Re: The temple word.
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:14 pm
The connections look sound to me, but the categories raise some questions with respect to your description of the graphic overall:Would you agree with it? (from the so-called internal perspective). Neither direct dependencies nor a priority of a verse should be assumed. If the agreements are based on a motive rather than words, I've chosen a gray stroke between the verses.
- You say, "Neither direct dependencies nor a priority of a verse should be assumed," but you have a column called "copying," which is an activity which assumes dependence. I might well agree that Acts has probably copied from something like Mark, but the very existence of the category "copying" would seem to break your rule, would it not? If Acts has copied from Mark, then Acts depends on Mark, does it not? (And it does not appear possible to favor the opposite direction, since it is Acts in the "copying" column and not Mark.)
- Another category, "reinterpretation," may or may not break this same rule. If it does not, then my only option is to assume that the passage itself speaks of reinterpretation, which John does but Thomas and Paul do not. If the passage is itself a reinterpretation, rather than simply mentioning one, then that implies that something is being interpreted, which in turn, again, implies a direction of dependence, which would seem to break your rule.
- What do you mean by "retelling," to round out the three columns? Once again, it looks like the graphic is implying that Peter is retelling something from Mark, but Mark is in that same column, so what is Mark retelling? I mean, his second passage may be retelling his first, but what is his first retelling?
- Do Peter and Paul fall outside of the interior horizontal band because they are not really examples of the saying itself? Does Paul fall below it because he is presumed to be early, Peter above it because he is presumed to be late?