On 25 Oct 1994, STEVE SCHAPER wrote:
> It has been conclusively (or so it seems to me) shown that there is no
> literary relationship between the synoptics. Yes, they record the same events,
> often, but the actual texts show, when analyzed, that they are not
> _literarily_ dependant. That does not preclude, of course, witnessing the same
> events and then writing them down, or taking notes or memorizing as the
> disciples of rabbis often did.
When you make statements as bold as this one, Steve, you expose to the
rest of us that you have read very little on the synoptic problem.
Eminent scholars have debate the relationship between Matthew, Mark, and
Luke for quite some time now and noone has 'conclusively' shown them to
be independent. While the relationship is certainly open to diverse
interpretations (independence being one of them), the arguments are not
'conclusive.' They are probablistic at best.
Perhaps I have misread your intended meaning. If you mean that you are
aware of an argument which seems to you very convincing, then it would be
in keeping with the purpose of this forum to present that argument. I am
sure that you would find many of us willing to take you seriously if you
present the views in a way which shows that you are conversant with the
literature on the subject.
The book you mentioned (Eta Linnemann _Is There a Synoptic Problem?_
Baker, 1992) is certainly an interesting contribution to the debate, but
if falls a long way short of being conclusive. You would do us a service
if you would summarize some of Linnemann's arguments and interact with
opposing views, such as those presented in Sanders and Davies, _Studying
the Synoptic Gospels_.
Mellon Research Fellow in Greek Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
- Re: Q and Papias
- From: STEVE SCHAPER <STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org>