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

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

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    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 1 of 18 , Oct 5, 2011
      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
    • David Mealand
      The question David Inglis is asking about parallels might seem of tangential interest but has quite serious implications for Synoptic studies. For example
      Message 2 of 18 , Oct 5, 2011
        The question David Inglis is asking about parallels
        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.
      • Bob Schacht
        ... 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 3 of 18 , Oct 5, 2011
          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
          >here <https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/the-synoptic-problem>
          >https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/the-synoptic-problem
          >, 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
          >sonderguts, double/triple traditions, etc?
          >
          >
          >
          >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]
          >
          >
          >
          >------------------------------------
          >
          >Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • David Mealand
          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 4 of 18 , Oct 6, 2011
            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.
          • Chuck Jones
            There are indeed terminological issues here.  An important word to add to the discussion is dependence. Lk generally demonstrates more freedom in his
            Message 5 of 18 , Oct 6, 2011
              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
              >here <https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/the-synoptic-problem>
              >https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/the-synoptic-problem
              >, 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
              >sonderguts, double/triple traditions, etc?
              >
              >
              >
              >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]
              >
              >
              >
              >------------------------------------
              >
              >Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >

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




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Dennis
              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 6 of 18 , Oct 6, 2011
                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 Inglis
                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 7 of 18 , Oct 6, 2011
                  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]
                • David Mealand
                  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 8 of 18 , Oct 6, 2011
                    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
                    about, or the bits about, or the words about.  The second
                    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.
                  • Stephen Carlson
                    ... 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 9 of 18 , Oct 6, 2011
                      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
                      Graduate Program in Religion
                      Duke University


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Emmanuel Fritsch
                      ... 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 10 of 18 , Oct 7, 2011
                        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 :

                        http://books.google.com/books?id=ULHVwKJYO38C&lpg=PA54&ots=qLLSqRnDUL&dq=d%C3%A9coupage%20des%20versets%20estienne&pg=PA54#v=onepage&q=d%C3%A9coupage%20des%20versets%20estienne&f=false

                        a+
                        manu
                      • Chuck Jones
                        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 11 of 18 , Oct 7, 2011
                          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
                          Graduate Program in Religion
                          Duke University

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




                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Stephen Carlson
                          ... 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 12 of 18 , Oct 7, 2011
                            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
                            Graduate Program in Religion
                            Duke University


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Chuck Jones
                            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 13 of 18 , Oct 7, 2011
                              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 :

                              http://books.google.com/books?id=ULHVwKJYO38C&lpg=PA54&ots=qLLSqRnDUL&dq=d%C3%A9coupage%20des%20versets%20estienne&pg=PA54#v=onepage&q=d%C3%A9coupage%20des%20versets%20estienne&f=false

                              a+
                              manu



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • David Mealand
                              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 14 of 18 , Oct 7, 2011
                                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.