I found the following book on books.google:



Karl Veit

"Die synoptischen Parallelen und ein alter Versuch ihrer
Entraetselung mit neuer Begruendung."

Guetersloh, 1897



It presents the Greek synoptic material in a horizontal line
Synopsis, like it is done in Reuben Swanson's books.

In the second part he is discussing the sources of the
synoptic Gospels as not being written, but oral sources like
the Rabbinic oral law.



I have uploaded the book here:

http://www.archive.org/details/KarlVeitDieSynoptischenParall
elen1897





And if you are interested in really great German prose, read


Hans von Schubert

"Die Composition des pseudopetrinischen
Evangelien-fragments"

on the Gospel of Peter, 1893

Great stuff!

http://www.archive.org/details/diecompositiond00schugoog



Btw. he notes the possible allusion to the Mk 16:10 in
G.Peter 7:27 "mourning and weeping".





Best wishes

     Wieland

     <><

--------------------------

Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie

Textcritical commentary:

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Stanton The Gospels as historical documents 1903:
http://www.archive.org/details/gospelsashistori02stan

Sanday Studies in the synoptic problem 1911:
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029338922

Buckley Intro synoptic problem 1912:
http://www.archive.org/details/introductiontosy00buckuoft

Holdsworth Study in the synoptic problem 1913:
http://www.archive.org/details/gospeloriginsstu00holduoft

Patton Sources of the synoptic Gospels 1915:
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029338849


Best wishes
     Wieland
     <><
--------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

Joe Weaks is quoted as writing:

> The text of MarQ is a poor reconstruction of Mark both in its extent, and in
> its content. In extent, MarQ is but half of the size of Mark. It lacks
> significant pericopes, many of which are foundational to a typical
> understanding of the literary, theological, redactional characteristics of
> Mark. In terms of content, even within the traditions that have been
> reconstructed, their final forms are at times but a shadow of their instance
> in Mark. The changes in verbal and grammatical frequency are profound evidence
> to this fact. Many of the principle theological and literary features of Mark
> are lost to MarQ. Likewise, there are predominant features in MarQ that have
> no corresponding occurrence in Mark.
>
From my own experience in reconstructing the Œlogia¹, there seem to be three
conditions which must be satisfied if any such reconstruction is to be
successful.

Firstly and most obviously, the material which constituted the source must
all be available in some form in the extant documents.

Secondly it must be possible at the outset to lay down criteria by which it
will be possible to identify the material which belongs to the source to be
reconstructed, and these criteria must be substantially independent of the
(sometimes impenetrable) behaviour of the first century authors of the
extant documents.

Thirdly the source must have been highly coherent, so that when it is being
reconstructed, the original internal links will emerge as if by magic to
facilitate completion of the jigsaw.

As far as Joe¹s experiment is concerned, the third criterion was not
fulfilled. For Mark, though structurally coherent, certainly cannot be said
to be highly coherent. Also I suspect the second criterion was not
fulfilled. If so, then his results may lend some support to the above
criteria.

As far as Q is concerned, the second criterion was definitely not fulfilled,
for the scope of Q is defined not only by what Matthew and Luke copied, but
also by a narrow hypothesis as to where they were copying from (exclusively
from Q and in no part from each other). Nor, as can be seen in retrospect by
a critical observer, was the third criterion fulfilled.

Ron Price,

Derbyshire, UK

http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Wieland,

If Schmithals is correct, then his analysis begs the question, Why would Mk do
all this surgery to his source?

Here's an obvious answer:  Mk knew that the third-day Jerusalem appearance
legends were just that, and that the appearances of Jesus in fact occurred in
Galilee, some time after Jesus' death.  He walks a redactical tightrope by
including the (legendary, I believe) empty tomb story without an appearance of
Jesus taking place!
Rev. Chuck Jones
Atlanta, Georgia
___________________

Schmithals is cool. He thinks that there was no ending, but that Mk added Mk

14:28 and 16:7 to remind the readers of something like 1Co 15:5. The two

verses are superfluous if the appearances to Peter and the Twelve are

actually told at the end of the Gospel. Compare:

Mark 14:28 But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee."

Mark 16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you

to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you."



Schmithals continues with the idea that Mk nevertheless knew the stories

about Jesus appearance to Peter and the Twelve from his source, but inserted

them in a pre-Easter context.

Peter: Mk 9:2-8 (the transfiguration), the Twelve: Mk 3:13-19 (the

appointment of the disciples).

He further knew Mk 16:15-20 from his source! Thus, according to Schmithals

the complete ending in Mark's *source* was:

16:1-6, 8 + 9:2-8a + 3:13-19 + 16:15-20 (not literally, but the basic

content).



Best wishes

     Wieland

     <><

--------------------------

Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie

Textcritical commentary:

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/






























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Joe presented the results of this at the SBL (Synoptic Gospels section) last
fall. It was well received.  I found his presentation very convincing.

Mark A. Matson
Academic Dean
Milligan College
423-461-8720
http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of Wieland Willker
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 11:33 AM
> To: Synoptic-L
> Subject: [Synoptic-L] Joe Weaks: Reconstructed Mark thesis
>
> I am not sure if this has already been posted here, but Joe Weaks' thesis,
> in which he is studying a reconstructed text of Mark from Mt and Lk, is
> online available:
>
> Go to http://www.worldcat.org
> And enter: Mark without Mark  weaks
>
>
> MARK WITHOUT MARK:
> PROBLEMATIZING THE RELIABILITY OF A
> RECONSTRUCTED TEXT OF Q
> by
> Joseph Allen Weaks
> January 2010
> 383 pages
>
> Compare: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Synoptic/message/518
>
>
> Here's his conclusion:
>
> "Summary Implications
> The text of MarQ is a poor reconstruction of Mark both in its extent, and
> in its content. In extent, MarQ is but half of the size of Mark. It lacks
> significant pericopes, many of which are foundational to a typical
> understanding of the literary, theological, redactional characteristics of
> Mark. In terms of content, even within the traditions that have been
> reconstructed, their final forms are at times but a shadow of their
> instance in Mark. The changes in verbal and grammatical frequency are
> profound evidence to this fact. Many of the principle theological and
> literary features of Mark are lost to MarQ. Likewise, there are
> predominant features in MarQ that have no corresponding occurrence in
> Mark.
> In the end, once Mark has been reconstructed from the common material in
> Matthew and Luke, several pitfalls are revealed in working with that
> reconstructed text. Again and again the defining features of Mark are lost
> in the text of MarQ. In analyzing the reconstruction, predominant and
> cohesive features of MarQ stand out in such a way that, when compared to
> canonical Mark, they can be seen to be false positives. Some significant
> vocabulary occurs in MarQ that never occurs in Mark, and some occurs in
> Mark that never occurs in MarQ.
> Scholars that work with the text of Q need to find new analogies for how
> to make use of any reconstructed text of the Q source. To reclaim a source
> from Matthew and Luke is to unravel two stages of degradation of the text,
> both the evangelist's use of the text and then the scholar's process for
> "de-redacting" it back out. Previous defenses of the resulting text of Q
> center on the collective wisdom and self-confirming quality of the
> reconstruction process. The proposal here is that the question to ask is
> not how good or reliable or easy was the process of reconstructing a text
> behind Matthew and Luke. The reconstruction here was performed with a set
> of ideal, implausible (yet possible) methods that are even superior to
> those used for Q. Rather, the question to ask is how representative is the
> resulting reconstruction to the actual source document that Matthew and
> Luke both used. The answer is "Not very."
> When Matthew's and Luke's Marcan source is reconstructed from their non-Q,
> common material, the resulting reconstructed text is strikingly
> differentiated from the canonical text it is approximating. The tremendous
> difference shines a spotlight on the profoundly tenuous nature of a
> reconstructed text. It even begs the question as to whether those who work
> in source and redaction criticism have done a disservice to historians by
> presenting them with a text of Q, as unreliable as it is, with little
> guidance regarding the limited level of analysis, dissection, and
> stratification that a reconstructed text can endure."
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>     Wieland
>     <><
> --------------------------
> Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
> http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
> Textcritical commentary:
> http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--- "Matson, Mark (Academic)" wrote:
> Joe presented the results of this at the SBL (Synoptic Gospels section) last
fall.
> It was well received.  I found his presentation very convincing.


And I found Mark Matson to be very kind (and astute!).

I hope to publish that SBL paper so that a summary of the statistical data can
be more widely available.

Joe

----------------------
  Rev. Joseph Weaks, PhD
  Raytown Christian Church
  macbiblog.blogspot.com
----------------------

Hi,

I really don't mean to inconvenience you right now but I made a quick trip to
London UK and had my bag stolen from me in which contains my passport and credit
cards. I know this may sound odd, but it happened very fast. I've been to the
embassy and they're willing to help me fly without my passport but I just have
to pay for my ticket and settle some bills. Right now I'm out of cash plus I
can't access my bank without my credit card here.I've made contact with them but
they need more verification.I was thinking of asking you to lend me some funds
now and I'll pay back as soon as I get home.I need to get on the next available
flight.

Please reply as soon as you can if you are ok with this so I can forward the
details as to where to send the funds. You can reach me via May field hotel's
desk phone if you can, the number is +44702-409-8795 or via my alternative email
ianerock@...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Rev'd Dr. Ian E. Rock
Principal
Codrington College
St. John BB20007
Barbados, West Indies

email:- ian.rock@...
URL: - www.codrington.org

I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith;
henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord,
the righteous judge, shall give to me on that day.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Since this member's email account has clearly got a problem, I have put this
address on moderated status for now.  Sorry for the inconvenience to the
group in having to receive this spam.  Best wishes, Mark Goodacre

On 14 March 2011 05:25, Dr. Ian E. Rock <ianerock@...> wrote:

>
>
> Hi,
>
> I really don't mean to inconvenience you right now but I made a quick trip
> to
> London UK and had my bag stolen from me in which contains my passport and
> credit
> cards. I know this may sound odd, but it happened very fast. I've been to
> the
> embassy and they're willing to help me fly without my passport but I just
> have
> to pay for my ticket and settle some bills. Right now I'm out of cash plus
> I
> can't access my bank without my credit card here.I've made contact with
> them but
> they need more verification.I was thinking of asking you to lend me some
> funds
> now and I'll pay back as soon as I get home.I need to get on the next
> available
> flight.
>
> Please reply as soon as you can if you are ok with this so I can forward
> the
> details as to where to send the funds. You can reach me via May field
> hotel's
> desk phone if you can, the number is +44702-409-8795 or via my alternative
> email
> ianerock@...
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> The Rev'd Dr. Ian E. Rock
> Principal
> Codrington College
> St. John BB20007
> Barbados, West Indies
>
> email:- ian.rock@...
> URL: - www.codrington.org
>
> I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the
> faith;
> henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the
> Lord,
> the righteous judge, shall give to me on that day.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



--
Mark Goodacre
Duke University
Department of Religion
Gray Building / Box 90964
Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

http://www.markgoodacre.org


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

My Dear Friends:

Please let me apologise for the spam message that was sent from my email account
some days ago.  Last week an other lecturer at the College suffered a similar
fate.  I was at home in Barbados, having not visited the UK since I completed my
PhD with Bill Campbell at Lampeter in 2005.  My account was compromised and
unfortunately some of my good friends who thought I was really in need
responded.  This was very painful for me.  I am still at a lost since I have
anti-virus and antispyware software installed on my laptop, and I do not know if
the use of a public computer may have compromised my security.  It just goes to
show how vulnerable we are in cyberspace.  Some friends at the IT department
have given me some general advice which you may already know.  However I share
it with you:

1.  Keep you antivirus software signatures updated and check for updates before
opening email software.
2.  Always install added protection for malware - malwarebytes was recommended.
3.  Never save your password for an email client. It saves a few seconds of
keystrokes but assures a lifetime of agony.
4.  Be careful when using public computers.
5.  Change your login password often.

Once again my apologies to the list.  Thanks to Mark Goodacre and Nigel Hanscamp
for their alertness.  There is no assurance that this will not happen again to
some other unsuspecting person.  Be alert!

In Christ,
Ian

The Rev'd Ian E. Rock - PhD.
Principal
Codrington College
St. John BB20007
Barbados, W.I.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

My Dear Friends:

Please let me apologise for the spam message that was sent from my email account
some days ago.  Last week an other lecturer at the College suffered a similar
fate.  I was at home in Barbados, having not visited the UK since I completed my
PhD with Bill Campbell at Lampeter in 2005.  My account was compromised and
unfortunately some of my good friends who thought I was really in need
responded.  This was very painful for me.  I am still at a lost since I have
anti-virus and antispyware software installed on my laptop, and I do not know if
the use of a public computer may have compromised my security.  It just goes to
show how vulnerable we are in cyberspace.  Some friends at the IT department
have given me some general advice which you may already know.  However I share
it with you:

1.  Keep you antivirus software signatures updated and check for updates before
opening email software.
2.  Always install added protection for malware - malwarebytes was recommended.
3.  Never save your password for an email client. It saves a few seconds of
keystrokes but assures a lifetime of agony.
4.  Be careful when using public computers.
5.  Change your login password often.

Once again my apologies to the list.  Thanks to Mark Goodacre and Nigel Hanscamp
for their alertness.  There is no assurance that this will not happen again to
some other unsuspecting person.  Be alert!

In Christ,
Ian

The Rev'd Ian E. Rock - PhD.
Principal
Codrington College
St. John BB20007
Barbados, W.I.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well, it's taken me long enough, but I've finally got around to creating a
website for my work on Marcion's gospel. For anyone who would like to take a
look, the link is https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/ . The site
is not yet finished, but does (I think) contain enough for people to get
some useful information out of it.

Currently it contains the most recent version of my Marcion - Luke parallel
table, plus detailed rationale for all my thoughts on what was (or was not)
in Marcion's gospel (up to the end of Luke 9). This will be extended as I
complete my analysis of the remaining chapters (Luke 10 will be available
later this week).

I welcome comments, thoughts, criticisms, etc., especially of my new (as far
as I'm aware) suggestions for what Marcion's version of what Luke 4 might
have contained.

David Inglis

Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tertullian appears to suggest that in Marcion's gospel he saw Lk 11:9-10
between Lk 11:4 and 11:5. Does anyone know of any evidence to support this?



David Inglis

Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In response to a recent entry in Mark Goodacre¹s blog, Wieland Willker wrote
(in part): ³It should be stated clearly that there is no solution [to the
Synoptic Problem]².

If this statement is true, then presumably there must be at least one
serious flaw in the solution proposed on the web site below.

Perhaps Wieland, or anyone else who accepts the consensus on Markan
priority, would like to point to such a flaw. If none can be found, then the
statement must surely be false, and we should conclude that the radical form
of the 3ST proposed here does indeed solve the Synoptic Problem.

Ron Price,

Derbyshire, UK

http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 03:39 AM 3/24/2011, Ronald Price wrote:
>In response to a recent entry in Mark Goodacre¹s blog, Wieland Willker wrote
>(in part): ³It should be stated clearly that there is no solution [to the
>Synoptic Problem]².
>
>If this statement is true, then presumably there must be at least one
>serious flaw in the solution proposed on the web site below.
>
>Perhaps Wieland, or anyone else who accepts the consensus on Markan
>priority, would like to point to such a flaw. If none can be found, then the
>statement must surely be false, and we should conclude that the radical form
>of the 3ST proposed here does indeed solve the Synoptic Problem.

Ronald,
This is a logical fallacy. Just because no one
can see the flaw does not mean that the flaw does
not exist. It just means that we can't see it.

Bob Schacht
Northern Arizona University

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I agree with the statement.  Each proposed solution leaves loose ends.  The
camps for each point of view have simply chosen which loose ends they feel more
comfortable living with or explaining away.

By the way, the best evidence that there is no solution is the fact the
discussion and debate continues after hundreds, even thousands, of years.


Rev. Chuck Jones
Atlanta, Georgia

--- On Thu, 3/24/11, Ronald Price <ron-price@...> wrote:

From: Ronald Price <ron-price@...>
Subject: [Synoptic-L] Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?
To: "Synoptic-L" <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: wie@...
Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 6:39 AM
















 









       In response to a recent entry in Mark Goodacre¹s blog, Wieland Willker
wrote

(in part): ³It should be stated clearly that there is no solution [to the

Synoptic Problem]².



If this statement is true, then presumably there must be at least one

serious flaw in the solution proposed on the web site below.



Perhaps Wieland, or anyone else who accepts the consensus on Markan

priority, would like to point to such a flaw. If none can be found, then the

statement must surely be false, and we should conclude that the radical form

of the 3ST proposed here does indeed solve the Synoptic Problem.



Ron Price,



Derbyshire, UK



http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

No solution? I’m sorry, but that’s totally impossible (really!). The
synoptics exist, they were created. If we don’t believe that any of the
EXISTING proposed solutions ‘solve’ the problem, then we just haven’t
proposed the correct solution (which may turn out to be quite messy) yet.
However, a solution DOES exist, because the synoptics exist. The fact that the
discussion and debate still exists tells me that not enough people are prepared
to look outside their box. However, this, in itself, is not strange. On another
forum I wrote the following, which I think is worth repeating here:



I did not ask for arcane explanations. If “a copyist fell asleep at the
wheel� makes sense of the surviving wording, then I’m happy with that as an
explanation. However, the more anyone uses that as an explanation, the less
happy I become. Basically, this problem represents an outlier, i.e. a data point
that cannot be made to fit with existing theories. You can do one of two things
with an outlier: Ignore it (typically by saying that it’s a mistake or an
error), or you try to find a theory that includes the outlier as well as your
other data points.

From your comment below [not given here] I conclude that you consider the
variants in Lk 5:14-15 to represent data that you ignore as an outlier. This is
fine in the early days of a theory, but sooner or later even the best theory
breaks down under the weight of outliers. In my opinion this is (and has been
for some time) true of most NT research (and synoptic theories in particular),
and too many people are clinging to theories that are buried under their
outliers.

In this position it may not be possible to adjust a theory to fit all the data.
Instead, sometimes the only answer is to make a clean break [a paradigm shift.
Ugh!] and start again with something new, which many people simply find too
traumatic (This is akin to continuing with a failing project “because of all
the money we’ve already spent,� rather than looking at that as a sunk cost
and minimizing the future spend). In the immortal words of Adam Savage: “I
reject your reality and substitute my own.�

David Inglis

Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Chuck Jones
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 6:58 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?

I agree with the statement.  Each proposed solution leaves loose ends.  The
camps for each point of view have simply chosen which loose ends they feel more
comfortable living with or explaining away.
By the way, the best evidence that there is no solution is the fact the
discussion and debate continues after hundreds, even thousands, of years.

Rev. Chuck Jones
Atlanta, Georgia_,_._,___



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I agree with David Inglis about doubting overused "explanations" of
difficulties for theories.  I also agree with his point about serious
problems being present for a theory if it fails to account for too
many outlying data points.  I would suggest some other factors which
should also contribute to theory choice.  The first point is to
overhaul the loose way humanities scholars tend to confuse theories
and hypotheses.  A theory is an overarching explanation.  A theory can
be tested if a hypothesis can be formulated whose overthrow would
bring the theory into doubt.  The task is then to test the hypothesis.
   If the test produces a failure, some theory holders might invoke an
"ad hoc" defence.  That is all very well but the ad hoc defence should
itself be subject to test, and not simply be accepted on the "say so"
of the defender (however eminent).

General considerations relating to theory choice should also be more
clearly stated.  These might include parsimony, explanatory power,
fruitfulness in leading to further discoveries or fresh observations,
capacity for being tested etc.  Sometimes these might conflict.  One
might have to trade a loss of parsimony (or simplicity) for a gain in
explanatory power - (one more entity but explaining more data thereby).

Above all attempts should be made to avoid one of the more prevalent
errors of thought in this field.  Something might be possible, but its
bare possibility does not carry with it any probability.  Something
might be possible but have a probability dramatically below 50%, and
be an explanation far inferior to a view with more evidential support
and therefore a much higher probability.  Also thought needs to be
given about the merits of rival theories: if we have three such we
cannot rate them at 75%, 60% and 39%, though we could rate them at 34%
33% and 32%  if we were not very confident about any of them but
thought that no further option remained more than minimally plausible.
   More seriously the point I wish to make is that we need to think
seriously about the grand total of the probabilities we are assigning.
   If we rate the theories as  A>B>C  then the more probability we
(perhaps grudgingly) give to the rival views the lower we need to rate
the view which we think comes out best.

I apologize if some of this is stated too baldly, or seems too obvious
to need stating, but I do have the impression that these issues might
merit better attention than I can give them here.

David M.


---------
David Mealand,     University of Edinburgh







---

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

To: Synoptic
In Response To: David Inglis
On: The Solubility of the Synoptic Problem
From: Bruce

Since the Synoptic Gospels are "out there," as David observes, a question
about them has in principle an answer. The fact that no answer so far
proposed has attracted consensus is also true, though it is a social fact
rather than a historical fact.

I would guess that the reasons for this are two: one "out there" and the
other "in here."

1. The Synoptic Problem is in fact not soluble as presently stated
(including the unspoken assumptions behind the statement).

2. If and when an appropriately restated Synoptic Problem is solved, that
solution will not command universal assent; it may even fail of consensus
(working majority assent). The reason for this is that the answer, whatever
it may be, is not a matter of indifference to those who pose the question.

The second item bears on the question of whether we (or some subset of "us")
can regard the Synoptic Problem as solved or not.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

So far only one respondent on this thread has addressed my question
directly. Bob Schacht wrote:

> Just because no one can see the flaw does not mean that the flaw does
> not exist. It just means that we can't see it.

I appreciate the frankness of this reply. In regard to anyone who may not
have delved deeply into the Synoptic Problem, I cannot draw any conclusion
from such a response. But I know that there are members of this discussion
group who have considered the problem in depth. The absence of any response
from them tends to suggest that Bob may be speaking for them as well.

In his original blog comment, Wieland suggested that the correct solution is
not likely to be the simplest. All very simple solutions must surely have
been investigated by now. In the 3ST, the extra Œcomplication¹ is that the
Double Tradition arose from two sources, not one, and these two sources can
be distinguished primarily by literary style. Incidentally, the idea of two
sources was investigated in 1929 by Bussmann. He posited a Greek source ŒT¹
and an originally Aramaic source, ŒR¹. The pericopes in T were primarily
selected for the closeness of the wording in Matthew and Luke. But the
assumption of relatively consistent faithful copying in both Matthew and
Luke is highly dubious, especially bearing in mind Luke¹s treatment of Mark.

David Mealand wrote:

> The first point is to
> overhaul the loose way humanities scholars tend to confuse theories
> and hypotheses. A theory is an overarching explanation. A theory can
> be tested if a hypothesis can be formulated whose overthrow would
> bring the theory into doubt. The task is then to test the hypothesis.
>
True. Also a theory can incorporate several hypotheses. For instance, the
predominant 2ST as normally presented incorporates the hypothesis that
Matthew and Luke were written independently of each other, and also the
hypothesis that all the Double Tradition material originated in a single
document. The former hypothesis has been tested and found by many scholars
to be invalid. The latter hypothesis has rarely been recognized as a
hypothesis which should be properly tested.

> One might have to trade a loss of parsimony (or simplicity) for a gain in
> explanatory power - (one more entity but explaining more data thereby).

The 3ST¹s greater explanatory power is argued on my page: ³Merits of the
Three-Source Theory².

Ron Price,

Derbyshire, UK

http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am not sure that the lack of reply
to Ron Price on this issue does imply
consent, it could be due to "fatigue" perhaps,
and a reluctance to say again the various
things that have often been said against the
view that Luke used Matthew.

Presumably some of what Tuckett said
in his 2004 Nov.T. review of Goodacre
would also apply to the 3ST, though not
all of it, given the differences between
3ST and FGT (or FGGT).

If all of the theories exhibit problematic
features then assessing which is less
problematic has to be added to the various
criteria needed to decide which of the rivals
is the least implausible/most probable.

David M.


---------
David Mealand,     University of Edinburgh


--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

On 28 March 2011 07:56, David Mealand <D.Mealand@...> wrote:

> I am not sure that the lack of reply
> to Ron Price on this issue does imply
> consent, it could be due to "fatigue" perhaps,
> and a reluctance to say again the various
> things that have often been said against the
> view that Luke used Matthew.
>
> Presumably some of what Tuckett said
> in his 2004 Nov.T. review of Goodacre
> would also apply to the 3ST, though not
> all of it, given the differences between
> 3ST and FGT (or FGGT).

I am curious about which elements you found persuasive in Tuckett's
review, David.  I must admit that I did not find anything that
appeared to me a strong response to my book, though I could be
underestimating or misreading something.  In fact, Tuckett's review
features two major concessions.  First, he thinks that I have "a
relatively easy time showing that in the first beatitude, Luke's
interest  in the poor can more than adequately explain the differences
  between Matthew and Luke here".  Given that this is a textbook
example of greater Lucan primitivity, in other contexts used as a key
argument for Q by Tuckett himself, I think this is a important
concession.  Second, Tuckett makes clear that he regards elements of
Luke's ordering of material as coherent and reasonable, suggesting
that the difficulty only comes when one looks at it as re-ordering of
Matthew.  I suspect that this concedes too much.  As soon as Luke's
ordering of double tradition is seen as coherent and explicable, the
standard case for the utter incomprehensibility of his re-ordering of
Matthew ("without rhyme or reason", "scattering to the four winds",
etc.) appears to me to be weakened.

All best
Mark
--
Mark Goodacre
Duke University
Department of Religion
Gray Building / Box 90964
Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

http://www.markgoodacre.org

Mark Goodacre asked what I find convincing about Chris Tuckett's
   review of the case for Luke's use of Matthew.

My own interest is more in looking at a stylometric approach to the
Synoptic problem, but I cited the review of the Case against Q as it
might point to problems for the 3ST and not just for the FGT. I had
thought that someone else might have responded to the claim that
no one could find at least one problem with the 3ST, and only dipped
a toe in the water when everyone else seemed determined to stay on
the sand.

On what I agree with in CT's review:
While one can see that some of Matthew's additions
to Mark might not appeal to Luke, this is not the case
for the eulogy of Peter, or for 3.14f, 12.5f and 27.19,24.
Also though the "overlap" passages (on 2ST) would be examples
of Luke retaining Matthean additions (on FGGT) it is odd
that Luke in these places dumps his normal preference for Mark,
prefers Matthew's divergent wording AND yet rejects
Matthew's placing.  I think the Beelzebul controversy and
the seed parable variations are better explained by 2ST.

But I do think that, as some things point one way and others
another, we have to take the rival theories seriously, and
try to weigh up the balance of probabilities over all the
available evidence.

David M.





---------
David Mealand,     University of Edinburgh


--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

David Mealand wrote:

> Presumably some of what Tuckett said in his 2004 Nov.T. review of Goodacre
> would also apply to the 3ST, though not all of it, given the differences
> between 3ST and FGT (or FGGT).
>
David,

The 3ST has features of both the 2ST and the FT. It can claim to overcome
the primary weaknesses of each of these rival theories, and is therefore
arguably better than either. Of course the FT is clearly the simplest of the
three theories, but then I think we agree that the simplest is not
necessarily the best, for we need to take into account explanatory power.

I don¹t seem to have online access to Tuckett¹s review, but I have again
looked through Kloppenborg¹s review, on which I will make two comments.

Firstly I think Kloppenborg¹s accusation of ³special pleading² in regard to
Mark Goodacre¹s evidence of Luke¹s dependence on Matthew in the birth
stories is quite uncalled for. Dependence can range from slavish to very
selective. In the latter case the evidence is not as strong by itself, but
it can form part of a case which is cumulatively strong.

Secondly in regard to reasons for Luke¹s posited omissions from Matthew on
the FT, Kloppenborg criticizes Mark¹s assertion that certain passages are
not ³Luke-pleasing². It seems to me somewhat presumptuous for a 21st century
commentator to express confidence as to what a 1st century author would have
copied from Matthew if he had had access to it. We have some idea of what
Luke liked and what he disliked, but how could we possibly know whether he
felt he could conveniently fit a particular passage into his carefully
structured narrative? In any case, Luke¹s selectivity is evident from his
use of Mark. Does anyone know the reasons for omission of each of the
rejected Markan pericopes? I don¹t think so. So we should not expect to be
able to decipher the reasons for each of Luke¹s omissions from Matthew.

Ron Price,

Derbyshire, UK

http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks for your interesting email, Ron.  Some comments:

On 29 March 2011 06:32, Ronald Price <ron-price@...> wrote:

> The 3ST has features of both the 2ST and the FT. It can claim to overcome
> the primary weaknesses of each of these rival theories, and is therefore
> arguably better than either. Of course the FT is clearly the simplest of the
> three theories, but then I think we agree that the simplest is not
> necessarily the best, for we need to take into account explanatory power.

Actually, I think a good case could be made for seeing the 2ST as the
simplest theory.  One of its appeals is that it works on a general
level, broadly assigning double tradition to one document (Q) and
triple tradition to another (Mark).  The 4ST variation is similarly
simple -- one document also now also for Special Matthew (M) and
Special Luke (L).  I think this is one of the reasons that it is so
popular in introductory teaching.  It allows the instructor to refract
the problem through its most popular solution, introducing each type
of material by means of a simple one-to-one documentary
correspondence.

> Firstly I think Kloppenborg¹s accusation of ³special pleading² in regard to
> Mark Goodacre¹s evidence of Luke¹s dependence on Matthew in the birth
> stories is quite uncalled for. Dependence can range from slavish to very
> selective. In the latter case the evidence is not as strong by itself, but
> it can form part of a case which is cumulatively strong.

I agree.  There is often going to be a range.

> Secondly in regard to reasons for Luke¹s posited omissions from Matthew on
> the FT, Kloppenborg criticizes Mark¹s assertion that certain passages are
> not ³Luke-pleasing². It seems to me somewhat presumptuous for a 21st century
> commentator to express confidence as to what a 1st century author would have
> copied from Matthew if he had had access to it. We have some idea of what
> Luke liked and what he disliked, but how could we possibly know whether he
> felt he could conveniently fit a particular passage into his carefully
> structured narrative? In any case, Luke¹s selectivity is evident from his
> use of Mark. Does anyone know the reasons for omission of each of the
> rejected Markan pericopes? I don¹t think so. So we should not expect to be
> able to decipher the reasons for each of Luke¹s omissions from Matthew.

This is also well put.  This also taps into one of the pedagogical
advantages of the 2ST and its straightforward architecture.  As
Sanders points out, the 2ST is the theory that allows the evangelists
to omit least material.  Scholars who work with it therefore tend to
overrate the issue of omission of material in other theories.  As you
point out, though, Ron, Luke omits material from Mark too and those
omissions are themselves a help in seeing how he worked with Matthew.

All best
Mark
--
Mark Goodacre
Duke University
Department of Religion
Gray Building / Box 90964
Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

http://www.markgoodacre.org

Ron and all,

I remember in the first lecture I heard on the synoptic problem the professor
underlined that the problem is this:  Mt, Mk and Lk clearly have a literary
(i.e., written) relationship with each other.  The problem to be solved is What
is the nature of that relationship?

So, here's my annual note observing that it is impossible to argue that there is
a *written* relationship between Mt and Lk in the birth stories.  They have in
common four characters, three names, two village locations, and one phrase of
dialog.  There is no literary (written) dependence, in either direction, between
Mt and Lk in their first two chapters.

This absence has to be accounted for in one's solution of the synoptic problem.

Likewise, the same phenomenon occurs in most of Mt and Lk's resurrection
accounts, once we get past their parallels to Mk 16:1-8.  This too must be
accounted for.

Wistfully,

Rev. Chuck Jones
Atlanta, Georgia
________________________


Ron wrote:


Firstly I think Kloppenborg¹s accusation of ³special pleading² in regard to

Mark Goodacre¹s evidence of Luke¹s dependence on Matthew in the birth

stories is quite uncalled for. Dependence can range from slavish to very

selective. In the latter case the evidence is not as strong by itself, but

it can form part of a case which is cumulatively strong.

Hi Chuck,

Let's accept your premise, for the sake of argument, that there is no
evidence of a literary link between Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2.  Does the
absence of evidence of a link here have any bearing on the evidence for a
link elsewhere?  To clarify the question further, let's work by analogy with
Luke's use of Mark.  Luke 4.16-30 has only scant connections with Mark 6.1-6
(Rejection at Nazareth).  Does the absence of evidence of a direct literary
link there have any bearing on the evidence for a link between Luke and Mark
elsewhere?

All best
Mark

On 29 March 2011 14:27, Chuck Jones <chuckjonez@...> wrote:

>
>
> Ron and all,
>
> I remember in the first lecture I heard on the synoptic problem the
> professor underlined that the problem is this: Mt, Mk and Lk clearly have a
> literary (i.e., written) relationship with each other. The problem to be
> solved is What is the nature of that relationship?
>
> So, here's my annual note observing that it is impossible to argue that
> there is a *written* relationship between Mt and Lk in the birth stories.
> They have in common four characters, three names, two village locations, and
> one phrase of dialog. There is no literary (written) dependence, in either
> direction, between Mt and Lk in their first two chapters.
>
> This absence has to be accounted for in one's solution of the synoptic
> problem.
>
> Likewise, the same phenomenon occurs in most of Mt and Lk's resurrection
> accounts, once we get past their parallels to Mk 16:1-8. This too must be
> accounted for.
>
> Wistfully,
>
>
> Rev. Chuck Jones
> Atlanta, Georgia
> ________________________
>
>
> Ron wrote:
>
> Firstly I think Kloppenborg¹s accusation of ³special pleading² in regard to
>
> Mark Goodacre¹s evidence of Luke¹s dependence on Matthew in the birth
>
> stories is quite uncalled for. Dependence can range from slavish to very
>
> selective. In the latter case the evidence is not as strong by itself, but
>
> it can form part of a case which is cumulatively strong.
>
>
>



--
Mark Goodacre
Duke University
Department of Religion
Gray Building / Box 90964
Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

http://www.markgoodacre.org


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks for your comments, David.  I think I am a bit less persuaded
about Tuckett's criticisms than you are.

On 28 March 2011 13:16, David Mealand <D.Mealand@...> wrote:

> On what I agree with in CT's review:
> While one can see that some of Matthew's additions
> to Mark might not appeal to Luke, this is not the case
> for the eulogy of Peter, or for 3.14f, 12.5f and 27.19,24.

Tuckett effectively withdraws one of his earlier examples of a
Matthean addition to Mark eliminated by Luke, Matt. 14.28-31,
presumably because he found my argument on that one convincing, but he
retains these other examples.  I am surprised that he and others find
the absence of Matt. 3.14f telling given that a conversation between
John and Jesus after John's arrest would be a narrative oddity in
Luke, as I point out in Case.  I am also surprised that the absence of
Matt. 16.16-19 (eulogy of Peter) is thought to be telling.  If I might
borrow from a later article:

"It is one of the many curiosities of synoptic source-criticism that
it is often said that Luke could not have known Matthew because of his
non-inclusion of Matt.
16.17-19 (commendation of Peter), while nothing is made of his
non-inclusion of Mark 8.33 // Matt. 16.22-23 (condemnation of Peter).
   But Luke’s omission of all
of that material in his version of the Caesarea Philippi incident is
unsurprising in the light of his treatment of Peter in Luke 22.31-32,
which prophesies his sifting
by Satan (cf. Mark 8.33 // Matt. 16.23), and his future strengthening
of the brethren (cf. Matt. 16.17-19).  For Luke, given a different
Peter pattern in LukeActs, the Peter pattern of Matthew’s Caesarea
Philippi, commendation followed by condemnation, is not an option and
it is omitted" ("The Rock on Rocky Ground: Matthew, Mark and Peter as
Skandalon" in Philip McCosker (ed.), What Is It That the Scripture
Says?: Essays in Biblical Interpretation, Translation, And Reception
in Honour of Henry Wansbrough Osb (Library of New Testament Studies;
London & New York: Continuum, 2006): 61-73, reproduced at
http://markgoodacre.org/peter.pdf, 69, n. 19).

> Also though the "overlap" passages (on 2ST) would be examples
> of Luke retaining Matthean additions (on FGGT) it is odd
> that Luke in these places dumps his normal preference for Mark,
> prefers Matthew's divergent wording AND yet rejects
> Matthew's placing. I think the Beelzebul controversy and
> the seed parable variations are better explained by 2ST.

Many of the triple tradition passages that feature major agreements
(usually called "Mark-Q overlaps) are located in the same place in
Matthew and Luke, in the Matt. 3-4 // Luke 3-4 complex.   Luke has
dislocations in the Marcan narrative when one gets to Beelzebub
whether one thinks that he is using Matthew or not, and he moves the
adjacent Mothers and Brothers pericope too, a dislocation that can't
be explained by its presence in Q.

Cheers
Mark
>
> But I do think that, as some things point one way and others
> another, we have to take the rival theories seriously, and
> try to weigh up the balance of probabilities over all the
> available evidence.
>
> David M.
>
> ---------
> David Mealand, University of Edinburgh
>
> --
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
>


--
Mark Goodacre
Duke University
Department of Religion
Gray Building / Box 90964
Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

http://www.markgoodacre.org

Chuck, I like Klinghardt's proposal, which would take the birth narrative into
account. (Dependence of canonical Luke and Matthew on the gospel Marcion used.)

---- Chuck Jones <chuckjonez@...> wrote:
> Ron and all,
>
> I remember in the first lecture I heard on the synoptic problem the professor
underlined that the problem is this:  Mt, Mk and Lk clearly have a literary
(i.e., written) relationship with each other.  The problem to be solved is What
is the nature of that relationship?
>
> So, here's my annual note observing that it is impossible to argue that there
is a *written* relationship between Mt and Lk in the birth stories.  They have
in common four characters, three names, two village locations, and one phrase of
dialog.  There is no literary (written) dependence, in either direction, between
Mt and Lk in their first two chapters.
>
> This absence has to be accounted for in one's solution of the synoptic
problem.
>
> Likewise, the same phenomenon occurs in most of Mt and Lk's resurrection
accounts, once we get past their parallels to Mk 16:1-8.  This too must be
accounted for.
>
> Wistfully,
>
> Rev. Chuck Jones
> Atlanta, Georgia
> ________________________
>
>
> Ron wrote:
>
>
> Firstly I think Kloppenborg¹s accusation of ³special pleading² in regard to
>
> Mark Goodacre¹s evidence of Luke¹s dependence on Matthew in the birth
>
> stories is quite uncalled for. Dependence can range from slavish to very
>
> selective. In the latter case the evidence is not as strong by itself, but
>
> it can form part of a case which is cumulatively strong.
>
>
>
>

Apologies for not signing my name. Long day.

Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga. USA
---- ddcanne@... wrote:
> Chuck, I like Klinghardt's proposal, which would take the birth narrative into
account. (Dependence of canonical Luke and Matthew on the gospel Marcion used.)
>
> ---- Chuck Jones <chuckjonez@...> wrote:
> > Ron and all,
> >
> > I remember in the first lecture I heard on the synoptic problem the
professor underlined that the problem is this:  Mt, Mk and Lk clearly have a
literary (i.e., written) relationship with each other.  The problem to be solved
is What is the nature of that relationship?
> >
> > So, here's my annual note observing that it is impossible to argue that
there is a *written* relationship between Mt and Lk in the birth stories.  They
have in common four characters, three names, two village locations, and one
phrase of dialog.  There is no literary (written) dependence, in either
direction, between Mt and Lk in their first two chapters.
> >
> > This absence has to be accounted for in one's solution of the synoptic
problem.
> >
> > Likewise, the same phenomenon occurs in most of Mt and Lk's resurrection
accounts, once we get past their parallels to Mk 16:1-8.  This too must be
accounted for.
> >
> > Wistfully,
> >
> > Rev. Chuck Jones
> > Atlanta, Georgia
> > ________________________
> >
> >
> > Ron wrote:
> >
> >
> > Firstly I think Kloppenborg¹s accusation of ³special pleading² in regard
to
> >
> > Mark Goodacre¹s evidence of Luke¹s dependence on Matthew in the birth
> >
> > stories is quite uncalled for. Dependence can range from slavish to very
> >
> > selective. In the latter case the evidence is not as strong by itself, but
> >
> > it can form part of a case which is cumulatively strong.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Chuck Jones claims that “it is impossible to argue that there is a
*written* relationship between Mt and Lk in the birth stories. They have
in common four characters, three names, two village locations, and one
phrase of dialog. There is no literary (written) dependence, in either
direction, between Mt and Lk in their first two chapters.”

I do not think Chuck’s summary accurately reflects the material in the
texts, and offer the following for consideration:

1. Each gospel has a genealogy.

2. Within the genealogies, almost exact names occur in sections of
     both (Abraham-David and Sheltiel and Zurabbabel).

3. Within each genealogy, Joseph is a descendant of David—the “son of
     David” (Mt.) and “from the house of Daivd” (Lk.).

4. Within each genealogy, Joseph is the father of Jesus with
     qualification.

5. In both genealogies, Mary is engaged to Joseph (mnesteutheises, Mt.
     1.18; emnesteumenen, Lk 1.27).

6. In both, Mary is pregnant (en gastri, Mt. 1.18; Lk. 1.31).

7. In both, the holy spirit has a role (Mt. 1.18-20; Lk. 1.35).

8. In both, Mary’s and Joseph’s standing before god is recognized--
     Joseph is a righteous man (Mt. 1.19); Mary found favor with god
     (Lk.1:30).

9. In both, Joseph and Mary live together before Jesus is born.

10. In both, there are angelic appearances delivering a message—angel
      of the Lord in Mt. (1.20; 2.13; 2.18) and Gabriel in Lk (1.26-38).

11. In both, the imperative “Do not fear” occurs—to Joseph in Mt. (me
      phobethes, 1.20) to Mary in Lk (me phobou, 1.30).

12. In both, “bearing a son” occurs—texetai de huion (Mt. 1.21) and
      texe huion (Lk. 1.31).

13. In both, Jesus is to be named—kaleseis to onoma autou Iesoun (Mt.
      1.21; Lk. 1.31).

14. In both, Jesus will either “save [sosei] his people from their sins
      (Mt. 1.21) or be a “savior” [soter] (Lk. 2.12 and 2.28-32).

15. In both, Joseph did not “know” [ouk or ou ginosko] Mary (Mt. 1.25;
      Lk. 1.34).

16. In both, Jesus is named (to onoma autou Iesoun) (Mt. 1.25; Lk.
      2.21).

17. In both, Jesus is born in Bethlehem ((Mt. 2.1; Lk. 2.4).

18. In both, these things occurred “in the days of Herod the king, en
      hemerais Hrodou tou basileos (Mt. 2.1; Lk. 1.5; 2.1)—a hapax.

19. In both, visitors go to see the child—magi in Mt.; shepherds in Lk.

20. In both, the visitors are directed to the child by either a star
      (Mt.) or an angel (Lk.).

21. In both, the visitors are “overjoyed” (charan megalen) (Mt. 2.10;
      Lk. 2.10).

22. In both, the child is either worshiped (Mt.) or praised (Lk.).

These (undeniable) literary relationships seem significant.

I am not a statistician, but it would seem to me that the odds of two
different authors—writing at two different times, in two different
places, to two different audiences, for two different reasons, and
completely independent of each other—sharing so many similar narrative
themes, arrangement schemes, phrasing, and exact wording would be
astronomical.

Rather, and contra Chuck, the best explanation seems to be that one
author knew and used the other.

Brad McAdon


On 3/29/2011 1:27 PM, Chuck Jones wrote:
> Ron and all,
>
> I remember in the first lecture I heard on the synoptic problem the
> professor underlined that the problem is this: Mt, Mk and Lk clearly
> have a literary (i.e., written) relationship with each other. The
> problem to be solved is What is the nature of that relationship?
>
> So, here's my annual note observing that it is impossible to argue that
> there is a *written* relationship between Mt and Lk in the birth
> stories. They have in common four characters, three names, two village
> locations, and one phrase of dialog. There is no literary (written)
> dependence, in either direction, between Mt and Lk in their first two
> chapters.
>
> This absence has to be accounted for in one's solution of the synoptic
> problem.
>
> Likewise, the same phenomenon occurs in most of Mt and Lk's resurrection
> accounts, once we get past their parallels to Mk 16:1-8. This too must
> be accounted for.
>
> Wistfully,
>
> Rev. Chuck Jones
> Atlanta, Georgia
> ________________________
>
>
> Ron wrote:
>
> Firstly I think Kloppenborg¹s accusation of ³special pleading² in regard to
>
> Mark Goodacre¹s evidence of Luke¹s dependence on Matthew in the birth
>
> stories is quite uncalled for. Dependence can range from slavish to very
>
> selective. In the latter case the evidence is not as strong by itself, but
>
> it can form part of a case which is cumulatively strong.
>
>