Re: [Synoptic-L] When is a parallel not a parallel? Also, when is a verse not a verse?

Expand Messages
• David, If I had to guess about your second question, it is that he demarcated the gospel verses over time, and simply forgot what he d done earlier. Chuck Rev.
Message 1 of 18 , Oct 5, 2011
• 0 Attachment
David,

If I had to guess about your second question, it is that he demarcated the gospel verses over time, and simply forgot what he'd done earlier.

Chuck

Rev. Chuck Jones
Atlanta, Georgia

________________________________
From: David Inglis <davidinglis2@...>
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 1:13 PM
Subject: [Synoptic-L] When is a parallel not a parallel? Also, when is a verse not a verse?

I originally asked the first of these questions on another forum, but as it has relevance to my synoptic stylometric
https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/the-synoptic-problem , I would like to bring it up on synoptic.

Mk 13:14a But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, [spoken of by Daniel the prophet,] standing where it
ought not, (let him that readeth understand,)

Mt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy
place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Lk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Mk 13:14b then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Mk 3:15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of
his house:

Mk 13:16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment.

Mt 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Mt 24:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

Mt 24:18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

Lk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out;
and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

In the above example it is clear that Mk 13:14a and Mt 24:15 are very close parallels. It is also clear that Mk 13:14b,
Mt 24:16, and Lk 21:21a are close parallels. However, can Lk 21:20 in any way be called a parallel of Mk 13:14a/Mt
24:15? It doesn't seem reasonable to me to call it a parallel; instead I see it as a rejection and replacement of Mk
13:14a/Mt 24:15. So, as well as asking how other people view Lk 21:20 in particular, I would like to ask just how this
situation is viewed generally, i.e. how far apart can two pieces of text in the synoptics be and still be regarded as
parallels? Is there even any common 'standard,' because if not, doesn't this at least blur the edges of the synoptic

On a related issue, the above passages provide an example of another synoptic phenomenon that has puzzled me for a
while, which is: Why are the verse divisions in the synoptics so inconsistent? For example, why does Mk 13:14 encompass
in one verse what is two verses in Mt? My understanding is that Robert Estienne created our modern verse divisions
around 1551, but if they were the work or (or at least under the control of) one person, then why are the synoptic
verses not always divided up the same way? Does anyone know whether this is a 'hangover' from some characteristic of the
Greek mss Estienne was used to seeing at the time, or perhaps something else? If so, is there anything that the verse
divisions can tell us with regard to the synoptic problem itself?

David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

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

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: David I On: What is a parallel? From: Bruce There is a terminological confusion here, which David is pointing to, and
Message 2 of 18 , Oct 5, 2011
• 0 Attachment
To: Synoptic
Cc: GPG
In Response To: David I
On: What is a parallel?
From: Bruce

There is a terminological confusion here, which David is pointing to, and
which I think it would be helpful to discourse to clean up. Herewith my
suggestion.

DAVID: In the above example it is clear that Mk 13:14a and Mt 24:15 are very
close parallels. It is also clear that Mk 13:14b, Mt 24:16, and Lk 21:21a
are close parallels. However, can Lk 21:20 in any way be called a parallel
of Mk 13:14a/Mt 24:15? It doesn't seem reasonable to me to call it a
parallel; instead I see it as a rejection and replacement of Mk 13:14a/Mt
24:15.

BRUCE: It seems to me that there are two questions here, and that neither
automatically gives the answer to the other. Of a given Luke passage, we can
usefully ask, "Is there anything corresponding to this in Mt or Mk?" When
there are passages which match in position and closely agree in wording,
there is no difficulty in identifying them as corresponding.

Does the Nazareth episode in Mark correspond to the Nazareth episode in
Luke? The two are not at comparable parts of the respective sequences (in
Luke, that episode occurs very early). And as to similarity, they start
similarly, but in their endings, they are violently different. So here we
might want to use our judgement, and part of judgement is knowing more
stuff. Once we see that Luke more than once relocates a story that is
otherwise recognizable as Markan, the problem of the difference of position
vanishes, at least as it tends to impugn identification as corresponding
passages. And once we see that the way Luke ends the Nazareth episode is
exactly analogous to the way he ends his whole Luke-Acts panorama
(Jewish/Christian mutual rejection), then that difference too becomes
understandable.

Nobody would worry about the word "parallel" if the two stories were
positionally the same and substantively similar. It is when the positional
parallel becomes a skew parallel, and the content similarity becomes a
disjunct and sometimes contrary similarity, that we have problems.

My own answer is not to ask, Is the Mark Nazareth parallel to the Luke
Nazareth? but rather, Are we better off understanding the Luke Nazareth
story if we also have on the table the Mark Nazareth story? To this, I think
the answer must be Yes. It is much easier to see what Luke is doing, if we
know what he is doing it to.

And if the familar word "parallel" is the way we are going to remind
ourselves to bring the two together, then I am prepared to live with any
resulting incidental skewness.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
• The question David Inglis is asking about parallels might seem of tangential interest but has quite serious implications for Synoptic studies. For example
Message 3 of 18 , Oct 5, 2011
• 0 Attachment
might seem of tangential interest but has quite serious
implications for Synoptic studies.

For example several earlier statistical approaches to
the Synoptic question have agonized over how exact in
form and sequence a set of words needs in order to be
Form und Folge identisch. (See Poirier on this).

The HHB concordance has the Synoptics in 19 categories
and some of these go

222 = same word in Mat Mk & Lk;
122 = Mat has a different word but has a parallel;
022 = Mat doesn't have either the word or a parallel.

Given that the other writers can do the same we get
9 categories for Matthew. The data from HHB allow
some serious analysis which David Inglis has done,
for example producing fresh evidence for Markan priority
by showing which of the 19 columns of data are, and are
not, closely correlated.

David M.

---------
David Mealand, University of Edinburgh

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
• ... I don t think there is any standard answer to your question. The problem, ISTM, is that the word parallel has no precise definition in textual criticism,
Message 4 of 18 , Oct 5, 2011
• 0 Attachment
At 10:13 AM 10/5/2011, David Inglis wrote:
>I originally asked the first of these questions on another forum,
>but as it has relevance to my synoptic stylometric
>analysis
>, I would like to bring it up on synoptic.

I don't think there is any standard answer to your question. The
problem, ISTM, is that the word "parallel" has no precise definition
in textual criticism, so there is no definitive answer to your question.
This is essentially a question of the practice of Textual Criticism.
An easy to read introduction to the subject may be found at
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/intro.html#Practice

The idea of "parallels" has been heavily influenced by parallel
Bibles and harmonies, that list Biblical "parallels" in columns to
facilitate comparison. In fact, of course, parallels are the very
stuff out of which synoptic studies are made. As you can imagine, the
texts arranged in parallel columns range from placing passages that
are literally identical side by side with passages that have only a
few key words in common. In other words, the idea of literary
"parallels" has been the object of so much abuse that it is difficult
to say what they are.

The problem is easily illustrated by the "minor agreements," which
are a special type of "parallel":
>Specifically, there are 347 instances (by Neirynck's count) where
>one or more words are added to the Markan text in both Matthew and
>Luke; these are called the "minor agreements" against Mark. Some 198
>instances involve one word, 82 involve two words, 35 three, 16 four,
>and 16 instances involve five or more words in the extant texts of
>Matthew and Luke as compared to Markan passages.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source)

So, how many different words are required before it is no longer a
parallel? Or should we be using percentages instead of raw counts? Or
to come from the opposite direction, how many words (or what
percentage of words) do two passages have to have in common before
they are considered "parallel"? And surely we have to address the
order of the words as well.
Pretty soon, the whole idea of trying to precisely define what a
parallel is, and what it is not, becomes hopeless.

Again, I refer you to the article above on the Practice of Textual Criticism.

Bob Schacht
Northern Arizona University

>
>
>
>Mk 13:14a But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation,
>[spoken of by Daniel the prophet,] standing where it
>ought not, (let him that readeth understand,)
>
>Mt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation,
>spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy
>place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
>
>Lk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then
>know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
>
>
>Mk 13:14b then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
>
>Mk 3:15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the
>house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of
>his house:
>
>Mk 13:16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to
>take up his garment.
>
>Mt 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
>
>Mt 24:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any
>thing out of his house:
>
>Mt 24:18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take
>his clothes.
>
>Lk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains;
>and let them which are in the midst of it depart out;
>and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
>
>
>
>In the above example it is clear that Mk 13:14a and Mt 24:15 are
>very close parallels. It is also clear that Mk 13:14b,
>Mt 24:16, and Lk 21:21a are close parallels. However, can Lk 21:20
>in any way be called a parallel of Mk 13:14a/Mt
>24:15? It doesn't seem reasonable to me to call it a parallel;
>instead I see it as a rejection and replacement of Mk
>13:14a/Mt 24:15. So, as well as asking how other people view Lk
>21:20 in particular, I would like to ask just how this
>situation is viewed generally, i.e. how far apart can two pieces of
>text in the synoptics be and still be regarded as
>parallels? Is there even any common 'standard,' because if not,
>doesn't this at least blur the edges of the synoptic
>
>
>
>On a related issue, the above passages provide an example of another
>synoptic phenomenon that has puzzled me for a
>while, which is: Why are the verse divisions in the synoptics so
>inconsistent? For example, why does Mk 13:14 encompass
>in one verse what is two verses in Mt? My understanding is that
>Robert Estienne created our modern verse divisions
>around 1551, but if they were the work or (or at least under the
>control of) one person, then why are the synoptic
>verses not always divided up the same way? Does anyone know whether
>this is a 'hangover' from some characteristic of the
>Greek mss Estienne was used to seeing at the time, or perhaps
>something else? If so, is there anything that the verse
>divisions can tell us with regard to the synoptic problem itself?
>
>
>
>David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• The issue of when passages are identical in form and sequence can be seen in Poirier s article pp.85, 105, 113, 117 P discusses Morgenthaler who raised the
Message 5 of 18 , Oct 6, 2011
• 0 Attachment
The issue of when passages are identical in form and sequence
can be seen in Poirier's article pp.85, 105, 113, 117
P discusses Morgenthaler who raised the issue, gives an example,
discusses Bergemann's further view of the matter, then the approach
of Ronning, then the work of the "Tokyo team".

The issue with the HHB is slightly different in that each word has
to be assigned. So for example data labelled 021 will
consist of words which are used by Mark, where the equivalent
passage is not there in Matthew, and where Luke uses a different
word from the one Mark used. (I am trying to keep wording as
theory neutral as possible - so avoiding "omits" "changes" etc.)

The problem is how much of Mark's wording/sentence/passage
has to be absent in Matthew to get an 021. How much of Mark's
wording/sentence/passage has to be present to get a 121 or a 221?

This may seem an abstruse technical issue but it can have serious
implications when one tries to decide on the HHB evidence whether
the stuff in Mark correlates better than the stuff in Matthew. The
evidence is that it does. That should be the case if Matthew used Mark.
The opposite should be the case if Mark used Matthew. David Inglis
argues that the data in the relevant columns based on HHB shows
Mark to be more consistent, and Matthew to be more diverse.
I think his analysis of this is correct.

It would be interesting to know if anyone has experience of agreeing
with, or dissenting from, the judgements on the assignments of words
to categories in the HHB Synoptic Concordance, especially in relation
to their assessment of "parallel" passages.

David M.

---------
David Mealand, University of Edinburgh

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
• There are indeed terminological issues here.  An important word to add to the discussion is dependence. Lk generally demonstrates more freedom in his
Message 6 of 18 , Oct 6, 2011
• 0 Attachment
There are indeed terminological issues here.  An important word to add to the discussion is "dependence."

Lk generally demonstrates more freedom in his wording with pericope that also occur in Mt and Mk.  When this happens in the triple tradition, as is the case in "armies surrounding Jerusalem" vs. "the abomination....," we learn at least that Lk is not the "middle term" of the synoptics, i.e., Lk is dependent on Mk or Mt or both or sumpin'.

Chuck

Rev. Chuck Jones
Atlanta, Georgia

________________________________
From: Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...>
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 1:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] When is a parallel not a parallel? Also, when is a verse not a verse?

At 10:13 AM 10/5/2011, David Inglis wrote:
>I originally asked the first of these questions on another forum,
>but as it has relevance to my synoptic stylometric
>analysis
>, I would like to bring it up on synoptic.

I don't think there is any standard answer to your question. The
problem, ISTM, is that the word "parallel" has no precise definition
in textual criticism, so there is no definitive answer to your question.
This is essentially a question of the practice of Textual Criticism.
An easy to read introduction to the subject may be found at
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/intro.html#Practice

The idea of "parallels" has been heavily influenced by parallel
Bibles and harmonies, that list Biblical "parallels" in columns to
facilitate comparison. In fact, of course, parallels are the very
stuff out of which synoptic studies are made. As you can imagine, the
texts arranged in parallel columns range from placing passages that
are literally identical side by side with passages that have only a
few key words in common. In other words, the idea of literary
"parallels" has been the object of so much abuse that it is difficult
to say what they are.

The problem is easily illustrated by the "minor agreements," which
are a special type of "parallel":
>Specifically, there are 347 instances (by Neirynck's count) where
>one or more words are added to the Markan text in both Matthew and
>Luke; these are called the "minor agreements" against Mark. Some 198
>instances involve one word, 82 involve two words, 35 three, 16 four,
>and 16 instances involve five or more words in the extant texts of
>Matthew and Luke as compared to Markan passages.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source)

So, how many different words are required before it is no longer a
parallel? Or should we be using percentages instead of raw counts? Or
to come from the opposite direction, how many words (or what
percentage of words) do two passages have to have in common before
they are considered "parallel"? And surely we have to address the
order of the words as well.
Pretty soon, the whole idea of trying to precisely define what a
parallel is, and what it is not, becomes hopeless.

Again, I refer you to the article above on the Practice of Textual Criticism.

Bob Schacht
Northern Arizona University

>
>
>
>Mk 13:14a But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation,
>[spoken of by Daniel the prophet,] standing where it
>ought not, (let him that readeth understand,)
>
>Mt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation,
>spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy
>place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
>
>Lk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then
>know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
>
>
>Mk 13:14b then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
>
>Mk 3:15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the
>house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of
>his house:
>
>Mk 13:16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to
>take up his garment.
>
>Mt 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
>
>Mt 24:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any
>thing out of his house:
>
>Mt 24:18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take
>his clothes.
>
>Lk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains;
>and let them which are in the midst of it depart out;
>and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
>
>
>
>In the above example it is clear that Mk 13:14a and Mt 24:15 are
>very close parallels. It is also clear that Mk 13:14b,
>Mt 24:16, and Lk 21:21a are close parallels. However, can Lk 21:20
>in any way be called a parallel of Mk 13:14a/Mt
>24:15? It doesn't seem reasonable to me to call it a parallel;
>instead I see it as a rejection and replacement of Mk
>13:14a/Mt 24:15. So, as well as asking how other people view Lk
>21:20 in particular, I would like to ask just how this
>situation is viewed generally, i.e. how far apart can two pieces of
>text in the synoptics be and still be regarded as
>parallels? Is there even any common 'standard,' because if not,
>doesn't this at least blur the edges of the synoptic
>
>
>
>On a related issue, the above passages provide an example of another
>synoptic phenomenon that has puzzled me for a
>while, which is: Why are the verse divisions in the synoptics so
>inconsistent? For example, why does Mk 13:14 encompass
>in one verse what is two verses in Mt? My understanding is that
>Robert Estienne created our modern verse divisions
>around 1551, but if they were the work or (or at least under the
>control of) one person, then why are the synoptic
>verses not always divided up the same way? Does anyone know whether
>this is a 'hangover' from some characteristic of the
>Greek mss Estienne was used to seeing at the time, or perhaps
>something else? If so, is there anything that the verse
>divisions can tell us with regard to the synoptic problem itself?
>
>
>
>David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>
>
>

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

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Canonical Luke seems dependent. I like Klinghardt s proposal, which posits Luke and Matt to be dependent upon Mark and an early version of Luke that Marcion
Message 7 of 18 , Oct 6, 2011
• 0 Attachment
Canonical Luke seems dependent. I like Klinghardt's proposal, which posits Luke and Matt to be dependent upon Mark and an early version of "Luke" that Marcion used.
Dennis Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.

----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck Jones
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] When is a parallel not a parallel? Also, when is a verse not a verse?

There are indeed terminological issues here. An important word to add to the discussion is "dependence."

Lk generally demonstrates more freedom in his wording with pericope that also occur in Mt and Mk. When this happens in the triple tradition, as is the case in "armies surrounding Jerusalem" vs. "the abomination....," we learn at least that Lk is not the "middle term" of the synoptics, i.e., Lk is dependent on Mk or Mt or both or sumpin'.

Chuck

Rev. Chuck Jones
Atlanta, Georgia

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• David I: I posed the following question: Why are the verse divisions in the synoptics so inconsistent? For example, why does Mk 13:14 encompass in one verse
Message 8 of 18 , Oct 6, 2011
• 0 Attachment
David I: I posed the following question:

Why are the verse divisions in the synoptics so inconsistent? For example, why does Mk 13:14 encompass
in one verse what is two verses in Mt? My understanding is that Robert Estienne created our modern verse divisions
around 1551, but if they were the work or (or at least under the control of) one person, then why are the synoptic
verses not always divided up the same way? Does anyone know whether this is a 'hangover' from some characteristic of the
Greek mss Estienne was used to seeing at the time, or perhaps something else? If so, is there anything that the verse
divisions can tell us with regard to the synoptic problem itself?

Rev. Chuck Jones responded:

If I had to guess about your second question, it is that he demarcated the gospel verses over time, and simply forgot what he'd done earlier.

David I: Chuck, I find it hard to believe that this was the case, because if so then why would these divisions have become universally accepted? Unless there was some logic or pattern behind the divisions then I don’t see how this could become so dominant. One interesting consideration is that in Panarion 42 (c. 375), Epiphanius frequently mentions ‘verses’ in Lk (or rather, that’s the word used in English translations). For example:

Scholion 55: Again, he excised the material about the vineyard which was let out to husbandmen, and the verse, ”What is this then, The stone which the builders rejected?”

In other words, there was an early pattern of divisions more than 1,000 years before Estienne, so what was it based on, and did Estienne use the same ‘markers’ as Epiphanius when creating his verses?

David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Re the translation cited: Scholion 55: Again, he excised the material about the vineyard which was let out to husbandmen, and the verse, ”What is this then,
Message 9 of 18 , Oct 6, 2011
• 0 Attachment
Re the translation cited:
Scholion 55: Again, he excised the material about the vineyard which
was let out to husbandmen, and the verse, ”What is this then, The
stone which the builders rejected?”

The Greek at the Epiphanius passage (nu epsilon = 55) does
not have the words which appear in the translation as
"material" and "verse".  It simply has the neuter plural of
the definite article the first time  i.e. the things
time it simply has the neuter singular of the definite
article i.e. the bit, or the sentence, or the saying, or
the question. The reader of the Greek has to supply
a suitable noun.  So sadly the quest for verse division
can't be established as early as this from this passage.

Incidentally is the story true that the 16th C verse division
was done as the scholar in question "travelled across Europe
on horseback" as I heard a lecturer declare many years ago?
Presumably he meant the work was done in the inns after the
route for the day had been completed.

David M.

---------
David Mealand,     University of Edinburgh

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
• ... I usually heard it joked that every time there was a bump in the road, a new verse came into being. Stephen -- Stephen C. Carlson Graduate Program in
Message 10 of 18 , Oct 6, 2011
• 0 Attachment
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:30 PM, David Mealand <D.Mealand@...> wrote:

> **
>
> Incidentally is the story true that the 16th C verse division
> was done as the scholar in question "travelled across Europe
> on horseback" as I heard a lecturer declare many years ago?
> Presumably he meant the work was done in the inns after the
> route for the day had been completed.
>

I usually heard it joked that every time there was a bump in the road, a new
verse came into being.

Stephen
--
Stephen C. Carlson
Duke University

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• ... For the bump, I did not know, but the horse travel is considered to be true in France. The scholar was the great printer, publisher and editor Robert
Message 11 of 18 , Oct 7, 2011
• 0 Attachment
Stephen Carlson a écrit :
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:30 PM, David Mealand <D.Mealand@...
> <mailto:D.Mealand%40ed.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
> I usually heard it joked that every time there was a bump in the road,
> a new
> verse came into being.
>
For the bump, I did not know, but the horse travel is considered to be
true in France.
The scholar was the great printer, publisher and editor Robert Estienne.

Some details and other stuff (including a reference in english) in :

a+
manu
• Don t know if it s true, but I heard the same story, including the bumps in the road. Chuck Rev. Chuck Jones Atlanta, Georgia ________________________________
Message 12 of 18 , Oct 7, 2011
• 0 Attachment
Don't know if it's true, but I heard the same story, including the bumps in the road.

Chuck

Rev. Chuck Jones
Atlanta, Georgia

________________________________
From: Stephen Carlson <stemmatic@...>
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] when is a verse not a verse?

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:30 PM, David Mealand <D.Mealand@...> wrote:

> **
>
> Incidentally is the story true that the 16th C verse division
> was done as the scholar in question "travelled across Europe
> on horseback" as I heard a lecturer declare many years ago?
> Presumably he meant the work was done in the inns after the
> route for the day had been completed.
>

I usually heard it joked that every time there was a bump in the road, a new
verse came into being.

Stephen
--
Stephen C. Carlson
Duke University

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

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• ... All joking aside, my experience from preparing my own synopsis is that while the chapter seem to line up fairly well with synoptic parallels, the verses do
Message 13 of 18 , Oct 7, 2011
• 0 Attachment
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:13 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> On a related issue, the above passages provide an example of another
> synoptic phenomenon that has puzzled me for a
> while, which is: Why are the verse divisions in the synoptics so
> inconsistent? For example, why does Mk 13:14 encompass
> in one verse what is two verses in Mt? My understanding is that Robert
> Estienne created our modern verse divisions
> around 1551, but if they were the work or (or at least under the control
> of) one person, then why are the synoptic
> verses not always divided up the same way? Does anyone know whether this is
> a 'hangover' from some characteristic of the
> Greek mss Estienne was used to seeing at the time, or perhaps something
> else? If so, is there anything that the verse
> divisions can tell us with regard to the synoptic problem itself?
>
All joking aside, my experience from preparing my own synopsis is that while
the chapter seem to line up fairly well with synoptic parallels, the verses
do not.

In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to urge all people interested
in the synoptic problem to prepare a synopsis themselves (ideally in Greek
but an old-fashioned formal equivalent can do). There is no substitute for
getting down into the data, and getting a feel for what's going on at its
most basic level. Unfortunately in the U.S., the synoptic problem is
usually taught as a single lecture in an undergraduate or master's level
class, generally by presenting the Mark-Q theory as the solution and
refracting what little data that can be described in an hour through that
lens.

Stephen
--
Stephen C. Carlson
Duke University

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Good ole wiki.  I would say that given the prestige and stature of his publishing house, the horse story goes out the window (back to the barn?). Chuck
Message 14 of 18 , Oct 7, 2011
• 0 Attachment
Good ole wiki.  I would say that given the prestige and stature of his publishing house, the horse story goes out the window (back to the barn?).

Chuck
______________________

Robert Estienne:

"In 1532, he published the remarkable Thesaurus linguae latinae, and twice he published the entire Hebrew Bible — "one with the Commentary of Kimchi on the minor prophets, in 13 vols. 4to (quarto) (Paris, 1539-43), another in 10 vols. 16mo (sextodecimo) (ibid. 1544-46)."[4] Both of these editions are rare.

"Of more importance are his four editions of the Greek New Testament, 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551, the last in Geneva. The first two are among the neatest Greek texts known, and are called O mirificam; the third is a splendid masterpiece of typographical skill, and is known as the Editio Regia; the edition of 1551 contains the Latin translation of Erasmus and the Vulgate, is not nearly as fine as the other three, and is exceedingly rare. It was in this edition that the division of the New Testament into verses was for the first time introduced."

________________________________
From: Emmanuel Fritsch <emmanuel.fritsch@...>
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 7, 2011 6:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] when is a verse not a verse?

Stephen Carlson a écrit :
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:30 PM, David Mealand <D.Mealand@...
> <mailto:D.Mealand%40ed.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
> I usually heard it joked that every time there was a bump in the road,
> a new
> verse came into being.
>
For the bump, I did not know, but the horse travel is considered to be
true in France.
The scholar was the great printer, publisher and editor Robert Estienne.

Some details and other stuff (including a reference in english) in :

a+
manu

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• The French passage cited here recently runs that Stephanus himself says in his letter to the reader (Concordance 1594) that he did the verse division on his
Message 15 of 18 , Oct 7, 2011
• 0 Attachment
The French passage cited here recently
runs that Stephanus himself says in his
letter to the reader (Concordance 1594)
that he did the verse division on his journey
from Paris to Lyon - mostly on horseback...

So Stephen Carlson seems to be right about
the bumps...

The account is not quite from the horse's mouth
though, but seems to be the nearest thing...

---------
David Mealand, University of Edinburgh

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.