Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:13 pm http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/ga ... w.html?m=1

Thank you Secret Alias.

Streeter's ‘Other’ Synoptic Solution: The Matthew Conflator Hypothesis http://www.alangarrow.com/uploads/4/4/0 ... ch_web.pdf

Some correction here.

I conversed with Mr. Garrow. The challenge is from Evan Powell, not Alan Garrow. Garrow and I exchanged some thoughts and his view is not as simplistic as suggested. There is a lot of back and forth in the Gospels and he sees that too.

-sgw

Interesting...

"The first question to determine, I think, is whether it is probable that Matthew used a version of Luke. If this does seem likely then there is a follow-up question: which version of Luke did Matthew use? If Matthew used Marcion's Gospel (or some other form of Proto-Luke) then this could explain some of Matthew's omissions from Luke. Having Luke composed in two stages - both before and after Matthew - might also explain some instances of Alternating Primitivity. So, incorporating Marcion into the MCH could offer some useful refinements. The downside of taking this route is that it brings in fresh elements of speculation and complexity. My preference at this stage, therefore, is to work with the broad notion that Matthew used something similar to canonical Luke - while accepting that there is always scope for greater complexity."

From https://www.alangarrow.com/blog/the-mat ... hypothesis

Jax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:15 pm Interesting...

"The first question to determine, I think, is whether it is probable that Matthew used a version of Luke. If this does seem likely then there is a follow-up question: which version of Luke did Matthew use? If Matthew used Marcion's Gospel (or some other form of Proto-Luke) then this could explain some of Matthew's omissions from Luke. Having Luke composed in two stages - both before and after Matthew - might also explain some instances of Alternating Primitivity. So, incorporating Marcion into the MCH could offer some useful refinements. The downside of taking this route is that it brings in fresh elements of speculation and complexity. My preference at this stage, therefore, is to work with the broad notion that Matthew used something similar to canonical Luke - while accepting that there is always scope for greater complexity."

From https://www.alangarrow.com/blog/the-mat ... hypothesis

Actually we discussed that. I was asking what criteria was considered acceptable and valid for a proof or as I suggested a demonstration - since there are assumptions built into to most approaches. The two versions of Luke is essentially also what I see. Although the demonstration of principle would be based upon theological opposition from one gospel version against another. My model is built upon the concept of evangelical competition, which led to a rapid proliferation of versions of the gospel, each being a corrective of the predecessors to fit the theology of the author's sect. In my view several sects were fully formed when the first published gospel (Marcionite) appeared. All others showed up within maybe 30 years of that in very rapid fashion, due to competition for new converts, in reaction to the initial Marcionite success.

prototypes ("L", "M") --> Marcionite (L + Marcionite material = Luke 1st ed) --> Matthew (M + own material) --> John (1st ed) --> Luke
Mark (L + M)

what is called Q in my view is simply Marcionite material, plus Matthew specific material, plus some Luke Material

I would prefer to show the model of theological dependence via opposition the the predecessor gospel, via point by point refutation. Of course things are complicated by later Catholic layers, some thin (e.g., Mark) and some very think (e.g., John) which complicate the picture.

Anyway, a number of different models out there.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:14 pm There's something "off" about being given a $1000 to post something yet still keeping what you post behind a paywall. Ehrman is so not into open or public access of information. Something .... what's the word, .... some might say "American"(?) about it?

Probably not the right word. Richard Stallman and Jimmy Wales are also Americans, lights of open source software and Wikipedia, respectively.

... (stupid comment removed by user .. me)

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:14 pm There's something "off" about being given a $1000 to post something yet still keeping what you post behind a paywall ...

It doesn't sound like Ehrman was touting for it. It seems to be a spontaneous offer.

I think what's more significant is Ehrman saying he didn't know Garrow or his work despite what they both do, and despite having met Garrow at a conference (albeit 'many years ago') and having had "a couple of back-and-forths since then".

This is weird, too -

Bart E wrote: My Response:
... "The problem is always that it is very hard for someone without advanced training in a field to see the holes in an argument that an expert can see pretty quickly." https://ehrmanblog.org/a-1000-challenge ... -use-luke/

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:14 pm

(Yes, I know, the $ goes to a charity of his choice, as if no-one else would think of giving to a charity if it weren't for their desire to know what he thinks. Something very "off" about his MO.)

Don't know if Neil will catch the reference, but all proceeds from Ehrman's blog goes to the Human Fund.