You treat this forum like it’s your classroom.
And of course godspell is the only one here allowed to do that.
I invite all the book recommendations anyone wishes to share. If I already know it, fine. If not, then the quest begins. (Scholarly works tend to command premium prices but I refuse to pay full price for books. My recent acquisition of Yarbo Collins’ Mark commentary at a reasonable price has validated my methodology. But the only secret to it is patience.)
godspell said
My resignation shall be tendered sometime in April (just to make sure I don’t get charged for another year).And you’ll go right on talking ****, and not giving a damn who you offend.
😀
Well I hope you don’t expect me to mark my calendar.
As far as I can tell I have never offended anyone on this thread except you. You obviously have a serious prejudice against anyone who self-identifies as an atheist. And you cannot handle anyone who disagrees with your historical psychologizing and projection.
Still, I encourage you to stay.
Robert said
No, not like colleagues; we were just interacting in discussions on blog posts here, recommending books Bren should read to get the whole picture of the synoptic problem, rather than endlessly bringing up his own interpretations of individual passages. Bart recommended BH Streeter’s The Four Gospels, if I remember correctly, and someone else even found a link for him to a free on-line copy. I had recommended Frans Neirynck’s Duality in Mark and his chapter on the synoptic problem in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary.
I’ve read Streeters chapter on markan priority and his recommendation of the section on Mark in Horae Synopticae.
Haven’t read Neirynck but think he sees the argument from order as the main reason supporting Markan priority.
godspell said
“As far as I can tell…..”🙄
Well Steefen didn’t seem to appreciate me making sport of his belief in astrology. But he simply anathematized me and moved on without a pause. Perhaps you should try that. Or perform an exorcism. Cast all my demons into a school of goldfish. For we are Legion.
Robert said
No. We’ve discussed this before. Neirynck does not see the argument from order as necessitating Markan priority. Nor can this error be derived from Lachmann’s Latin, ‘though this is a common misconception. Perhaps you remember this discussion now?
I dont think I’d have ever said Neirynck thinks the argument from order necessitates Markan priority. I think everyone agrees priority can only be established by the preponderance of evidence, never by a single observation.
But I’ve read he thinks it is the main reason supporting Markan priority. I think the ordering supports Griesbach.
Robert said
No, of course, you didn’t say that because above you already admitted that you haven’t read Neirynck. But what you’ve read (where?), that he thinks the argument from order is the main reason supporting Markan priority, is also incorrect. That is not what he thought. But don’t take my word for it; I still recommend reading his book chapter. Not only will that clarify this point, it will introduce you quickly to all of the evidence to be discussed. I ask where you read that because it is obviously not a good source.
“We have discussed the common order of the Triple Tradition pericopes [short extracts] and have explained differences from the Marcan order as editorial divergences by Matthew and Luke. The argument from order, as understood since Karl Lachmann (1835), constitutes the main reason for positing Marcan priority.” apparently a quote from, Frans Neirynck, “Synoptic Problem” in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary
** you do not have permission to see this link **
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)