacre's treatment of Mt 10:11-14 vs. Lk 9:4-5 is spot-on. It appears that the Lk indeed does suffer from fatigue, there, and that Mt is the apparent original in that instance. Yet how does it stack up to other passages where Lk appears original?

Your own argument that Mt 21:33-46 is an expansion on the material from Lk 14:15-24 is also interesting, stacking the evidence in favor of Wilke over Farrer.

Very interesting, indeed.

the_cave · 11-30-2007, 01:51 PM

I'm not sure that it is always useful anymore to talk about the "two-source hypothesis" and its alternatives. Rather, there were primitive writings, at least one of them resembing a gospel narrative, and their origins remain shrouded in mystery. You can call them "Q" "Mark" "ur-Mark" or what have you, but these labels become increasingly inaccurate the earlier the source gets.

For example, I suspect that there is no solution to the synoptic problem without a consideration of John. For that matter, I suspect there is no solution to the synoptic problem without a consideration of certain non-canonical gospels, of which we have only fragments. This might mean that a perfect "solution" to the synoptic problem is, based on the material currently available to us, impossible. It might also be impossible to do using only texts called "gospels".

For example, what would the difference be between a "Q" and a proto-Matthew?

What would the difference be between a "Q" and a proto-Luke?

Would there be a difference between a proto-Matthew and a proto-Luke?

And what would you mean by the terms "proto-Matthew" and "proto-Luke"?

Look at Pierson Parker's theories, for example. Stephen Carlson categorizes these under his 2SH theories--but aren't they just as equally Griesbachian? Is it even meaningful to call Parker's theories either 2SH theories or Griesbachian theories?

And what do you mean by "Q"? Do you think that Q has any layers? Are you including the pericope of the Centurion's Servant in your definition of "Q"?

etc. etc.

Well, just my two cents

andrewcriddle · 12-01-2007, 03:17 AM

It could be argued that the fact (if it is a fact) that on dispensing with Q it is not obvious whether Matthew borrowed from Luke or Luke borrowed from Matthew; is an argument in favour of Q.

IE one ground for believing in Q is that in the agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark sometimes Matthew appears more original sometimes Luke.

Andrew Criddle

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-30-2007, 01:51 PM	#12
the_cave Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 1,443	I'm not sure that it is always useful anymore to talk about the "two-source hypothesis" and its alternatives. Rather, there were primitive writings, at least one of them resembing a gospel narrative, and their origins remain shrouded in mystery. You can call them "Q" "Mark" "ur-Mark" or what have you, but these labels become increasingly inaccurate the earlier the source gets. For example, I suspect that there is no solution to the synoptic problem without a consideration of John. For that matter, I suspect there is no solution to the synoptic problem without a consideration of certain non-canonical gospels, of which we have only fragments. This might mean that a perfect "solution" to the synoptic problem is, based on the material currently available to us, impossible. It might also be impossible to do using only texts called "gospels". For example, what would the difference be between a "Q" and a proto-Matthew? What would the difference be between a "Q" and a proto-Luke? Would there be a difference between a proto-Matthew and a proto-Luke? And what would you mean by the terms "proto-Matthew" and "proto-Luke"? Look at Pierson Parker's theories, for example. Stephen Carlson categorizes these under his 2SH theories--but aren't they just as equally Griesbachian? Is it even meaningful to call Parker's theories either 2SH theories or Griesbachian theories? And what do you mean by "Q"? Do you think that Q has any layers? Are you including the pericope of the Centurion's Servant in your definition of "Q"? etc. etc. Well, just my two cents

12-01-2007, 03:17 AM	#13
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	It could be argued that the fact (if it is a fact) that on dispensing with Q it is not obvious whether Matthew borrowed from Luke or Luke borrowed from Matthew; is an argument in favour of Q. IE one ground for believing in Q is that in the agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark sometimes Matthew appears more original sometimes Luke. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.