The aphorisms constitute the Achilles heel of the FT.

For the FT deals very well with narratives and lengthy parables.

But it fails to provide satisfactory explanations for the aphorisms, many of
which have versions in more than one of the synoptic gospels. In particular,
it fails to account for the following observations:

(a) Most aphorisms in Mark have more primitive parallels in the much later
gospels of Matthew and/or Luke (c.f. H.T.Fleddermann, "Q: A Reconstruction
and Commentary", p.182).
(b) Many aphorisms in Matthew have more primitive parallels in Luke.
(c) Mark, Matthew and Luke each contain blocks of aphorisms. This suggests
that each writer was making use of a written collection of aphorisms, for if
they had been in the author's memory, they would probably have been better
integrated into the story of the respective gospels.
(d) Aphorism doublets occur in Matthew and Luke, but hardly at all in Mark
(c.f. Udo Schnelle, "The History and Theology of the New Testament
Writings", p.181). As Mark was a source for these later gospels, and as one
member only of each doublet is generally derived from Mark, this
distribution of doublets suggests that most of them were created by the
later author copying one member from Mark and the other from an early
written source.
(e) There are a few peculiar variations in wording between Matthew and Luke
in aphorisms common to both which are best explained as translation errors
(e.g. "give alms" in Lk 11:41 & "you build" in Lk 11:48). This explanation
is incompatible with the Farrer Theory, which only recognises Greek
documents.

Goulder mentioned many of the synoptic aphorisms in the course of his "Luke:
A New Paradigm", but his defence of Lukan dependence on Matthew is much
weaker in the case of the aphorisms than for other literary forms in the
Double Tradition. (Where scholars support the 2T and are thus 'free' to
argue that all or part of Luke's version of an aphorism is the more
primitive, then in very many cases they do so most convincingly.)

Diagrammatically the problem would be solved by simply adding to the Farrer
diagram a box labelled e.g. "sayings source" or even "logia", with arrows
pointing to each of the other boxes. But then, of course, it wouldn't be
called the Farrer Theory.  ;-)

Ron Price,

Derbyshire, UK

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



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

Ron,
Seems to me there are indeed some more primitive aphorisms in Matt &/or Luke at
times, though I recall thinking Fleddermann reaches in some instances. And to
date, no one has provided sufficient theory that explains the doublet
phenomenon.
But what struck in in reading your "achilles heal" description is that its
description is necessarily obtuse and conjectural by nature. Is this really the
strongest, clearest argument we can make against the FT?

Contrast that with problems we have with 2SH. Like:

a. Matthew and Luke Independently used Mark.
b. Oops… we have tons of places where they both were copying Mark and share
their disagreements with it. (Minor and Major Agreements).
c. Explain away by adding diagram boxes.

Joe

Dr. Joseph Weaks
Minister, Raytown Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Adjunct, Saint Paul School of Theology


--- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, Ronald Price <ron-price@...> wrote:
>
> The aphorisms constitute the Achilles heel of the FT.
>
> For the FT deals very well with narratives and lengthy parables.
>
> But it fails to provide satisfactory explanations for the aphorisms, ...
> Diagrammatically the problem would be solved by simply adding to the Farrer
> diagram a box labelled e.g. "sayings source" or even "logia", with arrows
> pointing to each of the other boxes. But then, of course, it wouldn't be
> called the Farrer Theory.  ;-)
>
> Ron Price,
>
> Derbyshire, UK

Ron,

There's a ready-made pair of greaves to strap onto Farrer to guard against
any fatal wound at this point. Aphorisms are the likeliest form in the
Jesus tradition to have enjoyed wide oral circulation (as the saying goes,
an aphorism can get halfway round the world before a discourse laces it
shoes up). If there were variant forms of several of Jesus' aphorisms in
oral circulation (some reflecting alternative Greek translations of
statements originally passed around in Aramaic), the phenomena you point to
can readily be accounted for without positing a lost document: Matthew
sometimes preferred the oral version of an aphorism he also know from Mark,
and so with Luke vis-ŕ-vis both his predecessors.

Farrer in fact did not leave himself defenseless in this regard but held
that Matthew and Luke derived much of their knowledge of Jesus' teaching
from oral tradition. Michael Goulder and John Drury tried a rather
thoroughgoing literary version of FH, but Mark Goodacre has revived and
developed Farrer's own approach. I doubt that between them Farrer and
Goodacre have dealt in detail with every passage you'd regard as
problematic for FH, but in principle I'd suggest their work serves to blunt
your attack.

Jeff Peterson
Austin Graduate School of Theology
Austin, Texas

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Ronald Price <ron-price@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> The aphorisms constitute the Achilles heel of the FT.
>
> For the FT deals very well with narratives and lengthy parables.
>
> But it fails to provide satisfactory explanations for the aphorisms, many
> of
> which have versions in more than one of the synoptic gospels. In
> particular,
> it fails to account for the following observations:
>
> (a) Most aphorisms in Mark have more primitive parallels in the much later
> gospels of Matthew and/or Luke (c.f. H.T.Fleddermann, "Q: A Reconstruction
> and Commentary", p.182).
> (b) Many aphorisms in Matthew have more primitive parallels in Luke.
> (c) Mark, Matthew and Luke each contain blocks of aphorisms. This suggests
> that each writer was making use of a written collection of aphorisms, for
> if
> they had been in the author's memory, they would probably have been better
> integrated into the story of the respective gospels.
> (d) Aphorism doublets occur in Matthew and Luke, but hardly at all in Mark
> (c.f. Udo Schnelle, "The History and Theology of the New Testament
> Writings", p.181). As Mark was a source for these later gospels, and as one
> member only of each doublet is generally derived from Mark, this
> distribution of doublets suggests that most of them were created by the
> later author copying one member from Mark and the other from an early
> written source.
> (e) There are a few peculiar variations in wording between Matthew and Luke
> in aphorisms common to both which are best explained as translation errors
> (e.g. "give alms" in Lk 11:41 & "you build" in Lk 11:48). This explanation
> is incompatible with the Farrer Theory, which only recognises Greek
> documents.
>
> Goulder mentioned many of the synoptic aphorisms in the course of his
> "Luke:
> A New Paradigm", but his defence of Lukan dependence on Matthew is much
> weaker in the case of the aphorisms than for other literary forms in the
> Double Tradition. (Where scholars support the 2T and are thus 'free' to
> argue that all or part of Luke's version of an aphorism is the more
> primitive, then in very many cases they do so most convincingly.)
>
> Diagrammatically the problem would be solved by simply adding to the Farrer
> diagram a box labelled e.g. "sayings source" or even "logia", with arrows
> pointing to each of the other boxes. But then, of course, it wouldn't be
> called the Farrer Theory. ;-)
>
> Ron Price,
>
> Derbyshire, UK
>
> http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_LkMt.html
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

I have just downloaded and read through the main argument in John
Poirier's article.  I like the extended emphasis on the realia of ancient
writing techniques, and the examples from the ancient world which
are cited.  I was slightly surprised that, after the lengthy case made out
for the possibility of Luke having proceeded in reverse order through
a source scroll, he then fairly briefly states that actually he doesn't think
that he did do this.  But then I thought that in fact I would agree
with both propositions - Luke could have done it (on the evidence
provided), but no
I also don't think that he did do so.  The second section on the wax tablets
also contains many interesting and useful insights.  The possible explanation
for Luke's major omission is fascinating and ingenious, but rather
speculative.  On most issues, however, I find the article contains many
valuable insights into how ancient writings were produced, and avoids
hasty or doctrinaire leaps in favour of particular theories about specific
texts.

I would strongly recommend others to read the article.

Perhaps I could offer one passing suggestion which might appeal to
those who still take the 2ST seriously - the use of wax tablets could
also have helped Matthew note down bits of Q (and M) to fit into
appropriate places in his more topically structured text   ;-)

David M.



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


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

To: Synoptic
On: Aphorisms
From: Bruce

Joe Weaks had said, " Seems to me there are indeed some more primitive
aphorisms in Matt &/or Luke at times, though I recall thinking Fleddermann
reaches in some instances."

I respond: It seems to me that Fleddermann consistently overreaches. To
bring the present discussion down a little from the clouds: Could you cite
three aphorisms that in your considered opinion occur in a more primitive
form in Matthew than in Mark?

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Thanks, David.  Good points, all.  With respect to Matthew's work on Q and
M, Derrenbacker has the interesting suggestion that Q may have been in
codex form and so easier to bob around in.  But I like your suggestion
about Matthew working with wax tablets for this material -- that would also
help to explain Matthew's "unscrambling" of Q's excellent order of the
sayings and his rather wooden, thematic re-ordering. [ ;-) ]

I agree with you about the slight anti-climax on the reverse-scrolling
issue.  In reading the article for the first time, I had assumed that
Poirier was going to make the argument not only that it was feasible but
also that it was what he thinks Luke did.  But Goulder's argument for the
reverse-scrolling is problematic because of the correspondences, not
because of the process.

But what I like about Poirier's article is that it stimulates the
imagination to think about the realia -- agreed.

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


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

Having also read the article, although I think it is very good as far as it
goes, I am disappointed that it doesn't
touch on what I consider a major issue with what we see as Luke. This is the
significant (to my mind, at least) evidence
that the first version was not only shorter (e.g. missing at least chapters 1
and 2), and also had material in a
different order (e.g. swapping Capernaum and Nazareth). As a result, any
discussion of how the author of Luke  composed
it should take account of what the initial version most likely contained, and
not what it currently contains. For
example, if "the NA27 text of Luke's Gospel contains 95,972

letters, while the text of Acts contains 95,838," then I think it very unlikely
that this was true for at least the
initial version of Luke. Consequently, what we see today may well have been
'massaged' so that Luke and Acts both fitted
on a scroll of the same length, but I very much doubt that this applied to their
initial form.

David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Mark Goodacre
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 3:34 PM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Poirier's article in latest JSNT

Thanks, David. Good points, all. With respect to Matthew's work on Q and M,
Derrenbacker has the interesting suggestion
that Q may have been in codex form and so easier to bob around in. But I like
your suggestion about Matthew working with
wax tablets for this material -- that would also help to explain Matthew's
"unscrambling" of Q's excellent order of the
sayings and his rather wooden, thematic re-ordering. [ ;-) ]

I agree with you about the slight anti-climax on the reverse-scrolling issue. In
reading the article for the first time,
I had assumed that Poirier was going to make the argument not only that it was
feasible but
also that it was what he thinks Luke did. But Goulder's argument for the
reverse-scrolling is problematic because of the
correspondences, not because of the process.

But what I like about Poirier's article is that it stimulates the imagination to
think about the realia -- agreed.

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



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

Bruce,

I find it a curious question (challenge?), because surely all of us can find
three sayings in each of the gospels that one can argue are most primitive... as
we should expect (probably despite what source theory one is using).

In just scanning parallel texts in Accordance, the first I noted was Matthew's
parallel to Mark 6:4-5 which is more succinct and pithy, while Mark embellishes
even after the aphorism. (ALL CAPS are missing from Matthew 13):

Jesus said to them, "Prophets are honored everywhere except in their own
hometowns, AMONG THEIR RELATIVES, and in their own households."  5  He was
unable to do any miracles there, EXCEPT THAT HE PLACED HIS HANDS ON A FEW SICK
PEOPLE AND HEALED THEM. 6 He was APPALLED by their disbelief.

Of course, primitive theology, etc is more interesting that primitive syntax.
Sorry I have a deadline to meet, so can't take time to lay this out, but you can
find them just as well.

Joe

Dr. Joseph A. Weaks
Minister, Raytown Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Adjunct, St. Paul School of Theology


--- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "E Bruce Brooks" <brooks@...> wrote:
>
> To: Synoptic
> On: Aphorisms
> From: Bruce
>
> Joe Weaks had said, " Seems to me there are indeed some more primitive
> aphorisms in Matt &/or Luke at times, though I recall thinking Fleddermann
> reaches in some instances."
>
> I respond: It seems to me that Fleddermann consistently overreaches. To
> bring the present discussion down a little from the clouds: Could you cite
> three aphorisms that in your considered opinion occur in a more primitive
> form in Matthew than in Mark?
>
> Bruce
>
> E Bruce Brooks

Jeff Peterson wrote:

> There's a ready-made pair of greaves to strap onto Farrer to guard against
> any fatal wound at this point. Aphorisms are the likeliest form in the
> Jesus tradition to have enjoyed wide oral circulation (as the saying goes,
> an aphorism can get halfway round the world before a discourse laces it
> shoes up). If there were variant forms of several of Jesus' aphorisms in
> oral circulation (some reflecting alternative Greek translations of
> statements originally passed around in Aramaic), the phenomena you point to
> can readily be accounted for without positing a lost document: Matthew
> sometimes preferred the oral version of an aphorism he also know from Mark,
> and so with Luke vis-ŕ-vis both his predecessors.
>
> Farrer in fact did not leave himself defenseless in this regard but held
> that Matthew and Luke derived much of their knowledge of Jesus' teaching
> from oral tradition. Michael Goulder and John Drury tried a rather
> thoroughgoing literary version of FH, but Mark Goodacre has revived and
> developed Farrer's own approach. I doubt that between them Farrer and
> Goodacre have dealt in detail with every passage you'd regard as
> problematic for FH, but in principle I'd suggest their work serves to blunt
> your attack.

Jeff,

Thanks for your comments.

My points (c) and (d) did suggest a written source rather than an oral one.

Apart from this, and the fact that a saying's oral tradition by its very
nature leaves no evidence to support its existence (and therefore the oral
tradition of your first paragraph is no better attested than the
much-derided Q), Mark Goodacre has never (as far as I know) acknowledged
that by introducing oral tradition as an additional source/sources, his
claims for the superior simplicity of the Farrer Theory are no longer valid.
Indeed the oft-reproduced diagram of the FT is clearly misleading if oral
tradition plays such a significant part in the synoptic explanation. I say
"significant" because there around 60 Double Tradition aphorisms attributed
to Jesus represented in over a hundred synoptic instances, and the consensus
of those who have made a special study of them seems to be that where the
text of Matthew and Luke differs, Luke has on the whole been somewhat more
faithful to the original text. This would imply at least 30 cases which are
an embarrassment to Goulder's 'hard' version of the FT, and which are not
accounted for in the standard FT diagram used alike by 'hard' and 'soft'
version supporters.

Ron Price,

Derbyshire, UK

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

To: Synoptic
In Response To: Joe Weaks
On: Mk/Mt Primitivity
From: Bruce

Joe had said that he finds examples, convincing to him, of greater
primitivity in Matthew compared to Mark. (It is agreed between us that
Fleddermann's arguments for primitivity sometimes "overreach"). I had asked
for three cases. He finds the request "curious," saying that anybody can
find them. But obviously not all will find some, and not all who find some
will find the same ones. I was interested in the firm opinion of someone who
is in the present conversation.

And I sort of got it. Joe provides one example, namely: "Matthew's parallel
to Mark 6:4-5 which is more succinct and pithy, while Mark embellishes even
after the aphorism. (ALL CAPS are missing from Matthew 13):

Jesus said to them, "Prophets are honored everywhere except in their own
hometowns, AMONG THEIR RELATIVES, and in their own households."  5  He was
unable to do any miracles there, EXCEPT THAT HE PLACED HIS HANDS ON A FEW
SICK PEOPLE AND HEALED THEM. 6 He was APPALLED by their disbelief.

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

Since for me (see the Trajectory Arguments) Matthew as a whole is later than
Mark as a whole, my task is now to explicate this piece as an instance of Mk
> Mt. I find the following points worthy of consideration (though I find I
have to replace Joe's combined version with separate versions, to get at the
details):

1.  Mk has "and among his own kin, and in his own house;" Mt lacks. / These
clauses in Mark are redundant, and Mt as an author has a regular preference
for excising Mark's redundancies (and Mark's extraneous personal details).
There is here no departure from this general stance of Mt toward Mk.

2. Mk "and he could do no mighty work there;"  Mt "And he did not do many
mighty works there." Mt is generally reluctant to attribute emotion or human
limitation to Jesus, and here, consistently, he softens Mark's statement by
allowing that Jesus did SOME mighty works in Nazareth.

3. Mk goes on to give an exception, "except that he laid his hands upon a
few sick people and healed them." Mt has nothing. / Are these the "mighty
works" that Matthew claims Jesus did at Nazareth? I suspect that Mark and
Matthew are agreed that "mighty works" involve miracles with supernatural
dimensions, such as exorcisms. Healings are on a lower plane; anybody,
including you and I, might now and then be present at a spontaneous ending
of somebody else's headache, without acquiring a reputation as a remarkable
person. It is when demons come out of people, uttering cries as they do so,
that we know we are in the presence of supernatural power. My thought would
be that Matthew is silently upgrading Mark's few petty healings into an
unspecified set of "mighty works." If so, then this is another example of
what I have called the Divinization Trajectory in Matthew.

4. Mk "And he marveled because of their unbelief;" Mt "because of their
unbelief." / Here is a beautiful example of Matthew's reluctance to
attribute human emotions to Jesus. Why does he hesitate to do so? Because he
sees Jesus as divine, and thus in effect omniscient. To have Jesus show
surprise or puzzlement (as Mark does) is to show Jesus as something less
than omniscient. I would thus make this another example of the Divinization
Trajectory. It is such little ticks and pieces, consistently found along the
whole length of Matthew, that constitute that abstraction, the Divinization
Trajectory, in the first place.

-------------------THE REST OF THE PERICOPE

This ends my discussion of Joe's example. I don't find that it proves its
intended point. I find instead that it can be treated, in detail, as an
example of Mk > Mt.

But there are still some other parts of the Nazareth episode, not cited by
Joe, but available for study. I take them up here, as a check on the above
conclusions. I find that they display the same tendencies as the pieces just
noted. In the interest of adequacy, I note them here.

5. Mk "and on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue;"  Mt "he
taught them in their synagogue." / Of course the teaching was on the
Sabbath, so Mark has given a superfluous detail. Mt eliminates the
superfluous detail.

6. Mk "and many who heard him were astonished;" Mt "so that they were
astonished." / In Mark, Jesus impresses only some people; in Matthew, he
impresses all of them. Greater power of Jesus in Matthew.

7. Mk "saying, Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to
him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands!" Mt "Where did this man get
this wisdom and these mighty works?" / As in the preceding, Matthew has
pared Mark's exuberant redundancy. An authorial preference, but one which
Matthew consistently displays.

8. Mk "Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and
Joses and Judas and Simon?" Mt "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his
mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and
Judas? / The list of siblings is identical; the main point is whether Jesus
is merely the son of a carpenter or himself a carpenter. if Jesus is a
carpenter himself, his possession of wisdom etc is definitely anomalous,
whereas if he is merely the son of a carpenter, one who might have studied
or whatnot, his possession of wisdom and power is a little more socially
tolerable. It is Matthew who rephrases Mark to make Jesus a little more
socially tolerable.

In other words, the same tendency to make Jesus divine rather than human,
and withal, to take some of the narrative exuberance and redundancy out of
Mark's way of telling the story, typify Matthew here as in the preceding
four cases. We then have a consistent picture of Matthew as an author, not
one devised ad hoc to reply to Joe's citation of the second half of this
pericope. I mention that in defense of the present analysis.

------------------OTHER POINTS

There are other defenses. As to Matthew's preference for greater narrative
efficiency, there is abundant confirmation: it is available on every page of
the synopsis. To take a random example: On the facing page of the synopsis
from which I am quoting at the moment (Throckmorton 2ed 1957, p77), I note
Mk 6:14-16 || Mt 14:1-2. This is the reaction of Herod to Jesus, merely a
story with no deep theological matters at stake. In the Mark column, I find
the speculations of Herod's courtiers listed at length, ending in Herod's
own opinion. Matthew, in his more modest column, cuts straight to the chase,
eliminating the fumblings of the courtiers and simply quoting Herod's
opinion (the only one that is relevant to the progress of the story), that
Jesus is John the Baptist raised from the dead (Mt 14:2, Mk 6:16).

And so it goes, throughout Matthew (as tracked against Mark).

--------------------IMPLICATIONS

Are there any implications in this tendency of Matthew's, other than that it
IS a tendency? I think it possible. I pose the question this way: If you
were going to make a movie of this last scene, whose script would you
prefer, Mark's or Matthew's? I would think that everyone with the slightest
cinematic experience would pick Mark. Why? Because the buzzing of Herod's
courtiers about the identity of Jesus makes a great scene, into which
Herod's opinion cuts like a knife, evoking the doom of John and presaging
the doom of Jesus. The knife does not make as much impression when (as in
Matthew) it has nothing to cut into. Matthew simply reduces the story to its
story essentials and repeats those essentials. It lacks human drama, just as
Matthew's portrait of Jesus lacks human qualities.

I am wary of all that is popular, precisely because it IS popular. Alas,
said perhaps Shaw, that the popular thing should be SO popular. But here is
perhaps a point into which the idea of performance may usefully enter.
Whereas Matthew is just a story, narratively sanitized and spiritually
exalted, Mark is storytelling, as we children's librarians know it, and as
the itinerant storytellers of the Chinese Buddhist mediaeval period (with
their flannelgraphs and illustrations, their portable picturebook) knew it.

What about the historical presents in Mark, the ones that modern
translations fall all over themselves to omit, and which Matthew also
systematically omits? There are about 150 of them. Has anyone ever sat down
and plotted their positions across the length and breadth of Mark? I have,
and what I find is that there are two points in the Markan narrative about
which these historical presents tend to cluster: (1) the beginnings of
pericopes, where they function as scene changers, and (2) introducing
especially important sayings, not necessarily always those of Jesus. I look
at those historical presents, and I recall my own way with my audiences
(most of whom were 3 years of age), and I find myself recognizing, in Mark's
gestures of immediacy (the historical present brings the past RIGHT UP INTO
the immediate moment, the one inhabited by storyteller and storytellee),
exactly the places where I would pause for punctuation or other effect, or
put my face within inches of the wide-eyed little face across the Children's
Room table from me, and deliver the next line as a total surprise.

It's a way of dramatizing the story in presentation, and the virtue of Mark
as a performable text is that it comes, as it were, predramatized: the
transition punctuation and the delivery emphasis are (pretty much) already
in place, and all the presenter has to do is to make those moves at those
places. Why does Mark like all his redundancies, his way of saying things
twice or more? Any actor can answer that question. It is a question of
tempo, of how long it takes to have things happen onstage. As one actor said
to an author at a rehearsal, "Can't you give me a few more lines to say?"
That was not egotism, it was stage mechanics. You have to take a little
longer, meaning a few seconds longer, to register properly with the
listeners. This is something Mark seems to know, and Matthew seems not to
care about.

If instead you wanted to put Matthew on TV, you would have to hire a lot of
writers, and acquire a large budget . . .  Of course, as he also shows,
Matthew is not at all averse to high budgets. He is a guy who is comfortable
with big numbers.

------------------PS-----------------

I am copying to my GPG list, though not to Synoptic (since it does not allow
attachments) a copy of what I take to be the earliest textual layer of Mark
(as of my researches in the year 2009; the current model is slightly refined
from that), with the historical presents not only rendered, but highlighted
in three different colors. This is so people can appreciate the function of
these historical presents, or if they do not appreciate them as I have
identified them, can suggest a better interpretation. Thus does the subject
move forward, day by day. To that smaller group: Sorry not to have a fully
updated 2012 version for your inspection, but this one (from a 2009 SBL
session, and please keep it to yourselves, since a revision is in progress)
is pretty close, and may serve for present purposes. Thanks in advance for
any criticisms and proposals, whether private or online. 2013 should be
better, with your help.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst



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

To: Synoptic
In Response To: Ron
On: Directionality
From: Bruce

Ron had noted: "  . . .there around 60 Double Tradition aphorisms attributed
to Jesus represented in over a hundred synoptic instances, and the consensus
of those who have made a special study of them seems to be that where the
text of Matthew and Luke differs, Luke has on the whole been somewhat more
faithful to the original text. This would imply at least 30 cases which are
an embarrassment to Goulder's 'hard' version of the FT, and which are not
accounted for in the standard FT diagram used alike by 'hard' and 'soft'."

I respond: I am leery of consensus arguments, since the majority have so
often been wrong (one needs to pick one's majority). But as far as my own
reading goes, it seems to me that Ron has well enough described the tendency
of opinion of those who work on the Q side of the fence. The result is a
situation of bidirectionality between Matthew and Luke with respect to
material common to both but not in Mark. Let's take this as an accurately
observed fact. How do we account for it?

As far as I can see, bidirectionality can be accounted for in essentially
two ways: an outside source, or a complication in Matthew and/or Luke. That
is, one way or another, we need three entities to draw our diagram lines
between. The Q folk posit a third text; I posit a complication (more
precisely, a two-stage composition process) in Luke. Where the Q folk work
with Mt, Lk, and Q, I work with Mt, LkA, and LkB. The numbers are the same
(that is, the degree of hypothesis complexity is the same), and a choice
between the two may properly be made on other grounds.

For the Q or third text option there is no evidence beyond the fact that it
solves the bidirectionality problem (but imperfectly, since it leaves in its
wake new and unsolved problems like the Minor Agreements). For the two-stage
Luke option, however, there IS independent evidence, namely the passages in
Luke which either clearly override previous structures (such as the Birth
and Infancy narratives, which seem to have been added out in front of a
satisfactory original beginning at Lk 3:1) or else show complications
incidental on moving passages which previously had a different location in
Luke (like the Nazareth and Capernaum narratives, previously expounded by
myself on this list and at SBL). Given that the latter anomalies require the
positing of a second stage of Luke (and would do so even if we had no Q
problem, or even no Synoptic problem), and given that it creates no new
problems (the Minor Agreements are open to explanation in the same way as
the Major Agreements), it makes sense to me to consider whether the
necessary Lk A/B model will also explain the bidirectionality problem above
referred to.

I find that it does. Some examples have been previously supplied; others are
available on request.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Joe Weaks wrote:

> ..... what struck in in reading your "achilles heal" description is that its
> description is necessarily obtuse and conjectural by nature. Is this really
> the strongest, clearest argument we can make against the FT?

Joe,

There is another argument, though I'm not sure it's what you would consider
"clear".

In the period 30 CE to 60 CE (a time equivalent to a whole generation),
James, Peter et al. must have tried very hard to propagate their
interpretation of Jesus. In the latter half of this period they had stiff
opposition from Paul whose outlook was very different in some areas. Now we
know that Paul supplemented his personal missionary efforts with a series of
letters, and these (at least the extant ones) must have been highly valued
by their recipients because they were preserved. Did the Jesus movement in
Jerusalem supplement their missionary efforts with anything in writing?
Surely they must have done so. Their Jewish ancestors produced many
documents to support their religious stance. And if the original Jesus
movement put something in writing, it would have been in Aramaic (or just
possibly, Hebrew).

Of course there is no extant document attributable to this movement. But
Papias referred to the "logia" which was in "Hebrew", and Greek writers
often didn't discriminate between Hebrew and Aramaic. Also Paul referred to
PEIQOIS SOFOIS LOGOIS ("persuasive words of wisdom", 1 Cor 2:4), which would
have been an apt description of a collection of aphorisms or 'wisdom
sayings'.

This is no proof. But it is highly suggestive, and when combined with the
evidence for a written collection of aphorisms, which I presented in the
original posting of this thread, it seems to me to make a powerful case for
such a source.

Developed in this way it becomes as much a case against the standard 2ST as
it is against the FT.

Ron Price,

Derbyshire, UK

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




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

Bruce Brooks wrote:

> For the Q or third text option there is no evidence beyond the fact that it
> solves the bidirectionality problem .....

Bruce,

Not true. Schnelle and Fleddermann, to name but two, still think the
(source) doublets constitute important evidence. See also the web page below
for further evidence in favour of the third text option.

> ..... (but imperfectly, since it leaves in its
> wake new and unsolved problems like the Minor Agreements).

This is correct in regard to Q, but the third text in my radical 3ST is no
barrier to a complete solution to the Minor Agreements problem, because it
fits naturally alongside Luke's subsidiary use of Matthew.

Ron Price,

Derbyshire, UK

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


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

David Inglis raises an important issue: he wrote
----------
...if "the NA27 text of Luke's Gospel contains 95,972
letters, while the text of Acts contains 95,838," then
I think it very unlikely that this was true for at least
the initial version of Luke. Consequently, what we see
today may well have been 'massaged' so that Luke and Acts
both fitted on a scroll of the same length, but I very
much doubt that this applied to their initial form.
------------
I had already indicated some caution about the omission being
explained by 3 uses of a stack of wax tablets arriving at the
first of these totals, and matching the three sections of Luke.
This goes deeper.  While I am not wholly persuaded that Luke
1 & 2 are additions to Luke it is a hypothesis I am willing to
entertain (as the philosophers are wont to say) in order to
consider the consequences.  The latter are intriguing.  If
Luke 1 & 2 are additions, and if David I's attempts to recover the
Luke known to Marcion provide evidence for this, then what is
the status, on this view, of the Lukan preface?  I would be very
interested in David's response to this, as it has implications
for other aspects of what became the two volume work that got
attributed to "Luke".

Hope this isn't too convoluted a question.

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: Ron
On: Mt Doublets
From: Bruce

I had said that Mt/Lk bidirectionality was really the only evidence for Q.
Ron has reminded me that . . .

Ron: Schnelle and Fleddermann, to name but two, still think the
(source) doublets constitute important evidence.

Bruce: Right. Fleddermann in his book gives them more space than he devotes
to bidirectionality. But to repeat my clarification question to Joe Weaks,
would you mind citing one example of a "source" doublet (I waive the fact
that the label prejudges the interpretation) that you find especially
convincing?

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

On 2 August 2012 05:05, Ronald Price <ron-price@...> wrote:

> Apart from this, and the fact that a saying's oral tradition by its very
> nature leaves no evidence to support its existence (and therefore the oral
> tradition of your first paragraph is no better attested than the
> much-derided Q),

Right -- what you say here, Ron, does draw attention to the whole
problem with oral traditions, that they are lost except in so far as
they are crystallized in the texts that have survived.  That places us
in a tough situation and different scholars react to the situation
differently.  My own response is to acknowledge the reality that there
must have been what Farrer called the living stream of oral tradition,
but at the same time to engage in analysis of the texts we have.
However much we might wish we could do contemporary-style oral
history, I think it's best to acknowledge that short of stealing a
TARDIS, we are never going to have our own direct access to those oral
traditions.  I wish it were otherwise.

> Mark Goodacre has never (as far as I know) acknowledged
> that by introducing oral tradition as an additional source/sources, his
> claims for the superior simplicity of the Farrer Theory are no longer
> valid.

Thanks for the mention.  It may because I am writing in the small
hours, but I don't recall having made the claim you attribute to me
here about "the superior simplicity" of the Farrer theory.  I do
appeal to Occam's Razor because I think that the Synoptic Problem is
effectively solved without reference to a hypothetical additional
literary work, but I realize that not everyone agrees with me on this
one.

> Indeed the oft-reproduced diagram of the FT is clearly misleading if oral
> tradition plays such a significant part in the synoptic explanation.
etc.

If your point is that all diagrams have a tendency to simplify the
models that themselves are simplifications of the reality that they
are attempting to describe, I would be inclined to agree. I don't
think that advocates of the Farrer Theory have a monopoly on that one,
though I do have an natural bias, of course, to observations that make
the Farrer Theory look special. :)

Best wishes
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

Bruce,
Again, I apologize for not having the time to give you more examples to discuss,
though you seem quite capable of thorough discussion of even just the one.
My response to your analysis of the text is that I think much of your
description is plausible. It's quite plausible the more primitive form in
Matthew is the result of Matthew redacting out features for which he had an
aversion or other tendencies.
It's also possible he had knowledge of this earlier form from elsewhere than
Mark.

Joe Weaks

--- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "E Bruce Brooks" <brooks@...> wrote:
>
> To: Synoptic
> In Response To: Joe Weaks
> On: Mk/Mt Primitivity
> From: Bruce
>
> Joe had said that he finds examples, convincing to him, of greater
> primitivity in Matthew compared to Mark. (It is agreed between us that
> Fleddermann's arguments for primitivity sometimes "overreach").
…
>  I was interested in the firm opinion of someone who
> is in the present conversation.
> And I sort of got it. Joe provides one example, namely: "Matthew's parallel
> to Mark 6:4-5 …
> This ends my discussion of Joe's example. I don't find that it proves its
> intended point. I find instead that it can be treated, in detail, as an
> example of Mk > Mt.

David Mealand wrote:

> ..... If Luke 1 & 2 are additions, and if David I's attempts to recover the
> Luke known to Marcion provide evidence for this, then what is the status, on
> this view, of the Lukan preface?

David,

While I can't claim to be able to fit Marcion's text into the history of the
editions of Luke, the clear implication of my page hypothesis is that the
original text of Luke did contain the preface. The original with its truly
majestic opening (1:1-4; 3:1-2) was a codex of 60 pages, and this was
expanded into a codex of 68 pages corresponding to the extant Luke. This was
achieved by the addition of the birth narratives (1:5 - 2:52, 7 pages) and
the Parable of the Pounds (19:12-27, 1 page).

For what it's worth, I consider the evidence for this text history (seen in
the light of a successful application of the page hypothesis to all the
other major NT books) to be overwhelming.

Ron Price,

Derbyshire, UK

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



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

Mark Goodacre wrote:

> ..... It may because I am writing in the small hours, but I don't recall
> having made the claim you attribute to me here about "the superior simplicity"
> of the Farrer theory. I do appeal to Occam's Razor because I think that the
> Synoptic Problem is effectively solved without reference to a hypothetical
> additional literary work, but I realize that not everyone agrees with me on
> this one.

Mark,

My reference to 'superior simplicity' was not intended as a quote, but as a
phrase which reflects my view of your appeal to Occam's Razor.

Where I differ of course is in the interpretation of "effectively" in your
last sentence above, for it seems to me to depend on whether the category of
"aphorisms" constitutes a significant part of the data which gives rise to
the synoptic problem. The Farrer Theory handles all other literary
categories excellently.

Ron Price,

Derbyshire, UK

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



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

To: Synoptic
In Response To: Ron
On: Page Theories
From: Bruce

Ron (responding to David Inglis): While I can't claim to be able to fit
Marcion's text into the history of the editions of Luke, the clear
implication of my page hypothesis is that the original text of Luke did
contain the preface.

Bruce: This is a weakness of all page theories: they are vulnerable to
evidence for interpolation and extension, which unfortunately all the
Gospels except Matthew seem to contain. At any rate, decision between a page
theory and another type of theory seems to be possible, which is somewhat
interesting.

Ron: The original with its truly majestic opening (1:1-4; 3:1-2) was a codex
of 60 pages,

Bruce: The opening is surely impressive; much moreso than the opening of
Matthew, which I have suggested Luke was imitating, and indeed surpassing.

Ron: . . . and this was expanded into a codex of 68 pages corresponding to
the extant Luke. This was achieved by the addition of the birth narratives
(1:5 - 2:52, 7 pages)

Bruce: Ron thus incorporates the Birth Narrative into his page theory, which
preserves that theory against that challenge. I should think, however, that
the prefaces to Luke and Acts were added at the time that Acts I was added
to Luke, which as I have earlier suggested there are reasons for thinking
was later than Luke A. That is,

(1) Luke A (no Birth narrative, no preface)
(2) Matthew (contains a skimpy Birth narrative)
(2) Luke B adds a whammo Birth narrative plus Acts I, and prefaces both

Ron . . .  and the Parable of the Pounds (19:12-27, 1 page).

Bruce:  Ah, the Parable of the Pounds (or Talents). This is not only
intrusive in Luke, it is intrusive *from Matthew.* The directionality
argument has been ably (indeed, hilariously) set forth by M Goulder, and
needs no restatement by me. The upgrading to "ten" servants, which is not
maintained through the rest of the story, is enough to make Luke here
secondary to Matthew. Further support for the page theory as Ron here
outlines it is to be had from the directionality of the Parable of the Feast
(Lk 14:16-24 ~ Mt 22:1-14), which for many of the same reasons is original
in Luke. That is, it is part of Luke A, as Ron seems to allow. But the
implication of this priority of Luke in the Parable of the Feast is that
Matthew here is secondary to Luke. I have elsewhere argued that there are
many cases of this (the Sermon on the Mount < Plain being only the most
extreme). This reverse movement is, I think, fatal to FGH in the form in
which M Goulder left it. Since I have been unable to convince M Goulder
during his lifetime, or any subsequent proprietor of the theory, to accept
this reverse movement as a friendly amendment (so to speak), it becomes
instead the basis of a rival account of the material. So be it.

Meanwhile, Ron's Luke is vulnerable to any instances other than the two he
mentions in which Goulder's account of Luke is correct. I would think that
there are many of these, otherwise the general lateness of Luke compared to
Matthew in the Trajectory material would be inexplicable.

Quite apart from this Matthew question, there are signs of disturbance in
Luke that point to later intrusion of material in Luke. For example, What
route did Jesus take to Jerusalem? At the beginning there is a suggestion
that he took the high road through Samaria, but later in the travel
narrative he is evidently in Jewish territory, hence the low road along the
Jordan. The Samaria motif in Luke is associated (as is the symbolic Sending
of the Seventy, where 70 = 7 = all nations) with the Gentile mission, which
seems to have been a late idea in Luke. There is a similar geographical
tension at the end: Jesus appears to disciples on the road to Emmaus, which
is NW of Jerusalem and implies the high road, but he ascends having led them
out to Bethany, which is in the other direction and implies the low road. If
we eliminate from Luke (that is, from our picture of Luke A) everything
associated with the Gentile Mission, we avoid these little differences, and
get a geographically consistent Luke A. Which is encouraging, but at the
cost of making the Seventy etc secondary in Luke; author's later
improvements not suggested by Matthew.

Taking it a step further, the ascension in Luke also contradicts the
ascension in Acts, as many (including Fitzmyer ad loc) have noted. Acts I is
there precisely to reconcile Gentile and Jewish Christians, so it too (I
infer) belongs the the Gentile Mission layer in Luke. After these had been
added to Luke A, we have Luke B + Acts I, and a drastically reshaped picture
of the history of Christianity.

I think the evidences for such adjustments in Luke (including Acts, and I
think we must include Acts in our calculations) are strong. But they are
consistent neither with the Goulder realization of FGH nor with Ron's page
theory. They imply more movement, and in more directions, than either of
those proposals envisions.

Here, to me, is the direction in which an eventual solution lies.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Mark wrote “that short of stealing a TARDIS, we are never going to have our
own direct access to those oral traditions.” Mark, I don’t think we have to
steal a TARDIS. Can’t we ask Dr Who himself, because he was probably there at
the time?

David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



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

David Mealand wrote:

> ..... If Luke 1 & 2 are additions, and if David I's attempts to recover the
Luke known to Marcion provide evidence for
this, then what is the status, on this view, of the Lukan preface?



*** David I: I repeat here some text from my website on Marcion's gospel [Mcg]:



In Adv. Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 7, Tertullian reports that Mcg begins:

"In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius [3.1a] (for such is Marcion's
proposition) he "came down to the Galilean
city of Capernaum," [4:31a]"



Epiphanius agrees with Tertullian, stating that:



"At the very beginning he [Marcion] excised all of Luke's original discussion -
his "inasmuch as many have taken in
hand" and so forth, and the material about Elizabeth and the angel's
annunciation to the Virgin Mary, John and Zacharias
and the birth at Bethlehem; the genealogy and the subject of the baptism. All
this he took out and turned his back on
and made this the beginning of the Gospel, "In the fifteenth year of Tiberius
Caesar," [3:1a] and so on.



*** So, both major sources agree that Mcg omitted Lk 1 and 2. However, it is (in
my opinion) significant that while
Epiphanius comments on these omissions, Tertullian does not. As both delight in
noting even minor differences between
Mcg and Lk, the fact that Tertullian does not mention Marcion's omission
suggests to me that his (probably Old Latin)
copy of Lk did not contain these chapters either. Continuing:



It has been noted by many (including Brown, Fitzmeyer, Streeter, and Tyson) that
v. 3:1 would have been a very good
beginning for a gospel, lending weight to the view that this was the case at
some point in the development of Lk, with
the material in chapters 1 and 2 being added later. On this point Volume III of
The Encyclopedia Biblica notes:



Finally, as in the case of Mt. so also in that of Lk. we must conjecture that
the gospel once was without the first two
chapters (1:5-2:52). Lk.'s proem (1:1-4) speaks in favour of this presumption .
as also do the facts that the Baptist is
in 3:2 introduced like a person who has never yet been mentioned, and that Jesus
at Nazareth (4:16-30) appeals in his
own vindication simply to his possessing the gift of the Holy Spirit; so also
the further fact that the Baptist (7:18 f)
allows the question to be raised whether Jesus be the Messiah or not, without
knowing anything of the complete
information which, according to 1:41-45, his mother possessed."



*** Despite points such as this, the general opinion is that Marcion is the
guilty party here (i.e. that he removed text
from Lk). For example:



On this point both Tyson and Gregory comment that Knox wrote:



"Marcion would surely not have tolerated this highly 'Jewish' section; but how
wonderfully adapted it is to show the
nature of Christianity as the true Judaism and thus to answer one of the major
contentions of the Marcionites! And one
cannot overlook the difficulty involved in the common supposition that Marcion
deliberately selected a Gospel which
began in so false and obnoxious a way."



*** There is actually no evidence (that I have seen) to say that Marcion
truncated Lk. There is, however, a great deal
of adverse opinion based on the fact that Mcg WAS shorter than what we see as
Lk, in particular omitting Lk 1 and 2.
Marcion did become labeled the "arch heretic," but it appears to me that this
could easily be a reaction to Marcion
presenting to the church an 'alpha' (with apologies to Bruce) version of
Christianity based on an earlier, shorter,
version of Lk that omitted Lk 1 and 2, appears to have Capernaum and Nazareth
swapped, omits some parables (including
the prodigal son), and is generally western, in particular having a shorter
version of Lk 24.



David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



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

Bruce Brooks wrote:

> ..... would you mind citing one example of a "source" doublet (I waive the
> fact that the label prejudges the interpretation) that you find especially
> convincing?

Mark Goodacre and Bruce,

Firstly, I wonder if it would help to avoid the accusation of prejudgment if
I were to define a category of doublet called a MarkPlus doublet.

A MarkPlus doublet is a pair of aphorisms (or part-aphorisms) in either
Matthew or Luke. Each member of the doublet is sufficiently close in wording
to its counterpart that we can reasonably assume a common origin. One member
of each pair can be seen from the context to have been derived from Mark.

Using this definition, there are about 30 MarkPlus doublets. Where did the
other member of each MarkPlus doublet come from? Neither oral tradition nor
redaction provide a very satisfactory explanation for so much duplication.
Surely the most likely explanation for the other members is that they came
from another early written source, for then the duplication probably
occurred out of a degree of respect for two early sources. (However it is
worth noting that there is a difference between Matthew and Luke here. For
the conservative Matthew retains the Markan member in around 80% of cases,
whereas Luke appears more averse to duplication and retains it in only
around 50% of cases.)

Bruce asks for an example. Here are two for good measure, both related to Mk
8:35.

Mt 10:39 // 16:25 and Lk 17:33 // 9:24.

Ron Price,

Derbyshire, UK

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



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

Ron wrote:  "(However it is worth noting that there is a difference between
Matthew and Luke here. For the conservative Matthew retains the Markan member in
around 80% of cases, whereas Luke appears more averse to duplication and retains
it in only around 50% of cases.)"


Ron,


This corresponds closely to the percentages of Mk used by Mt and Lk overall.  So
I don't know that it's an aversion to duplication in Lk rather than that he
simply omitted more of his source(s) that Mt.  BTW, someone ought do a literary
analysis of the M material, since based on Lk's use of Mk it's possible as much
as half of it was in Q and omitted by Lk.  If two distinct voices were found in
M material it would argue strongly for Mt/Lk independence and therefore a common
source (it would argue for Q, he said diplomatically).

Chuck

Rev. Chuck Jones
Atlanta, Georgia

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

Many thanks to David I for the informative reply,
with the specific kind of evidential detail I hoped
would be forthcoming.  I can't take the issue
further just at the moment - going out this evening,
but I hope to follow up with some points which
relate to Acts as well as to Luke in connection with
this.

David M.


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


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

Chuck wrote
------
BTW, someone ought do a literary analysis of the M material,
since based on Lk's use of Mk it's possible as much as half
of it was in Q and omitted by Lk.  If two distinct voices were
found in M material it would argue strongly for Mt/Lk independence
and therefore a common source (it would argue for Q, he said
diplomatically).
-----

See my article in NTS last year, or on the web site I
cited some while back.  Can't elaborate just now - tempus fugit.

David M.


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


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

Chuck, my stylometric analysis may be able to show something, but could I please
ask exactly what you understand by the
'M material':

1.       Passages in Mt without any parallels in Mk or Lk.

2.       Words unique to Mt in passages with parallels in Mk and/or Lk.

3.       Something else?

David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
David Mealand
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 11:16 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The Achilles heel of the Farrer Theory?

Chuck wrote
------
BTW, someone ought do a literary analysis of the M material,
since based on Lk's use of Mk it's possible as much as half
of it was in Q and omitted by Lk. If two distinct voices were
found in M material it would argue strongly for Mt/Lk independence
and therefore a common source (it would argue for Q, he said
diplomatically).
-----

See my article in NTS last year, or on the web site I
cited some while back. Can't elaborate just now - tempus fugit.

David M.

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






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

Thanks, David.


________________________________
  From: David Mealand <D.Mealand@...>
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 3, 2012 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The Achilles heel of the Farrer Theory?


 
Chuck wrote
------
BTW, someone ought do a literary analysis of the M material,
since based on Lk's use of Mk it's possible as much as half
of it was in Q and omitted by Lk.  If two distinct voices were
found in M material it would argue strongly for Mt/Lk independence
and therefore a common source (it would argue for Q, he said
diplomatically).
-----

See my article in NTS last year, or on the web site I
cited some while back.  Can't elaborate just now - tempus fugit.

David M.

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

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




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

David,

By M material, at least in this case, I refer to pericopes that occur only in
Mt.  My hypothesis is that a significant percentage of those passages are from
Q, rather than an M special source or Mt's direct authorship, and were are in Mt
only simply because ALk did not select them for inclusion in Lk.

Testing the hypothesis would involve examining the M pericopes to see if there
is a group of passages that are stylistically like the double and triple
tradition passages in Mt, and another set that is more idiosyncratically
Matthean (here Mt's redaction of Mk and Q would become important in
demonstrating Mt's thematic and grammatical tendencies working with a source).

Hope that makes sense.  I'm trying to find the work David Mealand mentioned,
but can't find any online.  I found the opportunity to buy the work, but didn't
find the work.

Thanks,

Chuck

Rev. Chuck Jones
Atlanta, Georgia


________________________________
  From: David Inglis <davidinglis2@...>
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 3, 2012 2:54 PM
Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] The Achilles heel of the Farrer Theory?


 
Chuck, my stylometric analysis may be able to show something, but could I please
ask exactly what you understand by the
'M material':

1.       Passages in Mt without any parallels in Mk or Lk.

2.       Words unique to Mt in passages with parallels in Mk and/or Lk.

3.       Something else?

David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
David Mealand
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 11:16 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The Achilles heel of the Farrer Theory?

Chuck wrote
------
BTW, someone ought do a literary analysis of the M material,
since based on Lk's use of Mk it's possible as much as half
of it was in Q and omitted by Lk. If two distinct voices were
found in M material it would argue strongly for Mt/Lk independence
and therefore a common source (it would argue for Q, he said
diplomatically).
-----

See my article in NTS last year, or on the web site I
cited some while back. Can't elaborate just now - tempus fugit.

David M.

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

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




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

I had written:

> "(However it is worth noting that there is a difference between Matthew and
> Luke here. For the conservative Matthew retains the Markan member in around
> 80% of cases, whereas Luke appears more averse to duplication and retains it
> in only around 50% of cases.)"

Chuck Jones replied:

> This corresponds closely to the percentages of Mk used by Mt and Lk overall.
> So I don't know that it's an aversion to duplication in Lk rather than that he
> simply omitted more of his source(s) that Mt.

Chuck,

What I meant to say is that if we consider each Double Tradition aphorism
which has a version in Mark, the conservative Matthew copies/edits this
version in around 80% of cases, whereas Luke copies/edits it in only around
50% of cases.

However I think you probably understood that in spite of my inaccurate
wording, and you're quite right about Matthew and Lukeąs omission of
sources. I should have thought of that!

Having now looked at the relevant aphorisms again, it is clear that most of
the omissions of the Markan aphorism are because Matthew or Luke omitted not
just the aphorisms itself, but the relevant section of Markan text which
contained the aphorism. In other words in most cases the omission had
nothing to do with the avoidance of duplication.

Ron Price,

Derbyshire, UK

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



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