Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Synoptic-L] Mt/Lk agreements against Mk

Expand Messages
  • John C. Poirier
    ... Rick, This is not how Ockham s razor cuts in this case: the lack of Matthew s and Luke s agreements in order against Mark only means that Mark is the
    Message 1 of 12 , Aug 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Rick Richmond writes:



      > If we apply Occam's razor here we would have to say

      > the simple explanation of this phenomenon is that Mark

      > was first and the other two were borrowing from his

      > order. Which is the predominant view in the field of

      > New Testament Study today.

      Rick,

      This is not how Ockham's razor cuts in this case: the lack of Matthew's and
      Luke's agreements in order against Mark only means that Mark is the
      mediating term, *not* that Mark is prior. E.g., if Luke knows Matthew's
      order *through* Mark's mediation, then we would not expect Matthew and Luke
      to agree in order against Mark.



      John C. Poirier









      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Chuck Jones
      I believe the conclusion of that Mk was a source for both Mt and Lk is based on disagreement in passages common only to Mt and Lk, not on passages in the
      Message 2 of 12 , Aug 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        I believe the conclusion of that Mk was a source for both Mt and Lk is based on disagreement in passages common only to Mt and Lk, not on passages in the triple tradition. No fully satisfying pattern of dependence between Mt and Lk (in either direction) has been shown. Right?

        Chuck

        "John C. Poirier" <poirier@...> wrote:
        Rick Richmond wrote:

        > Occam's (or Ockham's) razor is a principle attributed

        > to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar;

        > William of Occam. Occam was a village in the English

        > county of Surrey where he was born.

        >

        > Stated succinctly is: that all other things being

        > equal the simplest explanation is likely to be the

        > correct one.



        I know all about it, but it's good to have it stated like this.

        > In this situation it cuts like a knife.

        No it doesn't. (See below.)



        > Three documents contain the same material in substantially

        > the same order and sometimes word for word, and two of

        > those documents never agree against the third in

        > order. A grammar school teacher would conclude ( and

        > has by the way) that Matthew and Luke have copied from

        > Mark which as William of Occam recommends, is the simplest

        > explanation and the most likely to be correct.



        That grammar school teacher (whether he's the one named by E. A. Abbott or
        someone else) would be wrong. If A and C agree in order only where they
        also agree with B, then that does *not* prove (or make it easier to suppose)
        that they A and C depend upon B. It is as I stated in my previous post: A
        could be first, then B, and then C, in which case (if C doesn't know A
        directly) C could only possibly agree with A where A and C both agree with
        B. Likewise, C could be first, then B, then A. Or yet again, B could be
        first, and used independently by A and C, and the same pattern of agreement
        would obtain. (If you don't believe my logic, just work it out on paper.)

        The logical fallacy that you're propounding is a famous one: it was
        decisively overturned by Butler in 1951, and since then many people have
        called attention to it. It is one of the biggest blunders in NT
        scholarship, and unfortunately it still has a hold on the field of NT
        Introduction.



        John C. Poirier







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



        Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-l



        SPONSORED LINKS
        Bible study tool Bible study

        ---------------------------------
        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


        Visit your group "Synoptic" on the web.

        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        Synoptic-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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



        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com



        ---------------------------------
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • John C. Poirier
        ... I don t have time to compose a proper response, but I m not at all sure about this. If a pattern of [inter]dependence has not been shown for the double
        Message 3 of 12 , Aug 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Chuck Jones wrote:



          > I believe the conclusion of that Mk was a source for both Mt

          > and Lk is based on disagreement in passages common only to Mt

          > and Lk, not on passages in the triple tradition. No fully

          > satisfying pattern of dependence between Mt and Lk (in either

          > direction) has been shown. Right?



          I don't have time to compose a proper response, but I'm not at all sure
          about this. If a "pattern of [inter]dependence" has not been shown for the
          double tradition (n a "fully satisfying" way), neither has a "fully
          satisfying" case been made against interdependence. And I don't see how
          acceptance of Q (as in the disavowal of double-tradition interdependence)
          implies Markan priority, except by way of the additional conceit that Mark
          would not have left out the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, etc., if these were
          known to him.





          John C. Poirier





          _____



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Stephen C. Carlson
          ... A case in point is Pierson Parker s 1953 theory in which he accepted Q but denied that Mark was a source for Matthew. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson
          Message 4 of 12 , Aug 4, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            At 11:40 AM 8/4/2005 -0400, John C. Poirier wrote:
            >Chuck Jones wrote:
            >> I believe the conclusion of that Mk was a source for both Mt
            >> and Lk is based on disagreement in passages common only to Mt
            >> and Lk, not on passages in the triple tradition. No fully
            >> satisfying pattern of dependence between Mt and Lk (in either
            >> direction) has been shown. Right?
            >
            >I don't have time to compose a proper response, but I'm not at all sure
            >about this. If a "pattern of [inter]dependence" has not been shown for the
            >double tradition (n a "fully satisfying" way), neither has a "fully
            >satisfying" case been made against interdependence. And I don't see how
            >acceptance of Q (as in the disavowal of double-tradition interdependence)
            >implies Markan priority, except by way of the additional conceit that Mark
            >would not have left out the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, etc., if these were
            >known to him.

            A case in point is Pierson Parker's 1953 theory in which he
            accepted Q but denied that Mark was a source for Matthew.

            Stephen Carlson
            --
            Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
            Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
            Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
          • Chuck Jones
            John, The primary implication of disagreements between Mt and Lk is that they were probably not sources for each other (in either direction). Only when that
            Message 5 of 12 , Aug 4, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              John,

              The primary implication of disagreements between Mt and Lk is that they were probably not sources for each other (in either direction).

              Only when that conclusion is reached does Mk emerge as the most likely source for the material in Mt and Lk that is common to all three. Markan priority is simply the logical necessity that Mk has to have already been written in order to be that source (I think the word "duh" applies here <g>).

              Q, of course, is simply a hypothesis to deal with the sections of Mt and Lk that are common to both but not in Mk.

              I agree that Q also does not complete explain all of the data. But it's worth pointing out that if a "fully satisfying pattern of dependence between Mt and Lk (in either direction)" had been demonstrated, the hypothesis of Q would never have arisen.

              That's the very fun thing about synoptic studies--it's like making a bed with a sheet that's too small. You tuck one corner in and a loose end pops up somewhere else.

              Chuck



              "John C. Poirier" <poirier@...> wrote:
              I don't have time to compose a proper response, but I'm not at all sure about this. If a "pattern of [inter]dependence" has not been shown for the double tradition (n a "fully satisfying" way), neither has a "fully satisfying" case been made against interdependence. And I don't see how
              acceptance of Q (as in the disavowal of double-tradition interdependence)implies Markan priority, except by way of the additional conceit that Mark would not have left out the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, etc., if these were known to him.
              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail.yahoo.com

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Chuck Jones
              John, By the way, I don t see how the word interdependence can apply to the relationship between Mt and Lk, unless we visualize them passing drafts back and
              Message 6 of 12 , Aug 4, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                John,

                By the way, I don't see how the word interdependence can apply to the relationship between Mt and Lk, unless we visualize them passing drafts back and forth to each other. Either Mt is dependent of Lk, Lk is dependent on Mt, or neither is dependent on the other. Am I missing a nuance here?

                Chuck

                John wrote:

                ...If a "pattern of [inter]dependence" has not been shown for the double tradition (n a "fully satisfying" way), neither has a "fully satisfying" case been made against interdependence....

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail.yahoo.com

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Chuck Jones
                Stephen, What did he conclude was Mt s source? Did he have Mt as a source for Mk who was a source for Lk? Chuck Stephen C. Carlson
                Message 7 of 12 , Aug 4, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Stephen,

                  What did he conclude was Mt's source? Did he have Mt as a source for Mk who was a source for Lk?

                  Chuck

                  "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...> wrote:
                  A case in point is Pierson Parker's 1953 theory in which he
                  accepted Q but denied that Mark was a source for Matthew.

                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  http://mail.yahoo.com

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • E Bruce Brooks
                  To: Synoptic In Response To: Chuck Jones On: Mt/Lk Agreements Against Mk From: Bruce CHUCK: But it s worth pointing out that if a fully satisfying pattern of
                  Message 8 of 12 , Aug 4, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    To: Synoptic
                    In Response To: Chuck Jones
                    On: Mt/Lk Agreements Against Mk
                    From: Bruce

                    CHUCK: But it's worth pointing out that if a "fully satisfying pattern of
                    dependence between Mt and Lk (in either direction)" had been demonstrated,
                    the hypothesis of Q would never have arisen.

                    BRUCE: This is unhistorical. The Mt/Lk relationship was not tried and found
                    wanting, it was not tried at all. The Q hypothesis arose at a time when it
                    was firmly accepted that all three Synoptics were literarily independent.
                    This is the meaning of the phrase Triple Tradition: Three independent
                    witnesses to the same saying or event. The existence of Q depends on that
                    assumption. If, so the argument would have gone, there are all these Major
                    Agreements between Mt and Lk (against Mk), and if it is eliminated that Mt
                    and Lk are related (as it was eliminated, at the time), then the Major
                    Agreements must be referred to an outside source, call it Q. That left the
                    Minor Agreements (sup-pericope agreements, some hundreds of them) as so many
                    thorns in the side of the Q hypothesis, as they still are today.

                    Werner Georg Kümmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of
                    its Problems (1970, tr 1972) 77f: "But the assumption of a lost Hebrew or
                    Aramaic Primal Gospel that Lessing had made became really discussible only
                    when Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, a pupil of J D Michaelis, gave it defensible
                    form in his comprehensive study, Über die drey ersten Evangelien [Concerning
                    the first three Gospels] (1794). Eichhorn holds that a mutual use of one
                    Synoptic Gospel by the other two is impossible because none of the Gospels
                    consistently offers the better text and context when compared with the
                    others. Consequently, all he believes to be left is "the hypothesis of a
                    common source from which all three must have drawn."

                    That hypothesis does not stand still for very long. Kümmel goes on to note
                    that Eichhorn assumes not a constant Source, but one which changed and
                    mutated between the times it was used by each of the three extant Gospels. V
                    ery convenient. Features that the orthodox are loath to attribute to an
                    extant text, they readily attribute to an imaginary text. The imaginary text
                    is not canonical, so (it would seem) anything goes.

                    All that is obsolete under present consensus. I have never seen an attempt
                    to derive Q de novo, given the widespread acceptance of some form of
                    Synoptic literary relationships, and given what I suppose would be the
                    default inference that the Major Agreements sufficiently attest literary
                    relationship between Mt and Lk. It would be interesting to see it tried. Can
                    anyone point me to an example?

                    Bruce

                    E Bruce Brooks
                    Warring States Project
                    University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                  • Chuck Jones
                    Bruce, I m struggling to understand your post, both logically and in light of your own citation. Q is a hypothesis that solves a problem. If the problem had
                    Message 9 of 12 , Aug 4, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Bruce,

                      I'm struggling to understand your post, both logically and in light of your own citation.

                      Q is a hypothesis that solves a problem. If the problem had never existed, there would not have been an hypothesis.

                      This is born out in your quote from Kummel:

                      "Eichhorn holds that a mutual use of one Synoptic Gospel by the other two is impossible because none of the Gospels consistently offers the better text and context when compared with the others [the problem, CJ]. Consequently, all he believes to be left is "the hypothesis of a common source from which all three must have drawn" [the hypothesis, CJ]."

                      Chuck

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                      http://mail.yahoo.com

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • John C. Poirier
                      Chuck, I don t have access to a good dictionary at the moment, but www.dictionary.com supports your use of interdependent as
                      Message 10 of 12 , Aug 4, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Chuck,



                        I don't have access to a good dictionary at the moment, but
                        www.dictionary.com <http://www.dictionary.com/> supports your use of
                        "interdependent" as meaning only mutually dependent. If you're right about
                        this, I'll have to start using a different word (perhaps "intradependent"?)
                        to convey the linear (as opposed to the fork) model of literary dependence.
                        Obviously, I didn't mean mutual dependence.





                        John C. Poirier



                        _____

                        From: Chuck Jones [mailto:chuckjonez@...]
                        Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 12:46 PM
                        To: Stephen C. Carlson; John C. Poirier; Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Mt/Lk agreements against Mk



                        John,



                        By the way, I don't see how the word interdependence can apply to the
                        relationship between Mt and Lk, unless we visualize them passing drafts back
                        and forth to each other. Either Mt is dependent of Lk, Lk is dependent on
                        Mt, or neither is dependent on the other. Am I missing a nuance here?



                        Chuck



                        John wrote:

                        ...If a "pattern of [inter]dependence" has not been shown for the double
                        tradition (n a "fully satisfying" way), neither has a "fully satisfying"
                        case been made against interdependence....

                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                        http://mail.yahoo.com



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • E Bruce Brooks
                        To: Synoptic In Response To: Chuck Jones On: Hypothesis of Eichhorn (formerly Q ) From: Bruce CHUCK: Q is a hypothesis that solves a problem. If the problem
                        Message 11 of 12 , Aug 4, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          To: Synoptic
                          In Response To: Chuck Jones
                          On: Hypothesis of Eichhorn (formerly "Q")
                          From: Bruce

                          CHUCK: Q is a hypothesis that solves a problem. If the problem had never
                          existed, there would not have been an hypothesis.

                          BRUCE: The problem solved by the Eichhorn hypothesis was a phony problem.
                          The Eichhorn hypothesis arises on the assumption that there is no relation
                          between Mt and Lk (or indeed any of the Synoptics). Since on that assumption
                          the obvious solution (that one borrowed their common material from the
                          other) is unavailable, the only possibility logically left is that both
                          borrowed it from someplace else. Whence the so-called Q.

                          But the assumption that the Synoptics have no literary relations is
                          presently regarded as untenable. They have them; the only question is which
                          way (or ways) they run, and how much is left to be explained once those
                          primary relationships are accounted for. The Eichhorn Construct must be
                          vacated, since its assumption is no longer viable, and if we do that, and
                          put the common Major Agreements back into Mt and Lk, and start over, we will
                          find that those Major Agreements strongly indicate a direct Mt/Lk
                          relationship.

                          The argument against this (as I understand it) is that sometimes Mt,
                          sometimes Lk, has the "more ancient" form of a given item of their common
                          material, so that no single-direction hypothesis will adequately account for
                          the situation. I have seen some of these arguments, and they do not strike
                          me as convincing.

                          Would anyone like to offer one that they think cogent? That is, a pair of
                          sayings or stories common to Mt and Lk (but not in Mk), one of which pair
                          has the implied directionality Mt > Lk, and the other of which has the
                          implied directionality Lk > Mt?

                          If Q emerged anew from that comparison, well, so be it. At least we would
                          know. At present, the thing seems at once theoretically tenuous and
                          acceptationally tenacious. A bad combination.

                          Bruce

                          E Bruce Brooks
                          Warring States Project
                          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                        • Stephen C. Carlson
                          ... Parker held that Matthew s source was a proto-gospel he called K, which contained the Markan material and the M material. He also held that K, not Matt,
                          Message 12 of 12 , Aug 4, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 09:50 AM 8/4/2005 -0700, Chuck Jones wrote:
                            >What did he conclude was Mt's source? Did he have Mt as a source for Mk who
                            >was a source for Lk?

                            Parker held that Matthew's source was a proto-gospel he
                            called K, which contained the Markan material and the M
                            material. He also held that K, not Matt, was Mark's
                            source.

                            Stephen Carlson

                            --
                            Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                            Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                            Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.