Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Browse Groups

• ## Re: [Synoptic-L] The Existence of Q

(29)
• NextPrevious
• ... If you could eliminate the possibility that dependence of A and B on a common source as unlikely, then I would agree with you that the presence of A s
Message 1 of 29 , Mar 1, 2001
View Source
At 07:42 PM 2/28/01 +0000, Ron Price wrote:
> My example quoted at the top was intended as a case where the
>dependence of A and B on a common source was unlikely, on the basis that
>a literary characteristic of an author is unlikely to have been copied
>from any source. Therefore (my argument goes) the author of A probably
>did not take the pericope concerned from a common source, nor, on the
>same basis, did (s)he take it from B. More positively, B probably took
>it from A.

If you could eliminate the possibility that dependence of A and
B on a common source as unlikely, then I would agree with you
that the presence of A's literary characteristic in B would
indicate that B took it from A. I just would like to know how
one could eliminate indirect dependence on a common source as
unlikely.

I would suggest that the burden of proof belongs to one asserting
that there is a indirect dependence on a common source. This is
because in any apparent A --> B direct dependence relationship one
could always posit an A' nearly identical to A (e.g. the third
KAI is changed to DE and vice versa) and assert an A <-- A' --> B
relationship of indirect dependence on a common source, viz. A.

That is why I sketched three arguments as possible ways to meet
that burden. I'm not sure I'm entirely happy that their formulation.
For example, is the argument from contradictory priority indicators
really a form of the argument about silence?

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
"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@...
• ... Stephen, Perhaps I didn t make myself clear. I ll have to resort to an example. Suppose we come across a novel by an unknown author with no indication of
Message 1 of 29 , Mar 1, 2001
View Source
Stephen Carlson wrote:

>If you could eliminate the possibility that dependence of A and
>B on a common source as unlikely, then I would agree with you
>that the presence of A's literary characteristic in B would
>indicate that B took it from A. I just would like to know how
>one could eliminate indirect dependence on a common source as
>unlikely.

Stephen,
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'll have to resort to an example.
Suppose we come across a novel by an unknown author with no indication
of its date of publication. In the middle of the novel we come across
the phrase: "to boldly go where no man has gone before".
As in the synoptic case, there are three main possibilities.
(1) Star Trek copied it from the novel.
(2) The novel copied it from Star Trek
(3) Star Trek and the novel are dependent on a common source for the
phrase.
Which is the most likely? I would guess in this case that there is of
the order of 99% probability that the novel copied from Star Trek. What
do you think?

Returning to the synoptics, "weeping and gnashing of teeth" and
ANQRWPOS+noun (each 6 times in Mt) are sufficiently strange that if
there were no other considerations we might reasonably allocate in each
case a modest above average probability (say something around 80%) that
the odd Lukan occurrence arose from Luke copying Matthew. Of course this
probability would increase if we were really confident on other grounds
(which I think we should be) that Luke knew Matthew.

Ron Price

Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

e-mail: ron.price@...

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@...
• Stephen Carlson wrote: I would suggest that the burden of proof belongs to one asserting that there is a indirect dependence on a common source. This is
Message 1 of 29 , Mar 1, 2001
View Source
Stephen Carlson wrote:

I would suggest that the burden of proof belongs to one asserting
that there is a indirect dependence on a common source. This is
because in any apparent A --> B direct dependence relationship one
could always posit an A' nearly identical to A (e.g. the third
KAI is changed to DE and vice versa) and assert an A <-- A' --> B
relationship of indirect dependence on a common source, viz. A.

===============

I tend to see it the other way around. If minor differences suggest
an A' slightly diffrent that A, then this should be enough to establish
at least probable existance of A'.

This is because, A <-- A' --> B , explains slightly more features than
A --> B. That makes it the better scientific hypothesis.

If one wished to use Occam's razor to slice out A', then it seems one would
have to show that every feature that A' claims to explain, can be EQUALLY
WELL
explained by only using A.

Dave Gentile
Riverside, Illinois
847-286-3624

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• ... It seems to me that all three options are possible. The main thing going for option (2) is that Star Trek was disseminated very widely and the novel was
Message 1 of 29 , Mar 1, 2001
View Source
At 09:05 PM 3/1/01 +0000, Ron Price wrote:
> Suppose we come across a novel by an unknown author with no indication
>of its date of publication. In the middle of the novel we come across
>the phrase: "to boldly go where no man has gone before".
> As in the synoptic case, there are three main possibilities.
>(1) Star Trek copied it from the novel.
>(2) The novel copied it from Star Trek
>(3) Star Trek and the novel are dependent on a common source for the
>phrase.
> Which is the most likely? I would guess in this case that there is of
>the order of 99% probability that the novel copied from Star Trek. What
>do you think?

It seems to me that all three options are possible. The main
thing going for option (2) is that Star Trek was disseminated
very widely and the novel was not. Therefore, there are more
opportunities for the novel to use Star Trek than for reverse
to happen (or for the unknown common source to be used).

Here's where the analogy to the synoptics breaks down: we
don't know how widely disseminated the gospels were in the
first century.

> Returning to the synoptics, "weeping and gnashing of teeth" and
>ANQRWPOS+noun (each 6 times in Mt) are sufficiently strange that if
>there were no other considerations we might reasonably allocate in each
>case a modest above average probability (say something around 80%) that
>the odd Lukan occurrence arose from Luke copying Matthew. Of course this
>probability would increase if we were really confident on other grounds
>(which I think we should be) that Luke knew Matthew.

I believe the standard answer is that Matthew saw "weeping and
gnashing of teeth" the one time in Q, liked it, and recycled it
several times, while Luke did not take a fancy to it. This
phrase is sufficiently striking to conclude that there may be
some kind of literary link, but I am unable to distinguish
whether it is original to Matthew or derived and inspired from
Q, Luke, or other source.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
"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@...
• ... Stephen, But there is other evidence that Luke knew Matthew, evidence which is completely independent of the claimed Mattheanisms: weeping and gnashing of
Message 1 of 29 , Mar 2, 2001
View Source
I wrote:

>> Suppose we come across a novel by an unknown author with no indication
>>of its date of publication. In the middle of the novel we come across
>>the phrase: "to boldly go where no man has gone before".
>> As in the synoptic case, there are three main possibilities.
>>(1) Star Trek copied it from the novel.
>>(2) The novel copied it from Star Trek
>>(3) Star Trek and the novel are dependent on a common source for the
>>phrase.
>> Which is the most likely? I would guess in this case that there is of
>>the order of 99% probability that the novel copied from Star Trek. What
>>do you think?

Stephen Carlson replied:

>It seems to me that all three options are possible. The main
>thing going for option (2) is that Star Trek was disseminated
>very widely and the novel was not .......
>Here's where the analogy to the synoptics breaks down: we
>don't know how widely disseminated the gospels were in the
>first century.

Stephen,
But there is other evidence that Luke knew Matthew, evidence which is
completely independent of the claimed Mattheanisms: "weeping and
gnashing of teeth" and ANQRWPOS+noun. There's Luke 1:1. There's the
naming and framing of the Sermon on the Plain which looks as if it's
based on the Sermon on the Mount. There are the double tradition
pericopae which seem to be dependent on their Matthean context, as Mark
Goodacre is rightly keen to point out. All this evidence relates to the
specific case, and is at least as strong in favour of Luke's knowledge
of Matthew, as the dissemination of Star Trek is in favour of the
novel's knowledge of Star Trek, especially bearing in mind that in our
analogy as stated we do not know whether the novel was published before
or after the first episode of Star Trek.
We have no need to consider the general dissemination of the gospels
in the first century, unless you can show that Luke's knowledge of
Matthew is distinctly unlikely from a dissemination point of view, which
I'm sure you can't. The above evidence for Luke's knowledge of Matthew
tells us everything we need to know about the dissemination of Matthew,
i.e. a copy found its way to Luke.
Thus the analogy holds, unless anyone can come up with a better
argument against it.

Ron Price

Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

e-mail: ron.price@...

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@...
• Answer to Peter Kirby : # My theory is that the author of Luke did not believe in the virgin birth. Boismard dedicates an ex-cursus to this point of view in
Message 1 of 29 , Mar 2, 2001
View Source
Answer to Peter Kirby :

# My theory is that the author of Luke did not believe in the virgin birth.

Boismard dedicates an ex-cursus to this point of view in "L'evangile
de l'enfance selon le proto-Luc" (childhood Gospel according proto-Luke)
Gabalda 1997.

Even if you disagree his use of Pepys harmony, he sumarizes
old arguments and provides new one, that may join your point
of view. Particularly, Mary follows the schema of the old
sterile woman (for instance : magnificat), and in a previous
edition she was closer to Elizabeth.

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

Reading your essays ("priority of Mark" and "Existence of Q"),
I do not find the quality of your work on Testimonium Flavianum.
You neglect in both essays to answer the common objection to your
position.

I compare these new works with your dissertation on Testimonium
Flavianum, that remain for me one of the best study on that topic :
You did not conclude on Testimonium Flavianum before giving a large
overview of all points of view and arguments on the question.

In your new essays, I do not find references and answer to classical
objections opposed to markan priority and 2 ST. How do you deal with
them ? For instance, how do you deal with the Lukanian vocabulary we
find sometime in Mark ?

a+
manu

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• ... indication ... Ed Tyler: If I may offer the following pedestrian observation: In the year 2001, in America at least, it is entirely possible that the
Message 1 of 29 , Mar 2, 2001
View Source
> > At 09:05 PM 3/1/01 +0000, Ron Price wrote:
> > > Suppose we come across a novel by an unknown author with no
indication
> > >of its date of publication. In the middle of the novel we come across
> > >the phrase: "to boldly go where no man has gone before".
> > > As in the synoptic case, there are three main possibilities.
> > >(1) Star Trek copied it from the novel.
> > >(2) The novel copied it from Star Trek
> > >(3) Star Trek and the novel are dependent on a common source for the
> > >phrase.
> > > Which is the most likely? I would guess in this case that there is of
> > >the order of 99% probability that the novel copied from Star Trek. What
> > >do you think?
> >

Stephen Carlson replies:

> > It seems to me that all three options are possible. The main
> > thing going for option (2) is that Star Trek was disseminated
> > very widely and the novel was not. Therefore, there are more
> > opportunities for the novel to use Star Trek than for reverse
> > to happen (or for the unknown common source to be used).
> >
> > Here's where the analogy to the synoptics breaks down: we
> > don't know how widely disseminated the gospels were in the
> > first century.
> >

Ed Tyler:

If I may offer the following pedestrian observation: In the year 2001, in
America at least, it is entirely possible that the immediate source of the
saying "to
boldly go where no man has gone before" is an oral tradition encountered by
the author. Star Trek is no longer as widely disseminated in program form
as it was, but "Trekkies" abound. They transmit the Star Trek tradition
independently of the original television series or its later syndicated

I bring this up because in a Folklore class I taught a couple of years ago a
student did a project on the folkloristics of the trekkie phenomenon. A
semi-scientific poll she took on campus revealed that a startling proportion
of
students had never seen an episode of the original Star Trek, although
nearly all knew of the "to boldly go where no man has gone before" motto,
Vulcans, Klingons, etc., and could name the primary characters of the series.
(Even those who had never seen an episode knew who Kirk, Spock, Uhuru and
Scotty were.) In fact, the phrase "Beam me up Scotty" was even more widely
recognized than "to boldly go where no man has gone before." They had
gleaned this information from Star Trek's generally immanent role in our
culture and through oral tradition; even most of the students who had seen
episodes of the series said that their primary sources of knowledge on Star
Trek were oral tradition and allusions to it in popular culture.

Because sayings like "to boldly go where no man has gone before," "Beam me
up. Scotty," and "Blessed are the poor" are easily circulated verbatim
without recourse to fixed texts (written or video format), it is difficult
to
establish the source of any given written instance. While in the case above
the TV series Star Trek would likely be the original source for the saying,
the author of our hypothetical novel could quite easily have come across it
without ever having seen an episode.

> best,
>
> Ed Tyler
> Baton Rouge, LA

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
• Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
• Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.