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

Definition of Minor Agreements

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    The Synoptic Problem FAQ defines the minor agreements as those agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark (or anti-Markan agreements ) that occur in
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 27, 2011
      "The Synoptic Problem FAQ" defines the minor agreements as "those
      agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark (or 'anti-Markan
      agreements') that occur in triple tradition." However, does this mean just
      the words/phrases where Mt and Lk agree against Mk, or do they also include
      triple tradition words/phrases in Mk that neither Mt nor Lk have?



      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mark Goodacre
      ... Neirynck, who published a long list in 1974, did include mutual omissions in the same contexts. Mark -- Mark Goodacre Duke University Department of
      Message 2 of 14 , Jun 27, 2011
        On 27 June 2011 14:13, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...> wrote:

        > "The Synoptic Problem FAQ" defines the minor agreements as "those
        > agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark (or 'anti-Markan
        > agreements') that occur in triple tradition." However, does this mean just
        > the words/phrases where Mt and Lk agree against Mk, or do they also include
        > triple tradition words/phrases in Mk that neither Mt nor Lk have?

        Neirynck, who published a long list in 1974, did include mutual
        omissions in the same contexts.

        Mark
        --
        Mark Goodacre
        Duke University
        Department of Religion
        Gray Building / Box 90964
        Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
        Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

        http://www.markgoodacre.org
      • David Inglis
        Mark, thank you for your reply. However, this does raise another question in my mind. It seems to me that (as usually defined) the terms ‘minor agreements’
        Message 3 of 14 , Jun 28, 2011
          Mark, thank you for your reply. However, this does raise another question in my mind. It seems to me that (as usually defined) the terms ‘minor agreements’ and ‘double tradition’ pre-suppose Markan priority, so why are they not termed ‘Mt-Lk minor agreements’ and Mt-Lk double tradition,’ and why is it (apparently) not necessary to refer to ‘Mt-Mk minor agreements’ for theories assuming Lukan priority, or ‘Mk-Lk minor agreements’ for theories assuming Matthean priority?

          David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



          From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Goodacre
          Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 1:28 PM
          To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Definition of Minor Agreements





          On 27 June 2011 14:13, David Inglis <davidinglis2@... <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> > wrote:

          > "The Synoptic Problem FAQ" defines the minor agreements as "those
          > agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark (or 'anti-Markan
          > agreements') that occur in triple tradition." However, does this mean just
          > the words/phrases where Mt and Lk agree against Mk, or do they also include
          > triple tradition words/phrases in Mk that neither Mt nor Lk have?

          Neirynck, who published a long list in 1974, did include mutual
          omissions in the same contexts.

          Mark
          --
          Mark Goodacre
          Duke University
          Department of Religion
          Gray Building / Box 90964
          Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
          Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

          http://www.markgoodacre.org



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Stephen Carlson
          ... I don t think that the minor agreements necessarily pre-supposes Markan priority (though they are _a priori_ problematic for the Mark-Q kind of Markan
          Message 4 of 14 , Jun 28, 2011
            On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 1:35 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...>wrote:

            > **
            >
            > Mark, thank you for your reply. However, this does raise another question
            > in my mind. It seems to me that (as usually defined) the terms �minor
            > agreements� and �double tradition� pre-suppose Markan priority, so why are
            > they not termed �Mt-Lk minor agreements� and Mt-Lk double tradition,� and
            > why is it (apparently) not necessary to refer to �Mt-Mk minor agreements�
            > for theories assuming Lukan priority, or �Mk-Lk minor agreements� for
            > theories assuming Matthean priority?
            >
            I don't think that the "minor agreements" necessarily pre-supposes Markan
            priority (though they are _a priori_ problematic for the Mark-Q kind of
            Markan priority). Rather, it fits in well with the notion that Mark is the
            middle term. These are the residue that the middle term phenomenon does not
            explain. Every theory must account for the Markan middle-term phenomenon.

            Stephen
            --
            Stephen C. Carlson
            Graduate Program in Religion
            Duke University


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • E Bruce Brooks
            To: Synoptic / GPG Stephen Carlson had remarked, Every theory must account for the Markan middle-term phenomenon. No doubt. But at least for me, the middle
            Message 5 of 14 , Jun 28, 2011
              To: Synoptic / GPG

              Stephen Carlson had remarked, " Every theory must account for the Markan
              middle-term phenomenon." No doubt. But at least for me, the "middle term"
              term is ambigious. Could the phenomenon be stated in other language?

              E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts at Amherst
            • Stephen Carlson
              On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 2:09 PM, E Bruce Brooks ... The term middle term is a label, not a definition. I don t see how it s ambiguous. This label refers to
              Message 6 of 14 , Jun 28, 2011
                On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 2:09 PM, E Bruce Brooks
                <brooks@...>wrote:

                > **
                >
                > Stephen Carlson had remarked, " Every theory must account for the Markan
                > middle-term phenomenon." No doubt. But at least for me, the "middle term"
                > term is ambigious. Could the phenomenon be stated in other language?
                >
                The term "middle term" is a label, not a definition. I don't see how it's
                ambiguous.

                This label refers to a pattern of evidence described in most introductory
                treatments of the synoptic problem, e.g. Mark Goodacre, *The Synoptic
                Problem: A Way Through the Maze* (Biblical Seminar 80; London: Sheffield,
                2001), 39.

                Stephen
                --
                Stephen C. Carlson
                Graduate Program in Religion
                Duke University


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • David Inglis
                Stephen, I understand your point. Using your own words re. the middle-term: ... agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark are consistently much less
                Message 7 of 14 , Jun 28, 2011
                  Stephen, I understand your point. Using your own words re. the middle-term:
                  "... agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark are consistently much
                  less prevalent than agreements against Matthew or Luke in arrangement and
                  wording." Everybody (hopefully) can agree on that as a fact. However, the
                  terms 'minor agreements,' 'Mark-Q overlap,' and 'double tradition' are only
                  used in relation to Mt-Lk against Mk. As various degrees of agreement
                  (major, minor, overlap, none) between Mt-Mk against Lk and Mk-Lk against Mt
                  must exist, why is it that these agreements don't seem to need 'labels' of
                  their own? Is it just that these distinctions are irrelevant when discussion
                  Lukan or Matthean priority theories, so that, for example, we never need to
                  refer to the 'Mt-Mk Double Tradition?' It seems unlikely to me, as (for
                  example) surely it is just as important to establish the origin of the words
                  in the Mt-Mk Double Tradition as the origin of the words in the Mt-Lk Double
                  Tradition?

                  David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                  Of Stephen Carlson
                  Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 11:04 AM
                  To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Definition of Minor Agreements

                  On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 1:35 PM, David Inglis
                  <davidinglis2@...>wrote:

                  > **
                  >
                  > Mark, thank you for your reply. However, this does raise another question
                  > in my mind. It seems to me that (as usually defined) the terms 'minor
                  > agreements' and 'double tradition' pre-suppose Markan priority, so why are
                  > they not termed 'Mt-Lk minor agreements' and Mt-Lk double tradition,' and
                  > why is it (apparently) not necessary to refer to 'Mt-Mk minor agreements'
                  > for theories assuming Lukan priority, or 'Mk-Lk minor agreements' for
                  > theories assuming Matthean priority?
                  >
                  I don't think that the "minor agreements" necessarily pre-supposes Markan
                  priority (though they are _a priori_ problematic for the Mark-Q kind of
                  Markan priority). Rather, it fits in well with the notion that Mark is the
                  middle term. These are the residue that the middle term phenomenon does not
                  explain. Every theory must account for the Markan middle-term phenomenon.

                  Stephen
                  --
                  Stephen C. Carlson
                  Graduate Program in Religion
                  Duke University
                • Mark Goodacre
                  ... These are great questions. In general, we do tend to simplify our description of the data. When I wrote my introductory survey of the data for Maze
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jun 28, 2011
                    On 28 June 2011 15:44, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...> wrote:

                    > Stephen, I understand your point. Using your own words re. the middle-term:
                    > "... agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark are consistently much
                    > less prevalent than agreements against Matthew or Luke in arrangement and
                    > wording." Everybody (hopefully) can agree on that as a fact. However, the
                    > terms 'minor agreements,' 'Mark-Q overlap,' and 'double tradition' are only
                    > used in relation to Mt-Lk against Mk. As various degrees of agreement
                    > (major, minor, overlap, none) between Mt-Mk against Lk and Mk-Lk against Mt
                    > must exist, why is it that these agreements don't seem to need 'labels' of
                    > their own? Is it just that these distinctions are irrelevant when discussion
                    > Lukan or Matthean priority theories, so that, for example, we never need to
                    > refer to the 'Mt-Mk Double Tradition?' It seems unlikely to me, as (for
                    > example) surely it is just as important to establish the origin of the words
                    > in the Mt-Mk Double Tradition as the origin of the words in the Mt-Lk Double
                    > Tradition?

                    These are great questions. In general, we do tend to simplify our
                    description of the data. When I wrote my introductory survey of the
                    data for Maze (Chapter 2), I was really struck by the fact that there
                    is not really a name for the Matthew // Mark and Mark // Luke
                    groupings of material. In the case of Mark // Luke, the set is not
                    very big. It features stuff like the Capernaum Synagogue and the
                    Widow's Mite but overall, Matthew has parallels with most of the
                    material in Mark. The set of Matthew // Mark material is larger and
                    it is this that gives rise to (loaded) terms like "Luke's Great
                    Omission".

                    Nevertheless, the Matthew // Mark and the Mark // Luke material does
                    appear to have a close relationship with the triple tradition in that
                    it appears generally in the Marcan order. It is another aspect of
                    Mark as the middle term.

                    All best
                    Mark
                    --
                    Mark Goodacre
                    Duke University
                    Department of Religion
                    Gray Building / Box 90964
                    Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
                    Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

                    http://www.markgoodacre.org
                  • E Bruce Brooks
                    To: Synoptic / On: Middle Term A middle term in logic is a step from the first proposition to the last; there is a similar usage with proportions: A:B = B:C.
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jun 28, 2011
                      To: Synoptic / On: Middle Term

                      A middle term in logic is a step from the first proposition to the last;
                      there is a similar usage with proportions: A:B = B:C. In Synoptic matters,
                      as the S Carlson web site informs us, the implications are quite different,
                      and I quote:

                      S CARLSON WEB SITE:
                      "The fundamental observation of the triple tradition and, indeed, the
                      synoptic problem is that Mark is the "middle term" between Matthew and Luke.
                      When the triple tradition is analyzed, a very interesting pattern emerges.
                      In the triple tradition, the ordering of the passages is largely shared
                      between Matthew and Mark, between Luke and Mark, or among all three. It is
                      rarely the case, however, that Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in
                      arranging the Triple Tradition. This pattern also extends to the content,
                      extent, and the wording of the triple tradition passages."

                      [EBB: That is to say, Mark tends to include elements that are common to
                      Matthew and Luke]

                      [SC again]: "There are four basic documentary approaches that can account
                      for the fact that Mark is the middle term between Matthew and Luke:
                      Markan priority hypothesis: Mark was first and copied by both Matthew and
                      Luke.
                      Matthean priority hypothesis: Matthew was first and was copied by Mark who
                      was copied by Luke.
                      Lukan priority hypothesis: Luke was first and was copied by Mark who was
                      copied by Matthew.
                      Griesbach hypothesis: Mark, who was third, combined and conflated Matthew
                      and Luke."

                      EBB: That is to say, the fact that Mark contains the common backbone of the
                      other two Gospels is best accounted for by a situation of literary
                      indebtedness, and for that matter (I would add, departing from the above
                      summary, but agreeing with Lachmann's inference from the facts of order) one
                      where Mark was used by both the others. It is hard to see how the situation
                      we have could arise from a scenario Mt > Mk > Lk (or the reverse). In such a
                      case, we would expect that the second item (Mk) would share features with
                      its source, Mt, and that Lk in turn would share features with the
                      intermediate Mk, but none with Mt that were not already embodied in Mk.
                      Instead, the pattern suggests a divergence from a common source rather than
                      a series in which Mk occupies a middle position. Or, so to speak, one in
                      which Mk is an end term rather than a middle term.

                      Of course the *amount* of similarity is not of itself decisive, without a
                      directional evaluation of that similarity. With such an evaluation, say as
                      between Mt and Mk, it comes across (in the judgement of a serious majority
                      of readers) that Mk is the more primitive, and that Mt in various ways is
                      secondary. For these reasons, I would not regard the pattern of similar
                      order as the fundamental Synoptic fact; rather, the directionality of the
                      many parallel passages.

                      So defined, and without reference to order phenomena, we have overwhelmingly
                      Mk > Mt and separately Mk > Lk, but run into trouble with the third pair,
                      where by the same sort of reader perceptions that lead to the above, we have
                      instead bidirectionality: Mt < > Lk.

                      So approached in this way, the residual Synoptic Problem, given that Mk
                      precedes both Mt and Lk, is, how to account for the bidirectionality between
                      Mt and Lk.

                      No?

                      E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts at Amherst

                      Without that bidirectionality, and with the three equations Mk > Mt, Mk >
                      Lk, and Mt > Lk, we would have a simple solution Mk > Mt >> Lk (the double
                      arrow meaning that Lk, the third term, is aware of and uses both the two
                      prior terms). This is the solution that the FH attempted to demonstrate; to
                      me (and apparently to others as well), it founders on the stubborn fact of
                      Mt/Lk bidirectionality. Let it be said to his credit that Farrer himself, in
                      his Dispensing paper, immediately recognized that certain passages (eg, the
                      Beatitudes, the LP) were trouble for that theory. The question for the ages
                      is whether he, or anyone following him, has successfully dealt with the
                      trouble. My sense of it, after spending considerable time on it, is that
                      this is not the case. The theory is too simple to accommodate all the
                      specific facts and relationships.
                    • David Inglis
                      Mark, thanks for your reply. You wrote “The set of Matthew // Mark material is larger and it is this that gives rise to (loaded) terms like Luke s Great
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jun 28, 2011
                        Mark, thanks for your reply. You wrote “The set of Matthew // Mark material is larger and it is this that gives rise to (loaded) terms like "Luke's Great

                        Omission".” I have two questions:

                        1. Exactly what are the boundaries of the great omission? Depending on who you read they seem to vary somewhat, i.e. from around Mk 6:45-47a to 8:10-27b. Is there in fact a generally agreed beginning and end?

                        2. Does Mt have the whole of the text of the great omission? More specifically, how close are Mt and Mk here?

                        David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                        _,_._,___



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Mark Goodacre
                        ... I think that s right, yes, Mark 6.45--8.26. Luke leaves off at the Five Thousand and resumes at Peter s Confession. ... No, he does not have Mark 7.31-37
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jun 28, 2011
                          On 28 June 2011 18:26, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...> wrote:

                          > 1. Exactly what are the boundaries of the great omission? Depending on who you read they seem to vary somewhat, i.e. from around Mk 6:45-47a to 8:10-27b. Is there in fact a generally agreed beginning and end?

                          I think that's right, yes, Mark 6.45--8.26. Luke leaves off at the
                          Five Thousand and resumes at Peter's Confession.

                          > 2. Does Mt have the whole of the text of the great omission? More specifically, how close are Mt and Mk here?

                          No, he does not have Mark 7.31-37 (Deaf Mute) or Mark 8.22-26 (Blind
                          Man of Bethsaida).

                          Cheers
                          Mark

                          --
                          Mark Goodacre
                          Duke University
                          Department of Religion
                          Gray Building / Box 90964
                          Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
                          Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

                          http://www.markgoodacre.org
                        • E Bruce Brooks
                          To: Synoptic / GPG In response to a recent question, MarkG confirmed, as the definition of the Lukan Omission: I think that s right, yes, Mark 6.45--8.26.
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jun 28, 2011
                            To: Synoptic / GPG

                            In response to a recent question, MarkG confirmed, as the definition of the
                            Lukan Omission: " I think that's right, yes, Mark 6.45--8.26. Luke leaves
                            off at the Five Thousand and resumes at Peter's Confession."

                            That is indeed the universal current opinion, but it perhaps does not hold
                            up well against reading the text. Take the Greek, and notice exactly how far
                            Luke gets before he breaks off. The shocking fact is that he does NOT end
                            nicely at a pericope boundary, but slightly over it. He resumes in the same
                            ragged way; again, not exactly at a pericope boundary. If Luke *were*
                            observing pericope boundaries, we could presentably infer that he was
                            intentionally omitting literary segments; we could then all go in search of
                            his literary reasons for so doing. (And if we got in trouble, we would have
                            plenty of company; explaining why Luke would have intentionally left out
                            certain of the missing stories has proved a stone of stumbling for more than
                            one learned commentator).

                            But that is not the situation. As Streeter Four Gospels 176 remarks, a
                            number of serious objections to the intentional-omission theory "receive a
                            completely satisfactory answer if we suppose that Luke's mutilated copy of
                            Mark included merely the beginning of the "great omission," as far as the
                            words AUTOS MONOS in 6:47, and then went straight on to KAI EN TH ODW
                            EPHRWTA, 8:27. . . . Luke's manuscript would then have run as follows (words
                            in italics [here between asterisks / EBB] are specially significant; [an
                            ellipsis] indicates where the break . . . occurred: "And straightway he
                            constrained his disciples to enter into the boat, and to go before him [unto
                            the other side - om W K l &c Syr S q]. And after he had taken leave of them,
                            he departed into the *mountain to pray* And when even was come, and *he
                            alone* . . . . and *in the way* he asked his disciples, saying unto them,
                            Who do men say that I am? (Mk 6:45-46 . . . 8:27b)."

                            Streeter goes on to answer the question, "Granted such a text, what would
                            Luke make of the story? What he actually does (in the B text) is to write,
                            immediately after the Feeding of the Multitude, "And it came to pass, as he
                            was *praying alone,* the disciples *met* him, and he asked them, saying, Who
                            do the multitudes say that I am? And he inserts the place-name Bethsaida
                            into the opening sentence of the Feeding of the Multitude, though in other
                            respects he closely follows Mark's version of the story. A study of the
                            passage shows that this procedure is of the most natural and reasonable
                            kind."

                            So far Streeter; those who want the rest of his discussion will find it at
                            p177-179. Some of it, to my eye, is compromised by the theory that Mark is a
                            Roman gospel, but Streeter is no dummy, and it is all worth reading. Having
                            read it, I think it is difficult to maintain the popular view that Luke has
                            here intentionally, and for literary (or theological) reasons, omitted
                            several distinct and textually tidy pericopes. Rather, he has coped
                            intelligibly with a defective Vorlage.

                            If this stands, and I personally find Streeter's observations impregnable,
                            several things of interest follow: (1) Luke has not omitted *any*
                            substantial part of Mark; where he seems to leave some story out, he tends
                            to have an analogue at a different place, and the major exceptions to this
                            statement are included in the above scenario. Luke thus accounts, sometimes
                            creatively, for virtually all of Mark, insofar as Mark was available to him
                            in the first place. (2) In this he does not, after all, differ greatly from
                            Matthew, and he may equally be credited with a wish (which the later
                            Prologue more or less directly avows) to replace Mark for contemporary use
                            purposes - and of course to drive Matthew off the bestseller lists entirely.
                            (3) It is thought by some (eg Ed Sanders, if memory serves) that Luke did
                            after all know the Omitted part of Mark, since some tiny echoes of it seem
                            to turn up elsewhere in Luke. But these are readily accounted for as
                            secondary derivations (in Luke B) from Matthew. (4) Why did not Luke take
                            the whole set from Matthew, where it does occur? In part because when he
                            first wrote, Luke (A) had before him only Mark (in a slightly ragged copy)
                            plus his own agenda and his own Antiochian church tradition. He did not have
                            Matthew, which at that point had not yet been written. When Luke did later
                            encounter Matthew, and reworked his Gospel accordingly (the result being
                            Luke B), though he was highly interested in what Matthew was doing, he did
                            not accept Matthew as an authority on the same basis as Mark; Matthew was
                            for him a competitor and not a source. (5) [There is some other stuff that I
                            leave out for now].

                            Something like that. Respectfully suggested,

                            C2011 E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                          • David Inglis
                            Apologies for continuing this topic, but I would like to be sure of something: Whether it’s a minor agreement, a major agreement, or a Mark-Q overlap, it’s
                            Message 13 of 14 , Jun 29, 2011
                              Apologies for continuing this topic, but I would like to be sure of something: Whether it’s a minor agreement, a major agreement, or a Mark-Q overlap, it’s still part of the triple tradition. Yes or no? Are there any other terms for ‘sub-divisions’ of the triple tradition that are in common use?

                              David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Ken Olson
                              David, My understanding of Minor Agreements is that the term is only meaningful in the triple tradition where 2 can agree against 1. In practice it s a 2DH
                              Message 14 of 14 , Jun 29, 2011
                                David,

                                My understanding of Minor Agreements is that the term is only meaningful in the triple tradition where 2 can agree against 1. In practice it's a 2DH term, and means agreements of Mt and Lk against Mk. Mk-Mt agreements and Mk-Lk agreements don't have their own standard term in common use (though scholars certainly discuss them under various labels) and are not considered "minor".

                                Best,

                                Ken

                                Ken Olson
                                PhD Cand.
                                Duke Religion

                                To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                From: davidinglis2@...
                                Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:29:26 -0700
                                Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Definition of Minor Agreements




























                                Apologies for continuing this topic, but I would like to be sure of something: Whether it�s a minor agreement, a major agreement, or a Mark-Q overlap, it�s still part of the triple tradition. Yes or no? Are there any other terms for �sub-divisions� of the triple tradition that are in common use?



                                David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



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


















                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.