In a message dated 6/11/2004 11:15:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
tonybuglass@... writes:

> Leonard Maluf replied:
> Sorry, I know it is very popular, but I don't buy the argument from
embarrassment at all, and never have found it convincing. It presupposes that
there was some compulsion for the evangelists to tell the story of John and
Jesus even though they found it embarrassing. This is nonsense. There is no
reason why the evangelists would have felt any compulsion to include the story
of John baptizing Jesus, and it may well have been "invented" by Matthew to make
some profound theological point, most likely along the lines of Poirier's
suggestion.
>
> Sorry, Leonard, but I don't buy your scepticism on this.  The issue of
popularity or otherwise of the criterion is irrelevant; the question is whether
it fits in this situation, and I think there is at least a case to be made.  
What do you mean when you say the baptism story could have been invented by
Matthew?  He got it from Mark, and developed it accordingly.<

I guess you must be new to this list. I don't believe Matthew got this story
from anyone, and I certainly don't believe he knew, or got it from, Mark's
Gospel. The priority of Mark is another one of those theories that has been
swallowed more because of its popularity than because of its logic. It is very
clear that Mark's version of the baptism of Jesus, e.g., is later than
Matthew's. In Mark there is a clear subordination of John to Jesus from the very
beginning. John is presented as the one who heralds the coming of Jesus. This is
quite close to the perspective of another late gospel, John. In Matthew, there
is instead a parallelism between John and Jesus which is early. John has a
ministry to Israel independent of Jesus, prior to Jesus, and with a summarized
message that Jesus simply repeats in 4:17! In Mark, the baptism "with the Holy
Spirit" John predicts Jesus will bring is probably the sacramental baptism of
the church, wouldn't you agree? This expression is likewise most closely
paralleled in the last Gospel (Jn 1:33) and has to be an adaptation of an older
story where, in Matthew, Jesus' baptism with fire and holy spirit is a metaphor
for the eschatological judgment of which Israel's Messiah will be the agent.
Mark's version is an ecclesiastical adaptation, like Jn's.

   >The reason why the evangelists might have felt compelled to include it
despite its Christological implications is because it was a well-established and
early part of the Jesus-tradition.  It happened.  It was historical.  Gerd
Lüdemann (Jesus after Two Thousand Years, p.9) is very clear about the
historicity of the event, and about its embarrassment.>

Gerd is just following the crowd on this one, I am afraid. I have no inclination
to do likewise, especially not under Luedemann's patronage.

   <He notes that the synoptics had to tone it down, that John ignores it, and
that the Gospel of the Nazoreans argues that it was suggested but unnecessary
(according to Jerome, Adv. Pelag.III,2).>

This theory is so established as to bore to death, and is not convincing at all.
It is an extremely important theological point, dear to Matthew, (and therefore
suspect historically) that Jesus would not be the kind of Messiah that would be
indicated on the basis of well-known and established Jewish expectation. Rather,
he would be one who would be obedient to God his Father even to the point of
identifying with sinful humanity in a voluntarily accepted death for their sake.
Symbolically, this is what is being played out here: Jesus for the first time is
resisting the (all too) human attempt (here, by JB) to deflect or prevent him
from doing the Father's will. This is Matthean theology, not (necessarily)
history. The later evangelists, beginning with Luke, do their best to make sense
of the story for their own purposes. The very verse here in Matt (3:15) that is
supposed especially to be late, says something that would be almost unthinkable
in a later Gospel: "for so it behooves US to fulfill all righteousness" (i.e.
John and Jesus together will "fulfill all righteousness!)

Leonard Maluf
Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
Weston, MA

(I apologize for cross-posting)

Some weeks ago, we have seen here, in France (and Germany : Arte is a
common French-German program), a great TV report about beginnings of
Christianism. More than twenty scholars -christian and jewish- were
interviewed by a pair of journalists, who had yet leaded a similar
report on Jesus some years ago. They also wrote books.

The global message of those journalists is that christianism is
antisemit from the beginning. Responsability of jews in first christian
prosecution are systematically elluded (for instance : when a witness
speaks about jews annoying christians, the authors translate : jews
annoying judeo-christians - the treatment of Etienne's martyrdom is
close to contorsionism).

The report has bean a quite impressive success for such a kind of
entertainment. It has been applauded as an "antidote" of Gibson's film
that french TV and papers have massively described as an antisemite film.

Some interviewed scholars are famous, and some less, but one looks
particularly strange. His name is : Pierre-Antoine Bernheim. His
accreditations : "Noésis fondation" and "Cercle Voltaire de l'Ecole
Biblique hors-les-murs". He is said to work in London.

Have you ever heard abour him ? Have you ever heard about both instituts ?
read a book of him ? Or a review of one of his books ? He published :
"James,
Brother of Jesus" - SCM Press, 1997.

Thanks in advance for all information you may have.

Emmanuel.


PS : If you read french and are interested by that story, you may find the
presentation of the report :
http://www.arte-tv.com/fr/search__results/388080.html

and all interviewed scholars :
http://www.arte-tv.com/fr/histoire-societe/origine-christianisme/
Programme_2C_20auteurs_2C_20chercheurs/388050,CmC=388082.html




Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Emmanuel,

I have a paragraph in a review of his book from 1998:

Another key first century figure is the subject of Pierre-Antoine
Bernheim's James, Brother of Jesus, a fine antidote to the recent
excesses of Eisenmann (to whom Bernheim never refers). Bernheim's
study, translated from the French by John Bowden, is balanced,
carefully researched and lucidly presented. Its scope, too, is broad.
There is a fine chapter on first century Judaism (Chapter 3, 'What is
a Jew?') and there are studies of the historical Jesus (Chapter 5, 'A
Famous Brother'), Paul's letters and Acts (Chapters 6-8) and the
epistle of James (Chapter 9). In a way, the scope of the book makes
its author's point forcefully, that this is a figure not only worthy
of study in his own right but also essential for anyone attempting to
understand Christian origins.
http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre/REVNT2.HTM#Bernheim

Mark

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:38:57 +0200, Emmanuel Fritsch
<emmanuel.fritsch@...> wrote:
> (I apologize for cross-posting)
>
> Some weeks ago, we have seen here, in France (and Germany : Arte is a
> common French-German program), a great TV report about beginnings of
> Christianism. More than twenty scholars -christian and jewish- were
> interviewed by a pair of journalists, who had yet leaded a similar
> report on Jesus some years ago. They also wrote books.
>
> The global message of those journalists is that christianism is
> antisemit from the beginning. Responsability of jews in first christian
> prosecution are systematically elluded (for instance : when a witness
> speaks about jews annoying christians, the authors translate : jews
> annoying judeo-christians - the treatment of Etienne's martyrdom is
> close to contorsionism).
>
> The report has bean a quite impressive success for such a kind of
> entertainment. It has been applauded as an "antidote" of Gibson's film
> that french TV and papers have massively described as an antisemite film.
>
> Some interviewed scholars are famous, and some less, but one looks
> particularly strange. His name is : Pierre-Antoine Bernheim. His
> accreditations : "Noésis fondation" and "Cercle Voltaire de l'Ecole
> Biblique hors-les-murs". He is said to work in London.
>
> Have you ever heard abour him ? Have you ever heard about both instituts ?
> read a book of him ? Or a review of one of his books ? He published :
> "James,
> Brother of Jesus" - SCM Press, 1997.
>
> Thanks in advance for all information you may have.
>
> Emmanuel.
>
> PS : If you read french and are interested by that story, you may find the
> presentation of the report :
> http://www.arte-tv.com/fr/search__results/388080.html
>
> and all interviewed scholars :
> http://www.arte-tv.com/fr/histoire-societe/origine-christianisme/
> Programme_2C_20auteurs_2C_20chercheurs/388050,CmC=388082.html
>
> Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
> List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
>

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Listers,

I am pleased to announce (and beg your pardon for cross posting) an online
Colloquium with Fr. Justin Taylor of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem on the
subject "The Beginnings of Christianity" on the Biblical Studies list
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblical-studies)

Fr. Taylor's biographical information is here:
http://ebaf.op.org/wsw/en/taylor.html

The focus of the Colloquium will be a discussion of Professor Taylor's book
"Where Did Christianity Come From" (Liturgical Press, 2001).  It can easily
be had from Amazon or directly from Liturgical Press.  Participants are
kindly asked to read the book in order to be familiar with the topic and
hence pose questions both relevent and appropriate.

The Colloquium will begin on August 1 and continue through August 14.  If
you are not presently a member of the biblical studies list you are
cordially invited to sign up.  Participants will post their questions on
list and two or three of the most appropriate and thought provoking each day
will be provided to Professor Taylor by the list moderator and Professor
Taylor's responses posted to the list.

We look forward to a very interesting and dynamic interaction and look
forward to your participation!

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr Jim West
Pastor, Petros Baptist Church
http://biblical-studies.blogpspot.com      Biblical Theology Weblog

"Wir verstehen die Alten nicht, wenn wir uns nicht gegenwärtig halten, daß
nach ihrem Glaubensstand Gott durch den Pastor spricht"  -- Adolf Schlatter


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

I understand that Burridge is doing a revised edition of his book.
Anyone have detailed info. I know he is updating the preface, but is
that it, or is there material enhancement to the text? Has he set out
to plug some of the holes? Release date? Suggestions where to find out
more info?

Thanks,
Joe

**************************************************************
Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
Ph.D. (Cand.), Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
j.weaks@...
**************************************************************


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Yes, I've seen some of the new material in draft and it represents a
substantial revision, bringing the book up to date and engaging
developments and reactions that have emerged since the first edition.
It is apparently scheduled for release in September.  See the Eerdmans
site at:

http://www.eerdmans.com/shop/product.asp?p_key=0802809715

What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography
Richard A. Burridge

$34.00 Paperback

Not yet in print (Expected ship date: 9/29/04)

revised edition; 380 pages; dimensions (in inches): 6.25 x 9.25

ISBN: 0-8028-0971-5

Foreword by Graham Stanton

Richard Burridge's highly acclaimed study of the Christian Gospels is
substantially updated and expanded in this revised edition. Here
Burridge engages the field of Gospel studies over the last hundred
years, arguing convincingly for viewing the Gospels as biographical
documents of the sort common throughout the Graeco-Roman world.

In pursuing the question of his book's title, Burridge compares the
work of the Christian evangelists with that of Graeco-Roman
biographers. Drawing on insights from literary theory, Burridge
demonstrates that the widespread view of the Gospels as unique is
false, and he discusses what a properly "biographical" perspective
means for Gospel interpretation. The book includes a long new chapter
detailing the recent paradigm shift in Gospel scholarship — a shift
due in large part to this very book — a new foreword by Graham
Stanton, and an appendix dealing with the absence of comparable early
Jewish biographies.

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

I take it that the recent "paradigm shift" referred to below in
the press blurb is Bauckham et al.'s (which includes Burridge)
"Gospel for All Christians."

Burridge ably filled in for Bauckham in a SBL 2003 session on this
topic.  As I recall, one of his points is that the gospels are a
form about biography, which means that they are about its subject
Jesus, not about the local community from which they originated.
It sounds like a basic point, but it is a helpful reminder when
reading someone's use of a gospel as a window into an early
Christian community.

Stephen Carlson


At 09:51 AM 7/8/2004 +0100, Mark Goodacre wrote:
>Yes, I've seen some of the new material in draft and it represents a
>substantial revision, bringing the book up to date and engaging
>developments and reactions that have emerged since the first edition.
>It is apparently scheduled for release in September.  See the Eerdmans
>site at:
>
>http://www.eerdmans.com/shop/product.asp?p_key=0802809715
>
>What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography
>Richard A. Burridge
>
>$34.00 Paperback
>
>Not yet in print (Expected ship date: 9/29/04)
>
>revised edition; 380 pages; dimensions (in inches): 6.25 x 9.25
>
>ISBN: 0-8028-0971-5
>
>Foreword by Graham Stanton
>
>Richard Burridge's highly acclaimed study of the Christian Gospels is
>substantially updated and expanded in this revised edition. Here
>Burridge engages the field of Gospel studies over the last hundred
>years, arguing convincingly for viewing the Gospels as biographical
>documents of the sort common throughout the Graeco-Roman world.
>
>In pursuing the question of his book's title, Burridge compares the
>work of the Christian evangelists with that of Graeco-Roman
>biographers. Drawing on insights from literary theory, Burridge
>demonstrates that the widespread view of the Gospels as unique is
>false, and he discusses what a properly "biographical" perspective
>means for Gospel interpretation. The book includes a long new chapter
>detailing the recent paradigm shift in Gospel scholarship — a shift
>due in large part to this very book — a new foreword by Graham
>Stanton, and an appendix dealing with the absence of comparable early
>Jewish biographies.
>
>Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
>List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson@...
Weblog:    http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>
To: <M.S.Goodacre@...>; <Synoptic-L@...>
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Second edition of Burridge's "What Are the
Gospels"?


>
> Burridge ably filled in for Bauckham in a SBL 2003 session on this
> topic.  As I recall, one of his points is that the gospels are a
> form about biography, which means that they are about its subject
> Jesus, not about the local community from which they originated.

The stringent remark "not about the local community" cannot be substantiated
in my view.
The authors are indeed writing about Jesus, Israel's Messiah. However,
knowing full well what happened to Jesus' people in the forty years after
the crucifixion, they are writing about Jesus' ministry looking at it, as in
a rearview mirror. Their recent experience was the catastrophe of  70
uppermost in their minds as any victim of disasters of that seize can tall.
The narrative of Mark, for instance, is in the form of a tragedy. The author
shows how later developments of the weal and woe of Jesus' own people and of
his apostles began already in his own ministry, 'in the bud', so to speak.
The Gospels is a 'Pass-over' story, a Christian Haggadah, cast in the annual
tradition of Pesach and Pentecost, of Exodus and exile. Had not a definitive
exile begun once again for your "local community"?

This is not written to downgrade Burridge's work in comparative religion.
All fields ought to be explored. But we should consider the main Judean
features of the Gospels first before we compare the gospels with 'theioi
andres' stories.

cordially,

Karel


> At 09:51 AM 7/8/2004 +0100, Mark Goodacre wrote:
> >Yes, I've seen some of the new material in draft and it represents a
> >substantial revision, bringing the book up to date and engaging
> >developments and reactions that have emerged since the first edition.
> >It is apparently scheduled for release in September.  See the Eerdmans
> >site at:
> >
> >http://www.eerdmans.com/shop/product.asp?p_key=0802809715
> >
> >What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography
> >Richard A. Burridge
> >
> >$34.00 Paperback
> >
> >Not yet in print (Expected ship date: 9/29/04)
> >
> >revised edition; 380 pages; dimensions (in inches): 6.25 x 9.25
> >
> >ISBN: 0-8028-0971-5
> >
> >Foreword by Graham Stanton
> >
> >Richard Burridge's highly acclaimed study of the Christian Gospels is
> >substantially updated and expanded in this revised edition. Here
> >Burridge engages the field of Gospel studies over the last hundred
> >years, arguing convincingly for viewing the Gospels as biographical
> >documents of the sort common throughout the Graeco-Roman world.
> >
> >In pursuing the question of his book's title, Burridge compares the
> >work of the Christian evangelists with that of Graeco-Roman
> >biographers. Drawing on insights from literary theory, Burridge
> >demonstrates that the widespread view of the Gospels as unique is
> >false, and he discusses what a properly "biographical" perspective
> >means for Gospel interpretation. The book includes a long new chapter
> >detailing the recent paradigm shift in Gospel scholarship - a shift
> >due in large part to this very book - a new foreword by Graham
> >Stanton, and an appendix dealing with the absence of comparable early
> >Jewish biographies.
> >
> >Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
> >List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
>
> --
> Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson@...
> Weblog:    http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
> "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35
>
>
> Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
> List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
>


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

On Jul 9, 2004, at 1:57 AM, Karel Hanhart wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>
>> Burridge ably filled in for Bauckham in a SBL 2003 session on this
>> topic.  As I recall, one of his points is that the gospels are a
>> form about biography, which means that they are about its subject
>> Jesus, not about the local community from which they originated.
>
> The stringent remark "not about the local community" cannot be
> substantiated
> in my view.
> ...
> This is not written to downgrade Burridge's work in comparative
> religion.
> All fields ought to be explored. But we should consider the main Judean
> features of the Gospels first before we compare the gospels with
> 'theioi
> andres' stories.

Hence, the appendix explaining why the absence of Judean Biographies (I
suppose Philo's work doesn't count) makes the Greco-Roman context
preferred. This is only one of the several holes I see in Burridge's
seminal work, holes which a growing consensus Gospel scholars seem
willing to overlook.
This is why I'm anxious to see the reworking of his text, and the
extent to which he has answered some weaknesses. Why not til September?
Doesn't he know I have a dissertation to write!!!

Joe Weaks


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

In: "On dispensing with Q?: Goodacre on the relation of Luke to Matthew" -
NTS 49 (2003) p. 215, Kloppenborg wrote:
"Luke's supposed dependence on Mark is not any less hypothetical than Luke's
dependence on Q, merely because we have third-century manuscripts of Mark."

   Is he inferring that the existence of Q is as assured as the existence of
an archetype for Mark? If so, why do no scholars (as far as I know) deny the
existence of the latter, whereas some reputable scholars (albeit a few)
firmly deny the existence of the former?

Ron Price

Derbyshire, UK

Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

At 01:42 PM 8/29/2004 +0100, Ron Price wrote:
>  In: "On dispensing with Q?: Goodacre on the relation of Luke to Matthew" -
>NTS 49 (2003) p. 215, Kloppenborg wrote:
>"Luke's supposed dependence on Mark is not any less hypothetical than Luke's
>dependence on Q, merely because we have third-century manuscripts of Mark."
>
>  Is he inferring that the existence of Q is as assured as the existence of
>an archetype for Mark? If so, why do no scholars (as far as I know) deny the
>existence of the latter, whereas some reputable scholars (albeit a few)
>firmly deny the existence of the former?

Comparing Q to the autograph of Mark has been a favorite comparison
of Kloppenborg and his students for quite some time.  Of course, Q
and the Markan autograph differ greatly in the quality and quantity
of the evidence supporting their respective, putative existences.

I am unaware of any *serious* source critic dismissing Q merely because
it is hypothetical.  The actual argument is that Q is an *unnecessary*
hypothesis to be shave by Occam's razor.  Rather than condemn Klopp.
et al. for a strawman, I would say that the error (dismissing Q merely
for being a hypothesis) must be such a common mistake among their
(undergraduate?) student that its speciousness must be combated even
if Goodacre didn't make that mistake.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson@...
Weblog:    http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Kloppenborg had written in NTS:

>"Luke's supposed dependence on Mark is not any less hypothetical than Luke's
>dependence on Q, merely because we have third-century manuscripts of Mark."

Peter Kirby wrote:

> But it is not clear what "less hypothetical" means; is it the same as "more
> certain"?  I don't think it is.  He may be implying that a statement is either
> hypothetical or isn't (without degree).

   That's probably the way Kloppenborg would defend it if he were challenged,
in spite of the word "less" which seems to imply "degree" in the comparison.

Stephen Carlson wrote:

>  Rather than condemn Klopp.et al. for a strawman .....

   I think this is being too soft on him. An eminent scholar should not
descend to making an exaggerated claim just because some of his opponents
make exaggerated claims. In making the comparison between Q and the
archetype of Mark, Kloppenborg evidently intended to try to demolish the
argument that the hypothetical nature of Q should be counted as a factor
against the 2ST. Kloppenborg's statement is misleading and we should see
through it.

   Perhaps the inclusion of such a dubious statement shows that he has been
rattled by Goodacre's case against Q.

Ron Price

Derbyshire, UK

Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Peter Kirby <kirby@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:51:21 -0700
Subject: My message got lost?
To: synoptic-l-owner@...



I submitted this message yesterday but didn't see it on the list:



On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:42:25 +0100, Ron Price wrote:

> In: "On dispensing with Q?: Goodacre on the relation of Luke to

> Matthew" - NTS 49 (2003) p. 215, Kloppenborg wrote:

> "Luke's supposed dependence on Mark is not any less hypothetical

> than Luke's dependence on Q, merely because we have third-century

> manuscripts of Mark."

>

> Is he inferring that the existence of Q is as assured as the

> existence of an archetype for Mark? If so, why do no scholars (as

> far as I know) deny the existence of the latter, whereas some

> reputable scholars (albeit a few) firmly deny the existence of the

> former?



Maybe not.  He refers to the "dependence on Mark" and not the
"existence of Mark."  I think he might be saying that the Farrer
Hypothesis and Two Source Hypothesis are both hypotheses (as are
Farmer's and Boismard's).



But it is not clear what "less hypothetical" means; is it the same as
"more certain"?  I don't think it is.  He may be implying that a
statement is either hypothetical or isn't (without degree).



--

Peter Kirby (Student at Fullerton College, CA)

Web Site: http://www.peterkirby.com/


--
Dr Mark Goodacre                 mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
   Dept of Theology
   University of Birmingham
   Elmfield House, Selly Oak      tel.+44 121 414 7512
   Birmingham    B29 6LQ  UK      fax: +44 121 415 8376

http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
http://NTGateway.com

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

The Gospel according to the Hebrews:
The Synoptic Solution

By
James Scott Trimm
http://www.hebraicrootsversion.com


The Synoptic Problem

Mattityahu, Mark and Luke are the synoptic gospels.  In many cases these
three gospels even use identical phrasing.  As a result they are known as
the "synoptic gospels." The Synoptic Problem is the problem of explaining
these similarities and their interrelationships.  This problem was first
addressed in the fifth century by the Christian "Church Father" Augustine.


The Semitic Source Document`

Many synoptic variances point to an underlying Semitic text as the common
synoptic source document. For example:

Mt. 4:19 = Lk. 5:10 "fisher's of men"/"catch men" = TZAYADA (Aram.)

Mt. 11:8 = Lk. 7:7:25 "In King's Houses"/"Among Kings" = B'BAYET M'LAKIM
(Heb.)
or B'BEIT MAL'KE (Aram.)

Mt. 11:27 = Lk. 10:22 "and no one knows the Son"/"and no one knows who the
son is" = V'LO 'NASHA YIDA L'B'RA (Aram.)

Mt. 12:50 = Mk. 3:35 & Lk. 8:21 "my brother"/"brother of me" = AKHI
(Hebrew or Aramaic)

Mt. 16:26 & Mk. 8:36 = Lk. 9:25 "his soul"/"himself" = NAF'SHO (Heb.) or
NAFSHEH (Aram.)

Mt. 27:15 = Lk. 23:17 "accustomed"/"necessary" = M'AD (Aram.)


The Gospel according to the Hebrews

The Gospel according to the Hebrews was a Gospel which was once used by
the Nazarenes and Ebionites.  Eusebius said that GH was “the especial
delight of those of the Hebrews who have accepted Messiah” (Eccl. Hist.
3:25:5).  When speaking of the Ebionites, Epiphanius calls GH “their
Gospel” (Pan. 30:16:4-5) and Jerome refers to GH as “the Gospel which the
Nazarenes and Ebionites use” (On Mat. 12:13).  The actual document has
been lost to history, but about 50 quotations and citations of this
document are preserved in quotations and citations from the so-called
“Church Fathers” and other commentators even into the middle ages.

It is unlikely that the Hebrews themselves called their own Gospel
“according to the Hebrews”.  This is likely a title given the book by
Gentile Christians.  GH was also called “the Gospel according to the
Apostles”; “the Gospel according to the Twelve”; and “the Gospel according
to Matthew” and one of these may have been its name among the Hebrews who
used it.

Even the most conservative of scholars have given a very early date to the
composition of the Gospel according to the Hebrews.  In his book Evidence
that Demands a Verdict Josh McDowell (p. 38) assigns GH a date of A.D.
65-100.  The book certainly had to have existed before the time of
Hegesippus (c. 180 C.E.) who Eusebius tells us made use of GH in his
writings (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 4:22:8).  Ignatious (98 C.E.) quotes from
GH in his letter to the Smyraneans (3:1-2 (1:9-12 some editions)).
Although Ignatious does not identify his quote as coming from GH, Jerome
(4th Century) does later cite GH as the source (Of Illustrious Men 16).
GH (in differing versions) was used by both Nazarenes and Ebionites.
Since neither group would have been likely to adopt the other’s book after
they split from each other around 70 C.E., it appears that GH in its
original form must have originated prior to that time.

There has been much debate about the original language of the Gospel
according to the Hebrews.  Eusebius refers to GH as “the Gospel that is
spread abroad among the Jews in the Hebrew tongue” (Theophina 4:12 on Mt.
10:34-36) and “the Gospel [written] in Hebrew letters” (ibid on Mt.
25:14f).  Jerome refers to GH as “written in the Chaldee and Syrian
language but in Hebrew letters” (Against Pelagius III.2) but seems to
refer to the same document in another passage as “in the Hebrew language
and letters” (Of Illustrious Men 3).  In context however Jerome seems to
say that GH was originally written in “the Hebrew language and letters”
but that the copy in the library at Caesarea is “written in the Chaldee
and Syrian language but in Hebrew letters” (i.e. Aramaic).  Thus
Schonfield is correct in writing:

         The original language of the Gospel was Hebrew.
         It has generally been assumed on insufficient grounds
         that this Hebrew was in fact Aramaic (commonly called
         Hebrew).
         (According to the Hebrews p. 241)

Many misconceptions have circulated concerning the Gospel according to the
Hebrews.  For example many scholars have attempted to make GH into several
documents.  These refer to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel
of the Nazarenes and the Gospel of the Ebionites as three different
documents.  However nowhere do the “Church Fathers” refer to a “Gospel of
the Ebionites”.  Epiphanius says that the Ebionites used the Gospel
according to the Hebrews” and never refers to a document titled “Gospel of
the Ebionites”.  The term “Gospel of the Nazarenes” is never used by the
“Church Fathers” either and only appears in the middle ages where it is
clearly a euphemism for the Gospel according to the Hebrews.  The
presumption that there were three documents called GH has taken root in
scholarship.  Part of the basis for this assumption is that Clement of
Alexander (who did not know Hebrew or Aramaic) quotes GH in Greek before
Jerome translated GH into Greek.   However it is quite possible that
Clement obtained his quotation from a secondary source who did know Hebrew
and that had quoted GH in ad hoc Greek, a secondary source which is now
unknown.  The fact that Clement of Alexander quotes the book in Greek
prior to Jerome’s translation is far to little evidence from which to
conclude multiple documents.

Another misconception is the presumption that thirteen readings in
marginal notes found in certain manuscripts of Greek Matthew and which
refer to alternate readings taken form “the Judaikon” (i.e. the “Jewish
version) refer to the Gospel according to the Hebrews.  While one of these
readings (a note to 18:22) agrees with the reading of GH as given by
Jerome (Against Pelag. III 2) that in itself is not enough evidence to
jump to the far reaching conclusion that the “Judaikon” is the same as GH.
  The “Judaikon” readings may also be readings from a Jewish (Hebrew or
Aramaic?) version of canonical Matthew and not to GH at all.

While there is no reason to presume that there were three different
Gospels called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, it is certainly clear
that Nazarenes and Ebionites used different versions of GH.  Epiphanius
describes the version of GH used by the Ebionites as “called ‘according to
Matthew’, which however is not wholly complete but falsified and
mutilated” (Pan. 30:13:2) however in speaking of the Nazarenes he refer to
the “Gospel of Matthew quite complete in Hebrew… preserved… as it was
first written, in Hebrew letters”  (Pan. 29:9:4).  So it would appear that
the Ebionite version of GH was “now wholly complete but falsified and
mutilated” while the Nazarene version was “quite complete… preserved… as
it was first written.”.  This explains why the Ebionite version omitted
the birth narrative and opened with the ministry of Yochanan (Pan.
30:13:6) while the Nazarene version is known to have included material
parallel to the first two chapters of Matthew.

There are also some important parallels between the Gospel according to
the Hebrews and our Hebrew and Aramaic versions of the Synoptic Gospels.
To begin with Jerome indicates that GH tended to agree with the Hebrew
Tanak against the Greek LXX in its quotations from the Tanak (Of
Illustrious Men 3).

In the account of the immersion of Yeshua GH as quoted by Epiphanius says
that the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) descended “in the form of a dove”.
This reading not only agrees with Luke (3:22) against Matthew (3:16) it
also agrees with DuTillet Hebrew Matthew and the Siniatic Old Syriac text
of Matthew 3:16.  GH as quoted by Jerome also says that the Ruch HaKodesh
“rested” upon Yeshua at this event.  This agrees with the Old Syriac
reading of Matthew 3:16 against Greek Matthew.  The Shem Tob Hebrew
Matthew similarly has that the Rucah HaKodesh “dwelt” upon Yeshua in Mt.
3:16.

There may also be a tendency of GH to agree with the Greek Western type
text of the canonical Gospels.  For example the immersion event GH (as
recorded by Epiphanius) has the voice say (in part) “I have this day
begotten you” which is also found in the Greek Western type text of Codex
D in Luke 3:22 (compare Ps. 2:7; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5).  Moreover GH
as cited by Jerome has the voice at the immersion of Yeshua speak “to him”
as does the Greek Western type text of Codex D in Mt. 3:17.   This is
important because as I have shown elsewhere the Greek Western type text is
the oldest most Semitic type of Greek text.


The Gospel according to the Hebrews: a Synoptic Source Document?

Many scholars have seen within GH possible answers to questions about
synoptic origins.

A. S. Barnes proposed an identification between GH and the Logia document
which many scholars closely associate with "Q".  Barnes writes:

         Is it possible seriously to maintain that there were two separate
         documents, each of them written at Jerusalem during the Apostolic
         age and in the Hebrew tounge, each of them assigned to the Apostle
         Matthew, and each of them dealing in some way with the Gospel story?
         Or are we not rather forced to the conclusion that these two
documents,
         whose descriptions are so strangely similar, must really be
identical,...
         (A. S. Barnes; The Gospel according to the Hebrews;
         Journal of Theological Studies 6 (1905) p. 361)

Pierson Parker concluded:

         ...the presence in this gospel of Lukan qualities and parallels,
         the absence from it of difinitive... Markan elements... all point
         to one conclusion, viz., that the source of the Gospel according
         to the Hebrews... was most closely related to sources underlying
         the non-Markan parts of Luke, that is, Proto-Luke.
         (Pierson Parker; A Proto-Lukan Basis for the Gospel according to
the Hebrews;
         Journal of Biblical Literature 59 (1940) p. 478)

And Hugh Schonfield concluded of GH:

         ...it may be argued that there has been dependence not of 'Hebrews'
         on the Synoptics but vice versa-- that 'Hebrews' was one of the
sources
         on which one or more of them drew.
         (Hugh Schonfield; According to the Hebrews; 13-18)

As this article will demonstrate, the Gospel according to the Hebrews does
indeed lie at the root of all four of our canonical Gospels.


Mark:  A Secondary Gospel

The original documentary theory claimed that Mattitiyahu and Luke were
dependent on a collection of sayings known as the Logia or as "Q". "Q" is
from the German word "Quelle" meaning "source" and a narrative document
usually identified as Mark. This may be illustrated as follows.

Streeter developed this theory further. He realized that Luke and
Mattitiyahu contained narratives in common which could not be found in
Mark. He attributed these to a third document, which he called
"Proto-Luke".  Proto-Luke was said to have had incorporated into it "Q",
the non-Markan  portions of Luke and the narrative material which Luke and
Matthew held in common.

The late Dr. Robert Lindsey made further observations. Lindsey points out
that the phrase "and immediately" occurs in Mark over 40 times. Luke
contains this phrase only once and then in a portion with no parallel in
Mark. Lindsey pointed out that it is unimaginable that Luke systematically
purged the phrase "and immediately" from every portion of Mark which he
used, especially since he uses the phrase himself elsewhere. This means
that Luke could not have copied from Mark and that Mark therefore copied
from Luke. If we eliminate all of the Lukan passages from Mark then almost
everything else can be found in Mattitiyahu. In fact only 31 verses of
Mark cannot be found in either Luke or Mattitiyahu. It is clear as a
result that Mark was compiled using Luke and Mattitiyahu. The following
three facts also support this conclusion:

1. When Mark and Matthew differ in chronology Luke agrees with Mark.

2. When Mark and Luke differ in Chronology, Matthew agrees with Mark.

3. Matthew and Luke never agree in chronology against Mark.

Mark therefore is secondary, compiled from Matthew and Luke with only 31
lines of original material. It plays no part in synoptic origins.


Matthew:  An Abridgement of the Gospel according to the Hebrews

The so-called “Church Fathers” do not hesitate in hinting to us that
Matthew’s source document was the Gospel according to the Hebrews.  Jerome
writes of GH:

         In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use
         which I have lately translated into Greek from the Hebrew
         and which is called by many people the original of Matthew…
         (Jerome; On Matt. 12:13)

Jerome is not the only “Church Father” to identify GH with Matthew.
Irenaeus says that the Ebionites used only the Gospel of Matthew (Heresies
1:26:2), Eusebius says they “used only the Gospel called according to the
Hebrews” (Eccl. Hist. 3:27:4) while Epiphanius says that the Ebionite
“Gospel” “…is called "Gospel according to Matthew, or Gospel according to
the Hebrews” (Panarion 30:16:4-5).  Moreover Jerome seems to refer to the
original Hebrew of Matthew and GH interchangeably.

This led Hugh Schonfield to conclude:

         My own opinion is that the canonical Gospel [of Matthew]
is an abridged edition of a larger work, of which fragments
still survive,… I believe that this Protevangel was written in
Hebrew, not in Aramaic,… Whatever may have been its
original title, we have early allusions to it under the name
of  “the Gospel” “the Gospel of the Lord,” “the Gospel of
the Twelve, or of the Apostles,” “the Gospel of the Hebrews”
and “the Hebrew Matthew.”
- Hugh J. Schonfield
(An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew’s Gospel; 1927 p. viii)
However ten years later Schonfield writes:

         The only difficulty in fact that stands in the way
         of accepting the Greek [of Matthew] as really
         translated from the Hebrew [of Matthew], instead
         of vice versa, is undoubtedly the irrefutable evidence
         that Greek Matthew has largely used Mark.
         - Hugh J. Schonfield
         (According to the Hebrews; 1937; p.248)

Schonfield finally comes to the conclusion of…

         …the strong probability that Hebrews was one
         of the sources of canonical Matthew.
         (ibid p. 254)

The pseudo-fact that Matthew used Mark as one of his sources (a theory
Lindsey has since disproven) is the only thing which held Schonfield back
from concluding that Greek Matthew is a translation of Hebrew Matthew and
that Hebrew Matthew was an abridgement of the Gospel according to the
Hebrews.  With the barrier of presumed Markan priority being removed we
may now adopt the logical conclusion that Schonfield hesitated from.


The Gospel according to the Hebrews as Luke’s Source

Now having explained the origin of Mark as secondary we need not look to
Mark as a primary Gospel source for Luke either.  Instead we need concern
ourselves only with Proto-Luke (and perhaps “Q”).  Proto-Luke or the
Proto-Narrative would be the common source behind Matthew and Luke,
explaining their common material.

Now we may easily conclude that the Gospel according to the Hebrews is the
Proto-Luke or Proto-Narrative which served as the common source for both
Luke and Matthew.

To begin with Luke admits to having had source documents when writing his
gospel (Luke 1:1-4).

Secondly we have already established that the Gospel according to the
Hebrews served as the source for canonical Matthew.  If Matthew and Luke
had a common source (which is clearly the case) then that source was
almost certainly the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

Finally several of the surviving readings from the Gospel according to the
Hebrews parallel Luke only and not Matthew.  For example only Luke gives
Yeshua’s age as being 30 (Lk. 3:23); only Luke includes the account of
Yeshua being comforted by an angel (Lk. 22:43); only Luke includes the
discussion about eating the Passover as described in Luke 22:45 and only
Luke includes Yeshua’s words at the crucifixion “father forgive them…”
(Lk. 23:34).  There are also Lukan elements even in the material that also
parallels Matthew.  As shown earlier the immersion account as cited by
Epiphanius also included the words “in the form of [a dove]” (as in Luke’s
account) and the phrase “I have this day begotten you”  (as in Luke’s
account in the Greek Western type text of Codex D).  In fact we should
expect that the Proto-Narrative would have readings which parallel Matthew
only, readings which parallel only Luke and readings which are common to
Matthew and Luke (and sometimes Mark) but should not expect readings which
parallel only Mark.  This is exactly the case with the Gospel according to
the Hebrews.


The Gospel according to the Hebrews and John

The Gospel of Yochanan (John) also seems to have made some use of the
Gospel according to the Hebrews but on a much smaller scale.  The GH
account that Yeshua “kissed the feet of each one of them” recalls the foot
washing of Jn. 13:5.  The account that one of the talmidim were known to
the High Priest also found in GH is found in John only (Jn. 18:15) and the
crucifixion as described in John 19 was said to parallel somewhat that of
GH.  Thus it appears that even the non-synoptic Gospel of John made some
use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews.


The Five Fold Gospel

While the Gospel according to the Hebrews is at the root of the four
canonical gospels, this in no way reduces the value of the four Gospels.
While the Gospel according to the Hebrews was the original Gospel used by
the Nazarenes (and in a variant form by Ebionites) other gospels were
fashioned to meet various needs.  I believe the four canonical Gospels
were composed to present the Gospel story to four specific non-Nazarene
groups.

I believe that Matthew was an abridgement of the GH designed to present
Yeshua as the Messiah to the Pharisee audience.  This is evidenced by: 1)
The many parallels with the wisdom sayings in the Mishna, Talmud,
Midrashim etc. 2) The frequent citations of the Tanak (128 quotations)
aimed at establishing the Messiahship of Yeshua. 3) The defense of
Nazarene Halachic authority (16:18-19; 18:18; 21:20-21, 23-27 & 23:1-34)
4) More discussion of halachic issues than any other Gospel (5:21-7:12;
9:14-17; 12:1-14; 15:1-6; 17:24-27; 19:3-9; 22:15-22; 23:1-34).

I believe that Luke used GH as a source document in writing a Gospel
account aimed at Sadducees.  The book of Luke was written originally to
Theophilus, who served as High Priest from 37 to 42 C.E.. Theophilus was
both a priest and a Sadducee. It would appear that the Gospel was intended
to be used by others as well and was likely targeted at Sadducee readers.
Theophilus was the son of Annas and the brother-in-law of Caiaphas, as a
result he grew up in the Temple. This explains many features of Luke. Luke
begins the story with an account of Zechariah the righteous priest who had
a vision of an angel at the Temple (1:5-25) he quickly moves on to an
account of Miriam's purification and Yeshua's redemption rituals at the
Temple (2:21-39) and then to the event of Yeshua teaching at the Temple at
the age of twelve (2:46). Luke makes no mention of Caiaphas' role in
Yeshua's crucifixion and emphasizes Yeshua's literal resurrection (24:39)
(Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead).

I believe that Mark used elements of Matthew and Luke to compile a
shortened simplified Gospel account for the Gentiles.  He probably wrote
the book for use by Aramaic speaking Syrians and Assyrians he encountered
while in Babylon with Kefa (1Kefa 5:13). Since Mark was addressing
Gentiles he did not include Yeshua's genealogy, the Semon on the Mount,
makes fewer quotations from the Tanak and makes less mention of Jewish
customs that the other Gospels.

I believe that John made some use of GH in composing a Gospel account
aimed at the Essenes.  This is evidenced by the fact that only Yochanan
reveals the fact that Yochanan the immerser had an (Essene) community of
talmidim living with him in the wilderness (Yochanan 1). This is further
evidenced by the mystical nature of Yochanan's account. (The Essenes were
mystics and in fact many scholars see the roots of what we now call
"Kabbalah" as stemming from the Essenes.).

The result was four Gospels which covered all four levels of understanding
of the original Gospel according to the Hebrews.  The Hebrew/Aramaic word
PARDES is spelled in Hebrew and Aramaic without vowels as PRDS. PaRDeS
refers to a park or garden, esp. the Garden of Eden.  The word PRDS is
also an acronym (called in Judaism "notarikon") for:

         [P]ashat (Heb. "simple") The plain, simple, literal level of
understanding.
         [R]emez (Heb. "hint") The implied level of understanding.
         [D]rash (Heb. "search") The allegorical, typological or
homiletically level of understanding.
         [S]od (Heb. "hidden") The hidden, secret or mystical level of
understanding.

These are the four levels of understanding. The Four Gospels each express
one of these four levels of understanding of The Gospel according to the
Hebrews. Each also expresses a different aspect of the Messiah and
corresponds to each of the four faces of the living beings in Ezekiel 1.

The Pashat Gospel is Mark. Mark presents the Messiah as the servant (the
servant who purifies the Goyim in Is. 52:13, 15) the "my servant the
Branch" of Zech.3:8 who is symbolized by the face of the Ox in Ezekiel 1
(the Ox being a servant, a beast of burden). Mark does not begin with an
account of the birth of Messiah as do Matthew and Luke because, unlike the
birth of a King, the birth of a servant is unimportant, all that is
important is his work as a servant which begins with his immersion by
Yochanan. Thus Mark's simplified account omits any account of Yeshua's
birth or preexistence and centers on his work as a servant who purifies
the Goyim.

The Remez Gospel is Luke. Luke wrote a more detailed account for the High
Priest Theophilus (a Sadducee). The Sadducees were rationalists and
sticklers for details. Luke presents Yeshua as the "Son of Man" and as
"the man whose name is the Branch" (Zech
6:12) who is presented as a High Priest and is symbolized by the face of
the man in Ezekiel 1. Luke wants to remind by remez (by implication) the
High Priest Theophilus about the redemption of the filthy High Priest
Joshua (Zech. 6) and its prophetic foreshadowing of a "man" who is a
Messianic "Priest" and who can purify even a
High Priest.

The Drash Gospel is Matthew. Matthew presents his account of Yeshua's life
as a Midrash to the Pharisees, as a continuing story tied to various
passages from the Tanak (for example Mt. 2:13-15 presents an allegorical
understanding of Hosea 11:1).. As a drash level account Matthew also
includes a number of parables in his account. Matthew presents Messiah as
the King Messiah, the Branch of David (Jer. 23:5-6 & Is. 11:1f) symbolized
by the face of the lion in Ezekiel 1.

The Sod Gospel is Yochanan (John). Yochanan addresses the Mystical Essene
sect and concerns himself with mystical topics like light, life, truth,
the way and the Word. Yochanan includes many Sod interpretations in his
account. For example Yochanan 1:1 presents a Sod understanding of Gen.
1:1. Yochanan 3:14; 8:28 & 12:32 present a Sod understanding of Num. 21:9
etc.).


Conclusion

The Gospel according to the Hebrews which was the “especial delight of
those of the Hebrews who have accepted Messiah” was a primary source
document either directly or indirectly for all four of our canonical
Gospels.  The Gospel of Matthew was an abridgement of that Gospel made
originally to bring the message of Yeshua to the Pharisees.  The Gospel of
Luke was drawn largely from GH and was composed to present the message of
Yeshua to the Sadducees.  The Gospel of Mark was compiled from Matthew and
Luke in order to present a shorter, simpler account to the Gentiles.  And
the Gospel of John made some use of GH in composing a Gospel account aimed
at the Essene community.  The resulting four Gospels covered all of the
levels of understanding (PaRDeS) of the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Mark gives us the pashat, Luke the remez, Matthew the drash and John the
Sod.  Thus the four canonical Gospels provide us with a complete
understanding of the Gospel according to the Hebrews which lies at the
root of all of them.

James Trimm
http://www.hebraicrootsversion.com




Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

 
Now, about the next sentence of the continuing quote, is my first question:
 
L:
'Unfortunately for Schleiermacher, logia here means "what the Lord said
or did", not just "sayings" (she refer to G. Kittel, logian (in Greek), TDNT,
4.141).
 
So my question 1)
 
Is she correct in this?

 
Somebody has IN GERMAN for me what Schleiermacher has exactly said
in these matters (or the references where to find his statements)? And again,
is she correctly rendering his view?

 
Now the words 'have Weisse to thank for' and 'lie' in the last sentence of the
quote may be a bit coloured (judgemental language), but still my (3d) question
is:
 
What is correct (or possibly incorrect) in what she is saying on Weisse?

 
I'll be happy to have some comments from list members.
 
I have never felt comfortable with source theories thus ar, because is seems they
are ALL not able to give fully satisfying explanations on possible relationship(s)
between the synoptic texts( I myself include Gospel of John among the
synoptics as an literary independent entity).

 
We maybe have to go back to theories that explain the phenomena from
general literary INDEPENDENCE of all the four classical gospels?

 
A new swing back of the pendulum, after Peter Hofrichter has suggested in "Johannes,
Modell und Vorlage der Synoptiker" " has proposed literary dependence of all the synoptic
gospels on the Gospel of John??

At 07:49 AM 9/1/2004 +0100, Ron Price wrote:
>Kloppenborg had written in NTS:
>>"Luke's supposed dependence on Mark is not any less hypothetical than Luke's
>>dependence on Q, merely because we have third-century manuscripts of Mark."
>
>Stephen Carlson wrote:
>>  Rather than condemn Klopp.et al. for a strawman .....
>
>  I think this is being too soft on him. An eminent scholar should not
>descend to making an exaggerated claim just because some of his opponents
>make exaggerated claims. In making the comparison between Q and the
>archetype of Mark, Kloppenborg evidently intended to try to demolish the
>argument that the hypothetical nature of Q should be counted as a factor
>against the 2ST. Kloppenborg's statement is misleading and we should see
>through it.

OK, I've re-read Kloppenborg's statement in context.  He is criticizing
a statement by Austin Farrer for not realizing that Luke's dependence
on Mark is a hypothesis too, as is the existence of Q.  Kloppenborg's
criticism of A. Farrer still stands but it would have been analytically
neater and, in fact, less confusing if he had written instead "first-
century manuscripts of Mark" or even "have manuscripts of Mark."  Thus,
I don't see Kloppenborg as logically fallacious or even intentionally
misleading, but it would be a fair criticism that his use of "third-
century" was less relevant than its pragmatic weight that detail would
normally imply to his readers.

I agree with Kloppenborg's point that a supposition of dependence should
also count as a hypothesis.  I also feel that one shouldn't compare
hypothetical apples with hypothetical oranges.  In other words, I don't
know how to balance off a hypothesis of dependence with a hypothetical
text.  In mathematical terms, the comparison may only involve a partial
ordering.

Fortunately, in the case of the FT vs. the 2ST, we don't have solve this
philosophical conundrum: the Farrer Theory has both fewer hypotheses of
dependence and fewer hypotheses of lost sources.  For example, the FT
posits three hypotheses of dependence (Mk->Mt, Mk->Lk, Mt->Lk) versus
four (Mk->Mt, Mk->Lk, Q->Mt, and Q->Lk) for the 2ST.  Also, the 2ST has
one additional hypothetical source (Q) that the FT lacks.  Whether or
not one should also count the autographs of Matt., Mark, and Luke as
hypothetical entities, the effect applies equally to the FT and the
2ST and effectively cancels out.

>  Perhaps the inclusion of such a dubious statement shows that he has been
>rattled by Goodacre's case against Q.

I don't know Kloppenborg well enough to conclude that (I've talked with
him only about a half-dozen times).  In fact, he strikes me as one of
the most fair-minded supporters of the 2ST active today.  I do, however,
acknowledge noticing that Kloppenborg more than once criticized various
logical errors people have made before conceding that Goodacre did not
in fact make those errors.  It is not fully clear whether this helps
or hurts Goodacre overall, but I suspect the latter.  The criticisms
are first and the disavowals come later, so the negative guilt-by-
association effect should be making a stronger impression on the reader.

I don't think that this subtle rhetorical effect is intentional, though.
In fact, I can see clear didactical reasons for quashing common mistakes
that non-specialists would make at the offset before getting into the
nuances.  Because Kloppenborg is one of the best teachers in the field
(just look at the quality of his students), pedagogy, not some devious
sophistry, is what is most probably driving Kloppenborg.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson@...
Weblog:    http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

At 08:38 PM 9/1/2004 +0200, Frides Laméris wrote:
>Having gotten (real) interest in the synoptic problem
>only recently, I would like to bring up some questions
>on the status of Q, an element in Synoptic Studies
>which is rather baffling to me and not only to me it seems.

Welcome!  I got bitten by the synoptic problem
bug just about 10 years ago, and I'm baffled
more now than when I began.

>I got hold of Mark Goodacre's book 'The case against Q',
>from which it becomes clear that some synoptic theorists
>can very well do without Q in trying to explain commonality
>in synoptic material(s).
>It also has become clear to me from Marks book that
>at least in the US Q has received almost a 'cult status'
>(my words), while objectively there seems to exist no sound
>(historic) basis to this postulated documentary source at all.
>For some the thing seems like a phantom. Others (e.g.
>Goulder) speak of  Q as 'a juggernaut.' Former Bultmannian,
>and now turned evangelical, Mrs. Eta Linnemann, is even more
>harsh in her comments on the supposed (non) existence of Q.

Yes, but please realize that Linnemann is also
against *any* literary relationships between
and among the synoptic gospels.

* * *

>L:
>'Unfortunately for Schleiermacher, logia here means "what the Lord said
>or did", not just "sayings" (she refer to G. Kittel, logian (in Greek), TDNT,
>4.141).
>
>So my question 1)
>
>Is she correct in this?

Linnemann's statement certainly reflects a common and
wide-spread understanding of the term LOGIA as used
in that context (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15-16).
In fact, it is an understanding I used to fully share
until Dieter Lührmann's essay in THE GOSPEL BEHIND
THE GOSPELS caused me to re-evaluate the question,
which is still very much open for me.

>Now continuing the quote:
>
>"Schleiermacher proposed that Matthew only wrote the sayings, not the gospel
>itself, a view lacking support in both ancient church tradition and Matthew's
>gospel. There are simply no grounds for distinguishing between the gospel and
>some sayings-source. If one were to sort out all 'sayings', the result does not
>resemble what is called Q today. For Q does not contain all the "sayings"
>found in Matthews gospel, nor does it merely consist of 'sayings".
>
>My second question:
>
>Somebody has IN GERMAN for me what Schleiermacher has exactly said
>in these matters (or the references where to find his statements)? And again,
>is she correctly rendering his view?

The cite I have is Friedrich Ernst Daniel Schleiermacher,
"Über die Zeugnisse des Papias von unsern beiden ersten
Evangelien," Theologische Studien und Kritiken (1832): 361-
392.  His conclusion on Papias is on p. 365.  H.-H. Stoldt's
German edition should have some German-language quotes.

>Now, Linnemann in her next paragraph opens frontal attack on the Two-Source
>Hypothesis, and from there I'll formulate my third and last question.
>
>She continues in her article:
>
>"Christian Hermann Weisse (..), founder of the two-source theory, was the first
>to build on Schleiermacher's error (she refers in a note to Stoldt, History and
>criticism of the Marcan Hypothesis, 1980). 'Contrary to Schleiermacher, Weisse
>claimed the sayings source as a source for Luke's gospel as well, misusing
>Schleiermachers authority, who had argued the opposite (in a note again a
reference
>to Stoldt, 50). 'And so the infamous Q made its debut in the theological world.
>We likewise have Weisse to thank for the invention of the Lachmann fallacy
>(note to Stoldt), which wrongly asserts that Lachmann proved that Mark was
>the source for Matthew and Luke, when in fact Lachmann said the opposite.
>The world- renowned two-source theory, the basis for perhaps forty percent
>of so called NT-science today, was therefore founded on both an error
>(Schleiermacher's) and a lie (Weisse's)." - End quote -
>
>Now the words 'have Weisse to thank for' and 'lie' in the last sentence of the
>quote may be a bit coloured (judgemental language), but still my (3d) question
>is:
>
>What is correct (or possibly incorrect) in what she is saying on Weisse?

Linnemann is too dependent on Stoldt's tendentious
misreading of Weisse.  Weisse extended Schleiermacher's
concept to Luke, which is certainly legitimate if
reasons for the extrapolation are given.  The main
reason why Schl. did not himself apply his idea to
Luke is his 1834 death.

>I have never felt comfortable with source theories thus ar, because is seems
they
>are ALL not able to give fully satisfying explanations on possible
relationship(s)
>between the synoptic texts( I myself include Gospel of John among the
>synoptics as an literary independent entity).

Some explanations, though, are more satisfying than
others.

>We maybe have to go back to theories that explain the phenomena from
>general literary INDEPENDENCE of all the four classical gospels?

This is probably the least satisfactory explanation
of the literary facts.

>A new swing back of the pendulum, after Peter Hofrichter has suggested in
"Johannes,
>Modell und Vorlage der Synoptiker" " has proposed literary dependence of all
the synoptic
>gospels on the Gospel of John??

It wouldn't solve the synoptic problem, though, which is
to explain how Matthew, Mark, and Luke relate to each other.
Bringing John into the mix sets up the Johannine problem,
and there is precious little evidence to support literary
dependence of all three on John (the relationship between
Matthew and John is particularly difficult).

Stephen Carlson

--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson@...
Weblog:    http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

  YOU:

No, there clearly is some sort of interdependence.  We just cant trace the family tree (probably because theres too much inbreeding).

I am struggling these days with theories of Paul Anderson on possible interrelationship(s) between the gospels.

There are many options. Anyway, the term literary (in)dependence should be(come) better defined.

Linnemann 1992 (Is there a synoptic Problem), whose excellent scientific PAST cannot be denied, is emphatic

on that. Even from great similarities in (two) texts, one should not hastily jump to conclusions of literary dependence.

If we think, gospel writers were plagarianists, we first have to see wat rules underly writing up plagarian texts generally

in time related documents.

As far as I know Linneman has also been first in providing a table of 'seven types of literary dependence', so that one

does not run down to a text with a too simple (in)dependence definition.

 

Here one point of myself (and of several other theologians of course):

 

If we think many things in gospel texts cannot stem from memory based actual history, maybe more research

has to be done of the role of memory itself, etc. etc.

 

Wishing you all the best

 

P.S. I do take questions!

 

Frides Laméris

Zuidlaren (Home)

Netherlands.

 

Hi Stephen,

----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
To: Frides Laméris <flameris@...>; <Synoptic-L@...>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 6:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The status of Q and (of) the Two-Source Theory

Thanks for your welcome to the list
and the references!

I'll try to get hold of the German version of Stoldts criticism of the
Markan Hypothesis and see if the Schleiermacher texts are also
available in the library.

Stephen:
> Yes, but please realize that Linnemann is also
> against *any* literary relationships between
> and among the synoptic gospels.

As long as there are no aprioris build in into the possible literary
(in)dependence, there are chances traces can be found of such a
relationship between (gospel) texts. Because thusfar however, after almost
a few hundreds years of critical research, definite results of the
dependence
approach seem to be minimal (who would dare to say: as far as proofed
  certainty is concerned  almost nil), the better chances may  at last be for
more traditional approaches which reckon with a minimum of LITERARY
dependence.
(For the problems around the definition of 'literary dependence', please see
my post
of today to Jim West).

I wish we had a simple example (one to start with!); describe all the
different approaches;
list the different presuppositions; have them rated as to their weight, do
some more
necessary steps, and create the (mathematical)  formula which gives an
evaluation of the (relative) strength(s) and weaknes(ses) of all the
explanations/approaches!

I was once told in mathematics one tends to go for solutions that are
most simple and elegant.

Maybe somebody can also work out some software which could do the
job sketched above. I'll leave that with pleasure to the (paid) experts!

Independent greetings to all

Frides Laméris
Zuidlaren (Home)
Netherlands





Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Frides Laméris wrote (in response to Carlson):

>As long as there are no aprioris build in into the possible literary
(in)dependence, there are chances traces can be found of such a relationship
between (gospel) texts. Because thusfar however, after almost a few hundreds
years of critical research, definite results of the dependence approach seem to
be minimal (who would dare to say: as far as proofed certainty is concerned 
almost nil), the better chances may  at last be for more traditional approaches
which reckon with a minimum of LITERARY dependence.
>
Definite results of the dependence approach are *not* minimal, as far as
demonstrating the fact of dependence is concerned.  What is up in the
air is not the question of dependence but the *direction* of dependence,
which is a different matter altogether.  You cannot turn the unsettled
state of the latter into an unsettling of the former.

Frides Laméris wrote (in response to West):

>Even from great similarities in (two) texts, one should not hastily jump to
conclusions of literary dependence. . . . If we think many things in gospel
texts cannot stem from memory based actual history, maybe more research has to
be done of the role of memory itself, etc. etc.
>
Have no fear, I've come to save the day: just read my article on
"Memory, Written Sources, and the Synoptic Problem: A Response to Robert
K. McIver and Marie Carroll" in the most recent *Journal of Biblical
Literature*.  (It will help you sleep more soundly.)


John C. Poirier
Middletown, Ohio



Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Is Kephas a common name ?

a short note in " Peter in the New Testament" (n. 42, p. 113 in french
version),
the authors say that Peter-Kephas was not common either in greek,
arameen or
hebrew.
Some interrogations :
-- Is this true ?
-- is Caïphe an equivalent of Kephas ?
-- what is the hebrew version of Kephas ?

I ask the question because this note is not affirmative on the subject.

a+
   manu



Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

At 03:07 PM 9/2/2004 +0200, Frides Laméris wrote:
>As long as there are no aprioris build in into the possible literary
>(in)dependence, there are chances traces can be found of such a
>relationship between (gospel) texts. Because thusfar however, after almost
>a few hundreds years of critical research, definite results of the
>dependence approach seem to be minimal (who would dare to say: as far as
>proofed certainty is concerned  almost nil), the better chances may  at last
>be for more traditional approaches which reckon with a minimum of LITERARY
>dependence.

I think that Jack Poirier has already pointed that there is a
big difference between the fact of some literary interdependence
and the direction of that relationship.  I would also dispute the
idea that independence is "more traditional" than dependence,
because Augustine assumed dependence in his discussion of the
agreement of the gospels.

>I wish we had a simple example (one to start with!); describe all the
>different approaches; list the different presuppositions; have them rated as
>to their weight, do some more necessary steps, and create the (mathematical)
>formula which gives an evaluation of the (relative) strength(s) and
>weaknes(ses) of all the explanations/approaches!

At my web site, I have enumerated (based on a computer program) a list of
1488 viable, documentary solutions to the synoptic problem, with 0, 1,
or 2 relevant hypothetical documents.  (Independence is not one of them.)

See http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/enum.htm

>I was once told in mathematics one tends to go for solutions that are
>most simple and elegant.
>
>Maybe somebody can also work out some software which could do the
>job sketched above. I'll leave that with pleasure to the (paid) experts!

The hard part is not the software, but devising a formula that can
reasonably evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the
possible solutions.

Stephen
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson@...
Weblog:    http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

On Sep 16, 2004, at 1:34 AM, Tim Lewis wrote:

> Are there other documents around that share enough similarity together
> that we would be certian of documentary dependence? Among the
> synoptics, documentary (inter)dependence should still be considered
> hypothetical. Granting that the 1) common material 2) common phrasing
> of the material and 3) common sequence of the material, points
> to dependence as more sensible (than independence), is surely an
> acceptable working hypothesis if we do not have reason to believe that
> independent documents about Jesus would share such agreements. So do
> we have for comparison other examples where it seems certain that
> documentary dependence explains similarities? 

I received a couple mid-term papers last year that clearly had a
documentary dependence. :)  Later investigation provided corroborating
evidence, and these two papers weren't nearly as similar as any two
synoptics.

Not sure precisely what point you're raising, Tim.  I am not aware of
any argument against a literary interdependence among the synoptics.

Joe Weaks

**************************************************************
Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
Ph.D. (Cand.), Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
j.weaks@...
**************************************************************

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

---

Are there other documents around that share enough similarity together that we would be certian of documentary dependence? Among the synoptics, documentary (inter)dependence should still be considered hypothetical. Granting that the 1) common material 2) common phrasing of the material and 3) common sequence of the material, points to dependence as more sensible (than independence), is surely an acceptable working hypothesis if we do not have reason to believe that independent documents about Jesus would share such agreements. So do we have for comparison other examples where it seems certain that documentary dependence explains similarities? 

 

Tim Lewis