Plausibility, Probability, and Synoptic Hypotheses
Scholars assert their reconstructions are possible, probable, plausible. Even Matthew and Luke quite independently agreeing against Mark in Markan contexts is agreed by sceptics to be possible, if not really plausible. Can 'possibility' or 'plausibility' be quantified? Perhaps ou...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Peeters
[2017]
|
| In: |
Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses
Year: 2017, Volume: 93, Issue: 2, Pages: 313-337 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Synoptic problem
/ Two source theory
/ Probability
|
| IxTheo Classification: | HC New Testament |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | Scholars assert their reconstructions are possible, probable, plausible. Even Matthew and Luke quite independently agreeing against Mark in Markan contexts is agreed by sceptics to be possible, if not really plausible. Can 'possibility' or 'plausibility' be quantified? Perhaps our judgement between hypotheses is inescapably subjective. However, if some proposed reconstruction can be shown to be impossible, then any that are merely possible surely hold the field, alone or 'complausible' with others. One evangelist writing third (whether Mark, Luke, or recently, from Alan Garrow, Matthew) turns out willing to paraphrase or often copy verbatim – or all but – single matter from the other two, while assiduously avoiding forty or so extensive sequences of the verbatim agreed witness of the other two. Only the hypothesis of Matthew and Luke independently using Mark and 'Q' (2DH) avoids such an arguably impossible reconstruction. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1783-1423 |
| Reference: | Kritik in "Plausibility, Probability, and Synoptic Hypotheses (2020)"
|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.2143/ETL.93.2.3223607 |