Browse Groups

• ## Re: [Synoptic-L] Speculation on 3SH, 200 and 202

(19)
• NextPrevious
• Well, first let me say I think the FH is not ruled out by the results, but I do think the version of the 3SH I described is more likely than the FH on a couple
Feb 20, 2002 1 of 19
View Source
Well, first let me say I think the FH is not ruled out by the results, but
I do think the version of the
3SH I described is more likely than the FH on a couple of points based on
the results.

First, I doubt that genre is a very large factor, and I do think it would
have to be a large factor for the separation between the 211 group and 200
group we observe to be called expected. But since I can't demonstrate that
genre is of relatively minor importance, let's assume genre is a large
factor for now. What might we expect on the FH and 3SH?

One difference is the behavior of 102-002.
On the FH 102 is written by Luke and mostly sayings.
002 is written by Luke and partly sayings.
We would expect a relation here, but find none.
Compare this to 200-201 and 200-202 where 201/202 are mostly sayings, and
200 is only partly sayings, and we see a relation. On the other hand, on
the 3SH 102 is mostly Q, so we would expect it to group with 202, and not
much with Luke.
So whether genre is important or not, the 3SH does better here.

The connection between 102-202 is quite natural on the 3SH. They are both
mostly Q.
On the FH we note that while 102 does connect to 202,
it does not connect to 200 or 201, so besides genre we have to add that 102
looks in particular like 202 because 202 contains "favored" words. Also 102
has about the same connection to 202 as 201 does to 202. While genre might
push 102 and 202 together, they should still be farther apart than 202-201
on the FH. On the 3SH "about equal" is what we expect. So again the 3SH
does better.

I think the implications of the study for the FH are mixed. 212-211 and
200-202 are certainly a big positives,
but the behavior of 102 seems to be a negative.

Dave Gentile
Riverside, Illinois
M.S. Physics
Ph.D. Management Science candidate

On 20 Feb 2002 at 10:22, dgentil@... wrote:

> The only thing that bothers me a little is that if 202/200 was at
> least in substantial part from Matthew, we might expect to see more of
> a connection to the 211 group. The only connection is a
> non-significant one between 201 and 211.
>
> However, if 202/200 is mostly the sayings source, and it had a very
> distinct style, the lack of connection to the Matthew group, might be
> expected.

Could this be an occasion where we need to remember genre issues
alongside source issues? I'd actually have expected to see results
like this on the Farrer theory, for example, given the preponderance
of sayings material in both 202 and 200. One would expect some
distance from the triple tradition material, which has a
preponderance of narrative.

> What I'm looking for here, is the solution that is most probable based
> on the results. Rather that trying to say certain possibilities are
> eliminated, I'd rather say the results support certain types of
> solutions over others. Currently I'd say the simplest solution that is
> a candidate for the "most likely" is the 3SH with the 4th document
> containing something like an sQ & a lot of 200 as well.

Or is the simplest solution Farrer, once we've granted that the genre
issues we were expecting to turn up have turned up?

Mark
-----------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
Birmingham B15 2TT UK

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• ... The interesting thing about the saying material is that it is one part of the gospels that the evangelists present as not their own words. Rather, the
Feb 20, 2002 1 of 19
View Source
At 09:14 PM 2/20/2002 -0000, Mark Goodacre wrote:
>Could this be an occasion where we need to remember genre issues
>alongside source issues? I'd actually have expected to see results
>like this on the Farrer theory, for example, given the preponderance
>of sayings material in both 202 and 200. One would expect some
>distance from the triple tradition material, which has a
>preponderance of narrative.

The interesting thing about the saying material is that it is
one part of the gospels that the evangelists present as not their
own words. Rather, the saying material is presented as Jesus's
words. Unless Goulder is correct that many of the sayings are
the evangelists' own creation, we should not expect the sayings
to have the same style as the surrounding narrative.

Perhaps the commonality behind the 202-102 connection is
simply oral tradition. Where Luke deviates from Matthew's
which is Matthew's source.

The reason why the 200-202 is there is due to oral tradition
rather than Matthean creation. The reason why the 202-002 is
not there is due to the large amount of narrative material
in Luke 1-2, which would obliterate the commonality effects
with Luke's special saying material (alternatively, attest
to Luke's creation of some of the L material).

Perhaps we could test these ideas by looking at which words
are responsible for the connection.

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@...
• ... Farrer ... This is an interesting point. Would it imply conservatism in the early church concerning sayings attributed to Jesus? Or: Would it imply use of
Feb 20, 2002 1 of 19
View Source
Mark Goodacre wrote:

> >Could this be an occasion where we need to remember
> >genre issues alongside source issues? I'd actually
> >have expected to see results like this on the
Farrer
> >theory, for example, given the preponderance of
> >sayings material in both 202 and 200. One would
> >expect some distance from the triple tradition
> >material, which has a preponderance of narrative.

Stephen C. Carlson replied:

> The interesting thing about the saying material is
> that it is one part of the gospels that the
> evangelists present as not their own words. Rather,
> the saying material is presented as Jesus's words.

This is an interesting point.

Would it imply conservatism in the early church
concerning sayings attributed to Jesus?

Or:

Jesus's sayings?

Also, would it be possible to use Dave's statistical
approach to compare this style mentioned above to the
style of sayings attributed to Jesus in other NT
writings? Or what about Jesus's sayings in "The Gospel
of Thomas"?

Jeffery Hodges

=====
Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
Yangsandong 411
South Korea

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• ... I thought about this, but the problem is that the bulk of Thomas is preserved only in Coptic and Dave s method requires Greek words. Stephen Carlson --
Feb 20, 2002 1 of 19
View Source
At 09:28 PM 2/20/2002 -0800, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:
>Also, would it be possible to use Dave's statistical
>approach to compare this style mentioned above to the
>style of sayings attributed to Jesus in other NT
>writings? Or what about Jesus's sayings in "The Gospel
>of Thomas"?

bulk of Thomas is preserved only in Coptic and
Dave's method requires Greek words.

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@...
• ... mentioned ... in ... Yes ... I suppose that this does pose a problem. One might want to take a look anyway since Christian Coptic uses a great number of
Feb 20, 2002 1 of 19
View Source

> >Also, would it be possible to use Dave's
> >statistical approach to compare this style
mentioned
> >above to the style of sayings attributed to Jesus
in
> >... "The Gospel of Thomas"?

Stephen C. Carlson replied:

> bulk of Thomas is preserved only in Coptic and
> Dave's method requires Greek words.

Yes ... I suppose that this does pose a problem.

One might want to take a look anyway since Christian
Coptic uses a great number of Greek words and might
follow fairly closely the Greek text being translated.

Has anyone checked the Greek fragments and the Coptic
version of "Thomas" to see about the degree to which
the Greek is carried over? (I well imagine that
someone has done this.)

Jeffery Hodges

=====
Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
Yangsandong 411
South Korea

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• I think working with the Coptic Thomas would probably not be very useful. Some of the more dramatic signature differances, are when one author uses word A,
Feb 21, 2002 1 of 19
View Source
I think working with the Coptic Thomas would probably not be very useful.
Some of the more dramatic "signature" differances, are when one author
uses word A, and another uses B, and A and B are near synonyms.
It might be difficult to tell from the Coptic which Greek word underlies
it.
Still, it would be interesting to see if anything could be learned from it.
The few Greek fragments might be able to give small hints too.

Dave Gentile
Riverside, Illinois
M.S. Physics
Ph.D. Management Science candidate

> >Also, would it be possible to use Dave's
> >statistical approach to compare this style
mentioned
> >above to the style of sayings attributed to Jesus
in
> >... "The Gospel of Thomas"?

Stephen C. Carlson replied:

> bulk of Thomas is preserved only in Coptic and
> Dave's method requires Greek words.

Yes ... I suppose that this does pose a problem.

One might want to take a look anyway since Christian
Coptic uses a great number of Greek words and might
follow fairly closely the Greek text being translated.

Has anyone checked the Greek fragments and the Coptic
version of "Thomas" to see about the degree to which
the Greek is carried over? (I well imagine that
someone has done this.)

Jeffery Hodges

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• Dave, Thanks for the explanation. ... If this is a distinct group, it looks more like Matthean redaction . It surely can t be labelled Matthew if it
Feb 21, 2002 1 of 19
View Source
Dave,
Thanks for the explanation.

>212-211-210 I'm identifying as Matthew.

If this is a distinct group, it looks more like 'Matthean redaction'.
It surely can't be labelled 'Matthew' if it excludes 200.

>200-201-202-102 I'm identifying as the 4th document.

Perhaps this is a mixture of Matthew and the sayings source, though
why these should be grouped together I have no idea. Certainly if 200
correlates with 102, then I can offer no explanation, for I wouldn't
expect them to be at all similar.

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@...
• ... If this is a distinct group, it looks more like Matthean redaction . It surely can t be labelled Matthew if it excludes 200. ======== Dave: Sure it
Feb 21, 2002 1 of 19
View Source
Ron Price wrote:

>212-211-210 I'm identifying as Matthew.

If this is a distinct group, it looks more like 'Matthean redaction'.
It surely can't be labelled 'Matthew' if it excludes 200.

========

Dave:

Sure it could, if Matthew was dependant on a source for 200, and wrote
211-210-212 himself.

========

Ron:

>200-201-202-102 I'm identifying as the 4th document.

Perhaps this is a mixture of Matthew and the sayings source, though
why these should be grouped together I have no idea. Certainly if 200
correlates with 102, then I can offer no explanation, for I wouldn't
expect them to be at all similar.

========

Dave:

202 is very closely related to 200, and less related to 201 and 102.
201-200 is also a strong relation. 200-102 does not show a relation.

I do see the group 200-201-202-102 as mostly saying source, and partly
Matthew. (and 102 as a small part Luke)
That's why I'm placing a large amount of 200 in the sayings source.
Although I doubt Matthew 1 and 2 belong in it.

Dave Gentile
Riverside, Illinois
M.S. Physics
Ph.D. Management Science candidate

Dave,
Thanks for the explanation.

>212-211-210 I'm identifying as Matthew.

If this is a distinct group, it looks more like 'Matthean redaction'.
It surely can't be labelled 'Matthew' if it excludes 200.

>200-201-202-102 I'm identifying as the 4th document.

Perhaps this is a mixture of Matthew and the sayings source, though
why these should be grouped together I have no idea. Certainly if 200
correlates with 102, then I can offer no explanation, for I wouldn't
expect them to be at all similar.

Ron Price

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• Basically, what you describe sounds like oral tradition playing the same role that I m speculating the sayings source played. I suppose a strong oral tradition
Feb 21, 2002 1 of 19
View Source
Basically, what you describe sounds like oral tradition playing the same
role that I'm speculating the sayings
source played. I suppose a strong oral tradition and a written source would
be virtually indistinguishable.

The argument I've seen for Q being a document is the correlation in order
between Luke and Matthew,
but if Luke knew Matthew I don't think we could use that argument. So, it
may be very difficult to distinguish
between an oral and written source.

I agree that looking at the individual words, in detail, is a good idea.

Dave Gentile
Riverside, Illinois
M.S. Physics
Ph.D. Management Science candidate

The interesting thing about the saying material is that it is
one part of the gospels that the evangelists present as not their
own words. Rather, the saying material is presented as Jesus's
words. Unless Goulder is correct that many of the sayings are
the evangelists' own creation, we should not expect the sayings
to have the same style as the surrounding narrative.

Perhaps the commonality behind the 202-102 connection is
simply oral tradition. Where Luke deviates from Matthew's
which is Matthew's source.

The reason why the 200-202 is there is due to oral tradition
rather than Matthean creation. The reason why the 202-002 is
not there is due to the large amount of narrative material
in Luke 1-2, which would obliterate the commonality effects
with Luke's special saying material (alternatively, attest
to Luke's creation of some of the L material).

Perhaps we could test these ideas by looking at which words
are responsible for the connection.

Stephen Carlson

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• Dear List Readers, I m posting now after many years of silently enjoying observing the list. My father, who has been coping with cancer for many years, has now
Feb 21, 2002 1 of 19
View Source

I'm posting now after many years of silently enjoying observing the
list. My father, who has been coping with cancer for many years, has now
been diagnosed with a new terminal secondary cancer. He is still reading
printouts of these messages in hospital and, when he has the energy, he
dictates replies with his usual vigour.

However, the illness is likely to take him away from this list and the
more physical world in the all too near future. In the meantime, I'll
post what he manages to express.

I would personally like to thank you all for being such a rich part of
his life, and particularly the moderators for having made this possible.
I won't put words into my father's keyboard, but I suspect he would see
the above as a gross understatement.

--
Peter Wilson

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• ... author ... the ... What I meant was that the Coptic text might contain enough Greek words to enable an analysis. Christian Coptic texts have very many
Feb 21, 2002 1 of 19
View Source
Dave Gentile wrote:

> I think working with the Coptic Thomas would
> probably not be very useful. Some of the more
> dramatic "signature" differances, are when one
author
> uses word A, and another uses B, and A and B are
> near synonyms. It might be difficult to tell from
the
> Coptic which Greek word underlies it.

What I meant was that the Coptic text might contain
enough Greek words to enable an analysis. Christian
Coptic texts have very many Greek words, and the Copt
translating "The Gospel of Thomas" might have simply
retained a great number of the Greek terms.

Still, you're probably right -- just wishful thinking
on my part. The reason that I suggested this was that
"The Gospel of Thomas" gives the strong impression of
drawing from a sayings source that has elements in
common with the Synoptic Gospels even though the
sayings differ in interesting ways.

> Still, it would be interesting to see if anything
> could be learned from it. The few Greek fragments
> might be able to give small hints too.

I think that this would be well worth attempting.

Jeffery Hodges

=====
Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
Yangsandong 411
South Korea

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• I think Thomas is very interesting too. I m most familiar with Stephen Patterson s work on it. Does anyone happen to know how many Greek words we have from the
Feb 22, 2002 1 of 19
View Source
I think Thomas is very interesting too. I'm most familiar with Stephen
Patterson's work on it.

Does anyone happen to know how many Greek words we have from the fragments?
I'm not sure if I have anything with the Greek fragments in it. I know I've
got a book with the Coptic text.

Another interesting thing to do would be to see how the Thomas parallels in
Mark compare
to other Thomas parallels in the synoptics, to Mark in general, and to 202
in general.

Dave Gentile
Riverside, Illinois
M.S. Physics
Ph.D. Management Science candidate

Still, you're probably right -- just wishful thinking
on my part. The reason that I suggested this was that
"The Gospel of Thomas" gives the strong impression of
drawing from a sayings source that has elements in
common with the Synoptic Gospels even though the
sayings differ in interesting ways.

> Still, it would be interesting to see if anything
> could be learned from it. The few Greek fragments
> might be able to give small hints too.

I think that this would be well worth attempting.

Jeffery Hodges

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• Many thanks for the personal notes that were sent. My father understood and enjoyed them when I read them to him on his final evening yesterday. Once again,
Feb 23, 2002 1 of 19
View Source
Many thanks for the personal notes that were sent. My father understood
and enjoyed them when I read them to him on his final evening yesterday.

Once again, thank you all for enriching his life.

Peter.

In message <hPwF9MABdWd8EwlC@...>, Brian E. Wilson
<brian@...> writes
>
>
>I'm posting now after many years of silently enjoying observing the
>list. My father, who has been coping with cancer for many years, has now
>been diagnosed with a new terminal secondary cancer. He is still reading
>printouts of these messages in hospital and, when he has the energy, he
>dictates replies with his usual vigour.
>
>However, the illness is likely to take him away from this list and the
>more physical world in the all too near future. In the meantime, I'll
>post what he manages to express.
>
>I would personally like to thank you all for being such a rich part of
>his life, and particularly the moderators for having made this possible.
>I won't put words into my father's keyboard, but I suspect he would see
>the above as a gross understatement.
>

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• Like many of you on Synoptic-L, I have been saddened from the news of Brian E. Wilson s passing. As many of you know, Brian has one of the regulars of
Feb 23, 2002 1 of 19
View Source
Like many of you on Synoptic-L, I have been saddened
from the news of Brian E. Wilson's passing. As many of
you know, Brian has one of the regulars of Synoptic-L
from the very beginning. This message is a brief
appreciation of an extraordinary mind.

I have never met Brian in person and I only know him from
his on-line presense. I first interacted with Brian in 1996,
almost 6 years ago, in a discussion of his Two Notebook
Hypothesis. Although I had been studying the synoptic problem
for quite some time, I thought I had encountered every
possible theory and variation. Not so with Brian. Brian
had the rare ability to think outside the box and come
up with solutions that are both novel and non-obvious to
the ordinary researchers in the field.

A case in point is the Two Notebook Hypothesis, in which Brian
postulated that each of the authors of the synoptic gospels
independently combined two related notebooks. Even though
dozens of differnt synoptic theories have been proposed over
the past 200 years, Brian was able to formulate a solution
that was strikingly different from those of his predecessors and
still managed to be viable. Brian later simplified his theory
into the present Greek Notes Hypothesis, in which all three
gospels are derived from a translated notebook that was prone
to redundancies.

Brian's argument for the singularity of authorship behind the
Greek Notes Hypothesis was ingenious: he looked for an authorial
fingerprint that he felt could only have come from a single
was able to connect a wide-ranging set of phenomena that people
thought were unrelated and fashion a common explanation for them.
These include: the nomina sacra, the use of Greek numerals (ciphers
as he called them), the adoption of the codex as the preferred
Christian medium, and the use of Aramaic in the gospels. Although
Brian's theses and arguments have not yet been adopted by other
scholars, it is important to point out that David Trobisch has
appealed to much of the same evidence and has used a similar
argument to support Trobisch's idea that the New Testament was
published in a 2d century edition.

Another memorable aspect of Brian was his initiative. Even
though Brian was not a salaried professor, he nonetheless managed
to publish articles in peer-reviewed journals and present papers
at international congresses. He demonstrated that the field of New
Testament studies is not a guild for insiders only but that articles
and papers are accepted on the basis of merit instead of professional
position.

For these and other reasons, I am thankful for Brian's accomplishments

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@...
• ... I will add my voice to those who are saddened by the news of Brian s death. As others have noted, he was a valued participant in Synoptic-L from its
Feb 25, 2002 1 of 19
View Source
At 12:17 AM 2/24/2002 -0500, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

>Like many of you on Synoptic-L, I have been saddened
>from the news of Brian E. Wilson's passing. As many of
>you know, Brian has one of the regulars of Synoptic-L
>from the very beginning. This message is a brief
>appreciation of an extraordinary mind.

I will add my voice to those who are saddened by the news of
Brian's death. As others have noted, he was a valued participant
in Synoptic-L from its beginning. His contributions to the list
were highly valued. We will all miss his postings and keep
him - and those close to him - in our thoughts and prayers.

Dr. Thomas R. W. Longstaff
Crawford Family Professor of Religious Studies
Director, Jewish Studies
Colby College
4643 Mayflower Hill
Waterville, ME 04901
Telephone: (207) 872-3150
FAX: (207) 872-3802
Email: tlongst@...

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.