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

A synoptic idea

Expand Messages
  • gentile_dave@emc.com
    This is an idea that came up in discussion with Bruce Brooks and Tim Lewis on another list. Luke s Q section seems to be dependent on Matthew. Mark Goodacre
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 8, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      This is an idea that came up in discussion with Bruce Brooks and Tim
      Lewis on another list.



      Luke's "Q" section seems to be dependent on Matthew. Mark Goodacre has
      noted stylistic similarities. Also my vocabulary study indicated that
      "Q" and sonndergut Matthew seems to share a common or at least
      correlated vocabulary profile.
      http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/main.html

      Some subsequent investigation of the vocabulary showed that even if we
      just look and Luke's Q section just as it is found in Luke, it looks
      more like other material found only in Matthew than it does like other
      material found only in Luke.



      This seems to support the "Mark without Q" hypothesis.



      Some issues however -



      Luke's scattering of the sayings material really does tend to suggest a
      sayings source.

      Also we have an odd combination of apparent respect for Matthew's text
      (following the wording closely), with apparent disrespect (ignoring the
      first 2 chapters, and scattering the material)



      Here is an idea that simply explains all of the above -



      Suppose "Q" and Matthew have the same author. The scenario runs like
      this - Mark is an old and established text. A late 1st century author
      claims to have a list of sayings by the disciple Matthew, but in fact it
      is really a completely contemporary document. This document is then
      published in a limited way, but this same author who forged "Q", then
      goes on to produce the gospel of Matthew. The author of Luke is taken in
      by the "Q" forgery, and believes it is an authentically from an apostle.
      But Luke recognizes "Matthew" as a contemporary document, and while he
      is aware of Matthew, he generally does not choose to use it.



      Thus, all our facts are explained. Why does Luke's "Q" section look like
      it has a vocabulary and style in common with Matthew? Because the same
      author wrote both "Q" and "Matthew". Why does Luke scatter the sayings
      as if they were from a saying source? Because that is what Luke was
      using. Why does Luke seem to respect/disrespect the text of Matthew?
      Because Luke does respect the text of "Q", but generally not the text of
      "Matthew".



      One might suggest that the author of Matthew just produced the first
      Greek version of an Aramaic sayings source. But that hypothesis would be
      dependent on finding evidence of translation from Aramaic in "Q".



      Finally, we can note that this fits well with what Papias's tells us. He
      says that Matthew wrote his LOGIA first. Papia would just be reporting
      what he was led to believe, that the gospel of Matthew was produced from
      a saying-source by the apostle.



      I'm sure Ron will bring up the 3-source hypothesis here. And in fact, I
      agree. Luke is using Mark, "Q", and to a limited extent Matthew. But I
      think the similarities between the styles of "Q" and Matthew are strong
      enough to indicate that Matthew and "Q" were produced by the same
      person.



      Thoughts?



      Dave Gentile

      Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician

      B.S./M.S. Physics

      M.S. Finance (ABD Management Science)

      Riverside, IL





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Ron Price
      ... Dave, But we don t need to propose that Q and Mark had the same author, nor that any forgery was involved. All we need to propose is that of the Double
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 8, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Dave Gentile wrote:

        > Suppose "Q" and Matthew have the same author. The scenario runs like
        > this - Mark is an old and established text. A late 1st century author
        > claims to have a list of sayings by the disciple Matthew, but in fact it
        > is really a completely contemporary document. This document is then
        > published in a limited way, but this same author who forged "Q", then
        > goes on to produce the gospel of Matthew. The author of Luke is taken in
        > by the "Q" forgery, and believes it is an authentically from an apostle.
        > But Luke recognizes "Matthew" as a contemporary document, and while he
        > is aware of Matthew, he generally does not choose to use it.

        Dave,

        But we don't need to propose that "Q" and Mark had the same author, nor that
        any forgery was involved. All we need to propose is that of the Double
        Tradition material, about two-thirds came from "Q" (alias the 'logia') and
        the remainder Luke adapted directly from Matthew. This allows me to answer
        your questions as follows:

        > Why does Luke's "Q" section look like
        > it has a vocabulary and style in common with Matthew?

        Because the vivid Matthean style in the remainder dominates the less
        distinctive logia style of the majority, providing a positive correlation
        with the style of Matthew itself.

        > Why does Luke scatter the sayings
        > as if they were from a saying source?

        Because that is what Luke was using. [Our answer is the same here.]

        > Why does Luke seem to respect/disrespect the text of Matthew?

        Because Luke has a fairly high degree of respect for the text of the logia,
        but generally less respect for the text of Matthew. [Again we seem to be in
        agreement.]

        > Finally, we can note that this fits well with what Papias's tells us. He
        > says that Matthew wrote his LOGIA first. Papia would just be reporting
        > what he was led to believe, that the gospel of Matthew was produced from
        > a saying-source by the apostle.

        I think Papias was simply saying that the apostle Matthew edited the logia,
        and that the early church was mistaken in thinking that the document which
        Papias credited to Matthew was what we now call Matthew's gospel.

        > I'm sure Ron will bring up the 3-source hypothesis here. And in fact, I
        > agree. Luke is using Mark, "Q", and to a limited extent Matthew. But I
        > think the similarities between the styles of "Q" and Matthew are strong
        > enough to indicate that Matthew and "Q" were produced by the same
        > person.

        For which passages do you think Luke was primarily dependent on Matthew? I
        suggest Lk 3:7-9, 16-17; 4:1-13; 7:1-10, 18-28, 31-35; 10:13-15, 21-22;
        11:14-22, 24-26; 12:10, 42-46; 13:28-29, 34-35; 14:16-24; 16:16;
        19:12-25,27. I bet there would be a good correlation in style between these
        passages and Matthew's 'M' material. On the other hand the style of the
        Lukan sayings derived from the logia (the two-thirds mentioned above) would
        have very little in common with the style of 'M'.

        Ron Price

        Derbyshire, UK

        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
      • Dave Gentile
        Ron, I have to admit, I had not carefully considered what would differentiate my idea from yours. Given that they are both versions of the 3SH, they are going
        Message 3 of 12 , Sep 9, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Ron,

          I have to admit, I had not carefully considered what would
          differentiate my idea from yours. Given that they are both versions
          of the 3SH, they are going to be rather hard to separate.

          Ron:

          > For which passages do you think Luke was primarily dependent on
          Matthew? I
          > suggest Lk 3:7-9, 16-17; 4:1-13; 7:1-10, 18-28, 31-35; 10:13-15,
          21-22;
          > 11:14-22, 24-26; 12:10, 42-46; 13:28-29, 34-35; 14:16-24; 16:16;
          > 19:12-25,27. I bet there would be a good correlation in style
          between these
          > passages and Matthew's 'M' material. On the other hand the style
          of the
          > Lukan sayings derived from the logia (the two-thirds mentioned
          above) would
          > have very little in common with the style of 'M'.

          Dave:

          I agree, if that exercise came out the way you suggest, then we
          would have support for your version. This would involve counting all
          those 800 items, by synoptic category, and divided between your two
          groupings...I'd certainly be willing to run it through the number
          cruncher if the data was provided...

          In general, I don't think Luke used much of Matthew directly. Some
          minor agreements are Matthian, the special preaching of John the
          Baptist, and the version of Mark 3:22-30 I discussed, for example. I
          like your breakdown, although the distinctions based on Matthian
          style would be brought into question by the possibility
          that "Matthew" wrote both documents.

          I think I started thinking along these lines for two reasons. One
          was a new result from tinkering around with the spreadsheet that
          showed Luke's Q section looked more like Matthew than Luke. (I've
          not written this one up, even on the web page) If Luke's Q section
          contains material by Luke, and Q, and Matthew, and Matthew
          represents only a small part of the text, this seems to be a
          difficult result to explain (although not impossible). If, on the
          other hand, Luke's source was all Matthian is style, then the
          statistical result seems to fit better.

          The other thing that led me in that direction was doing the fairly
          detailed reconstruction of "synoptic-prime" for myself. The result I
          got was that Q was at least nearly absent in this less corrupted
          Mark. This suggests, although it does not prove, that Mark is older
          than the Q material.

          So, those two things, the statistical result, and the exercise of
          trying to reconstruct "synoptic prime" led my thinking towards that
          suggestion. Which is really all it is at this point, a suggestion,
          an alternative that I had not heard mentioned before.

          So, let's try this, let's suppose your Q/Matthew reconstruction is
          essentially correct, and suppose that I'm correct that an earlier
          (less corrupted) version of Mark lacked most overlap material. If
          that were the case, then can you think of a good argument to favor
          an early date for Q vs. a late forgery that claims to be from an
          apostolic source?

          Dave Gentile
          Riverside, IL
        • Ron Price
          ... Dave, I don t think there is a good argument, for these two suppositions seem to me to be essentially incompatible. For in my opinion Mark s liberal
          Message 4 of 12 , Sep 10, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Dave Gentile wrote:

            > So, let's try this, let's suppose your Q/Matthew reconstruction is
            > essentially correct, and suppose that I'm correct that an earlier
            > (less corrupted) version of Mark lacked most overlap material. If
            > that were the case, then can you think of a good argument to favor
            > an early date for Q vs. a late forgery that claims to be from an
            > apostolic source?

            Dave,

            I don't think there is a good argument, for these two suppositions seem to
            me to be essentially incompatible. For in my opinion Mark's liberal
            treatment of the basically Jewish sayings source is just what would be
            expected from his sharp criticisms of the original Jewish followers of
            Jesus. It would be a very odd co-incidence if a third party had added to
            Mark, material which so well matches his attitude in the narrative sections.

            Ron Price

            Derbyshire, UK

            Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
          • Dave Gentile
            Ron Price wrote: For in my opinion Mark s liberal treatment of the basically Jewish sayings source is just what would be expected from his sharp criticisms of
            Message 5 of 12 , Sep 10, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Ron Price wrote:

              For in my opinion Mark's liberal
              treatment of the basically Jewish sayings source is just what would
              be expected from his sharp criticisms of the original Jewish
              followers of Jesus.

              It would be a very odd co-incidence if a third party had added to
              Mark, material which so well matches his attitude in the narrative
              sections.

              Dave:

              Did you have a specific narrative example in mind?

              And do you mean that you think the added material itself fits well
              with the narrative material, or just that it fits that he would omit
              as much as he did of Q if it were available?

              Because, if all we are saying is that the "omitted" part of Q and
              Mark have different views, then that could run in either direction.
              Suppose for example Mark is first, and then there is a Gnostic
              movement that develops, and Q/Matthew represents a conservative
              reaction to the Gnostics who in their view represent too drastic of
              a change.

              As for the fit of the added material, I'm not so sure it does fit
              well. It is possible for example that your perception of Mark's
              narrative sections is colored by the saying sections. But suppose we
              did find elements with strong commonality, that could of course mean
              I'm wrong about these sections being added, or alternately, it could
              indicate that a community that used the gospel of Mark, and held
              views consistent with it, added material that they thought fit well
              with the original Mark.

              In any case, I can see that what would be needed to support my idea
              over yours here would be a detailed presentation of the
              reconstruction I did for myself of "synoptic prime". I don't
              currently have that available. So I'll concede that at least at this
              point I can't demonstrate the superiority of one idea over the
              other.

              Dave Gentile
              Riverside, IL

              --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:
              >
              > Dave Gentile wrote:
              >
              > > So, let's try this, let's suppose your Q/Matthew reconstruction
              is
              > > essentially correct, and suppose that I'm correct that an earlier
              > > (less corrupted) version of Mark lacked most overlap material. If
              > > that were the case, then can you think of a good argument to
              favor
              > > an early date for Q vs. a late forgery that claims to be from an
              > > apostolic source?
              >
              > Dave,
              >
              > I don't think there is a good argument, for these two suppositions
              seem to
              > me to be essentially incompatible. For in my opinion Mark's liberal
              > treatment of the basically Jewish sayings source is just what
              would be
              > expected from his sharp criticisms of the original Jewish
              followers of
              > Jesus. It would be a very odd co-incidence if a third party had
              added to
              > Mark, material which so well matches his attitude in the narrative
              sections.
              >
              > Ron Price
              >
              > Derbyshire, UK
              >
              > Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
              >
            • Ron Price
              ... Dave, The most prominent is the story of Peter s denial which presents Peter as disloyal, but there are several other passages such as Mk 3:31-35 which
              Message 6 of 12 , Sep 11, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                I had written:

                > For in my opinion Mark's liberal
                > treatment of the basically Jewish sayings source is just what would
                > be expected from his sharp criticisms of the original Jewish
                > followers of Jesus.
                >
                > It would be a very odd co-incidence if a third party had added to
                > Mark, material which so well matches his attitude in the narrative
                > sections.

                Dave Gentile replied:

                > Did you have a specific narrative example in mind?

                Dave,

                The most prominent is the story of Peter's denial which presents Peter as
                disloyal, but there are several other passages such as Mk 3:31-35 which
                presents Jesus' brothers as disrespectful and Mk 10:35-40 which presents two
                followers of Jesus as greedy.

                > And do you mean that you think the added material itself fits well
                > with the narrative material, or just that it fits that he would omit
                > as much as he did of Q if it were available?

                It's the combination of what is omitted and how the remainder is redacted,
                that broadly matches the criticism of Jews and Judaism in a number of
                passages in the rest of Mark's gospel. In a few cases the match is quite
                specific. For instance, Mark transforms the 'Q' saying about the endurance
                of the Jewish law (Q 16:17) into a saying about the endurance of Jesus'
                words (Mk 13:31), which matches his proclamation that Jewish food laws can
                be ignored (Mk 7:14-19).

                Ron Price

                Derbyshire, UK

                Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
              • gentile_dave@emc.com
                I wrote: Did you have a specific narrative example in mind? And Ron replied: The most prominent is the story of Peter s denial which presents Peter as
                Message 7 of 12 , Sep 11, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  I wrote:



                  Did you have a specific narrative example in mind?

                  And Ron replied:

                  The most prominent is the story of Peter's denial which presents Peter
                  as
                  disloyal, but there are several other passages such as Mk 3:31-35 which
                  presents Jesus' brothers as disrespectful and Mk 10:35-40 which presents
                  two
                  followers of Jesus as greedy.



                  Dave:



                  O.K. I understand what you were referring to now. We might and that the
                  disciples seem rather dense.



                  I had written:


                  > And do you mean that you think the added material itself fits well
                  > with the narrative material, or just that it fits that he would omit
                  > as much as he did of Q if it were available?



                  Ron then replied:


                  It's the combination of what is omitted and how the remainder is
                  redacted,
                  that broadly matches the criticism of Jews and Judaism in a number of
                  passages in the rest of Mark's gospel. In a few cases the match is quite
                  specific. For instance, Mark transforms the 'Q' saying about the
                  endurance
                  of the Jewish law (Q 16:17) into a saying about the endurance of Jesus'
                  words (Mk 13:31), which matches his proclamation that Jewish food laws
                  can
                  be ignored (Mk 7:14-19).



                  Dave:

                  And we could add things like Mark's "the Sabbath was made for man, not
                  man for the Sabbath".



                  So, no doubt we could call Mark "liberal" in his interpretation of
                  Jewish scripture,

                  and we could say that Mark's presentation of the disciples and the
                  family of Jesus is unfavorable. We agree.



                  But how I would explain Mk. 13:31 and Q 16:17, is that Mark 13:31 is
                  Mark's original work, which by Mark 13 does not seem out of step with
                  Mark's gradual revelation about the nature of Jesus. Then Q 16:17 is
                  authored later, by the author of Q/Matthew, as part of a conservative
                  reaction. I would speculate that this conservative reaction is driven
                  in part by the emergence of Gnosticism, with a complete rejection of the
                  OT and the OT God. Matthew in reaction, while not particularly favorable
                  to the Jewish people, is very interested in saying that the OT is still
                  scripture, (and therefore) we are still followers of the same God.



                  So my hypothesis says "Matthew" has Mark in hand, and wants to write a
                  new gospel from his conservative view-point (conservative in regards to
                  Jewish scripture), and he forges a sayings list in the name of an
                  apostle that justifies this intended gospel. Mt. 5:18/Q 16:17 would be
                  an example of this. He borrows a bit of language from Mark (which will
                  help lend authenticity to his new "saying-source"), but changes Mark's
                  words to support his own conservative agenda. He wants to say that Mark
                  was close to correct, but got some things a bit wrong.



                  Of course like most synoptic phenomena, this seems to be nearly fully
                  reversible, depending on assumptions.



                  But there are other less reversible examples, I think.

                  The salt sayings would be another less reversible example, and there are
                  some other potential examples under "Matthew, Luke, and Salt" on my page

                  http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/Mark.html

                  I believe they show Matthew revising Mark in non-Q sections to be more
                  favorable towards the OT and the old covenant.

                  Could we say that Q's text looks suspiciously supportive of Matthew's
                  agenda? Or maybe you would argue instead that Matthew only chose to use
                  Q, *because* Q supported his agenda. In that case, at the very least, we
                  could say that Matthew and Q seems to share the same view point. And,
                  while it is clearly possible for two different authors to share a point
                  of view, the fact that Q and Matthew do seems to agree, would at least
                  constitute supporting evidence for their authorship by the same person.



                  Dave Gentile

                  Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician

                  B.S./M.S. Physics

                  M.S. Finance (ABD Management Science)

                  Riverside, IL

















                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Ron Price
                  ... Dave, As Christianity was born out of Judaism, and not the other way round, it seems to me more natural to see Mk 13:31 as a development of Q 16:17. ...
                  Message 8 of 12 , Sep 12, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dave Gentile wrote:

                    > But how I would explain Mk. 13:31 and Q 16:17, is that Mark 13:31 is
                    > Mark's original work, which by Mark 13 does not seem out of step with
                    > Mark's gradual revelation about the nature of Jesus. Then Q 16:17 is
                    > authored later, by the author of Q/Matthew, as part of a conservative
                    > reaction.

                    Dave,

                    As Christianity was born out of Judaism, and not the other way round, it
                    seems to me more natural to see Mk 13:31 as a development of Q 16:17.

                    > I would speculate that this conservative reaction is driven
                    > in part by the emergence of Gnosticism, with a complete rejection of the
                    > OT and the OT God.

                    But the synoptic gospels, within which this conservative reaction is
                    supposed to have been manifested, were all penned in the first century,
                    whereas my understanding is that gnosticism didn't really have much
                    influence until the early second century.

                    > So my hypothesis says "Matthew" has Mark in hand, and wants to write a
                    > new gospel from his conservative view-point (conservative in regards to
                    > Jewish scripture), and he forges a sayings list in the name of an
                    > apostle that justifies this intended gospel.

                    But Jesus was a Jew, and all his original followers (including all the
                    original apostles) were Jews. Therefore I think it's quite reasonable,
                    bearing in mind Papias' statement that Matthew assembled the logia, to
                    attribute the first written form of Lk 16:17 to the apostle Matthew.

                    Ron Price

                    Derbyshire, UK

                    Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                  • gentile_dave@emc.com
                    Ken wrote: You make a bunch of initial assumptions Dave: I m sure I make some assumptions for simplification, although at least some of these have an empirical
                    Message 9 of 12 , Sep 12, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Ken wrote:



                      You make a bunch of initial assumptions



                      Dave:



                      I'm sure I make some assumptions for simplification, although at least
                      some of these have an empirical base, if we probe deeper. Of course, if
                      some false assumption is made, we would indeed want to uncover that. I'm
                      sure you have simplifying assumptions as well, in your argument.



                      Ken: and then you propose a bunch of hypothetical sources



                      Dave: And you have your own hypothesis about Luke's behavior. We propose
                      competing hypotheses and look for evidence to support of contradict
                      them. Standard rational-empiricism.



                      Ken: When your assumptions are criticized, you restate them



                      Dave: You argued that "respect" might not be uniform quality, that it
                      was divisible, so I changed my wording. "Estimation of a source's
                      position to know" is not a something that can easily vary across a
                      document by (what we assume to be) a single author.



                      Ken: and hypothesize new and different hypothetical sources to do away
                      with the difficulties.



                      Dave: Additional hypotheses to better explain data are also part of the
                      rational-empirical process.



                      Ken: Perhaps you could read Jubilees and then tell me whether the author
                      considered the Torah an "authoritative" text or not. Or make a list of
                      biblical quotations in John and then tell me if John regarded the OT as
                      an "authoritative" text. Or tell me why Plutarch assigns certain
                      sayings to different charcters in his Lives.



                      Dave: If we were discussing free-will and determinism, I don't think I'd
                      say something like "Could you read Einstein and consider what
                      implications special relativity may have for the question?" Rather, I
                      think I would provide information on how it might be relevant. (Special
                      relativity brings into question the whole idea of linear time, and if we
                      are asking if the past fully constrains the present, understanding what
                      we mean by "past" is relevant.)



                      So, if you think the actions of a particular ancient author are a good
                      analogy to use for your proposed actions by Luke, then I would ask that
                      simply state that case. Obviously we have somewhat different background.
                      If we didn't there would be no point in discussion, because working from
                      the same set of facts and experiences, we'd pretty much arrive at the
                      same answer I'd expect. So sharing information not available to the
                      interlocutor is one of the things I would expect discussion to
                      accomplish.



                      Ken: Not everything can be accounted for by assuming variant source
                      texts.



                      Dave: I'd agree. And I'd also note that what I'm proposing is not
                      exactly Boismard.



                      Ken: Mark Goodacre has used the ways modern filmmakers adapt the gospels
                      to film to illustrate the different ways that purpose and medium affect
                      the final product. He's been criticized for using an anachronistic
                      analogy. But that is much of the point--we may be committing
                      anachronisms ourselves if we assume that the gospel authors went about
                      their business with the same purposes and the same methods modern
                      historians do.



                      Dave: What if we propose that Luke might have been doing something
                      analogous to say Herodotus? That is interviewing people, gathering
                      sources, and generally trying to make sense of it. Now, I would not
                      suggest that that is the only thing Luke is up to, he certainly has
                      other purposes. But Luke does tell us



                      "1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have
                      been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those
                      who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
                      Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from
                      the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for
                      you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of
                      the things you have been taught."



                      From this we can gather he is interested in sources, and witnesses, and
                      investigation, and establishing "certainty" or the facts of the matter.
                      Again he can be interested in other things, but he tells us he is
                      interested in these things. So again here I would ask what does Luke
                      think of Matthew status as a witness or a source, what is Luke's opinion
                      of Matthew's ability to know?



                      In passing I would add that I don't think a historical account is what
                      the author of Mark was up to at all. He was (in my opinion) trying to
                      show Jesus as the fulfillment of OT prophecy, and doing something much
                      closer to Midrash.



                      Ken:

                      If by "we" you mean contemporary systems analysts and statisticians who
                      try to reduce the synoptic problem to a multivariable equation,



                      Dave: I'm accused of reductionism. Scientific investigation requires
                      that we be able to reduce the input data to verifiable facts, which map
                      as unambiguously as possible to the terms of our language (probably
                      mathematical). Certainly in NT studies there are a great many things
                      that will not lend themselves to this sort of investigation. However,
                      the synoptic problem can be approached this way. If your goal is not the
                      scientific or rational-empirical answer to this problem, then we are
                      about different tasks.



                      Ken:

                      Can you give the reasons that it seems unlikely to you?



                      Dave: Given that Luke has told us he is interested in witnesses, and
                      getting things correct, and given that we accept this (and note that we
                      do have cooberation in the fact that we agree he is working from
                      multiple sources), it is unlikely he would use direct quotes from a
                      source that he thought had no clue.



                      Ken:

                      Explain to me how you know that sayings source (and only sayings
                      sources), have authoritative wording but not authoritative order.



                      Dave: I did not say "only a saying source". That is a sort document that
                      we know existed (at least by the 2nd century), and that easily can have
                      authoritative wording without authoritative order. The sayings could be
                      in thematic order or pneumonic order, for example. Could some other sort
                      of document have this characteristic? Yes. Do you want to say this
                      characterizes Matthew? That is - do you want to say that Luke thought
                      Matthew was in a position to know the facts of the matter, but did not
                      regard Matthew's order as representing the correct order of events? I
                      think you'd have to argue something like "Luke recognizes that Matthew
                      belongs to a genera of writing unconcerned with the real order of
                      events." How then does Matthew's genera differ from Mark's in Luke's
                      view?



                      I mean obviously you think Luke rearranges Matthew, but do you think
                      Luke does this while thinking that Matthew's order has little to do with
                      the real order of events, or do you think Luke does this rearrangement
                      thinking that Matthew' order probably is related to the real order of
                      events, but Luke is simply not that concerned with the order of events?
                      How would you argue that latter point? (other than pointing to the
                      rearranged text, which is circular, since that is what we are trying to
                      explain). You could of course point to other ancient authors who were
                      not concerned with the order of events. That would be enough to raise,
                      as one possibility, the idea that Luke was not interested in the order
                      of events, but that is not enough show that it is *probable* that Luke
                      would not care about the order of events. On the other hand we have what
                      Luke told us about his intentions, and the fact that he does follow the
                      order of Mark, both of which argue that he probably did care about the
                      order of events.



                      Ken: While you're at it explain to me why Luke departs from the Markan
                      order for most of the so-called Mark/Q overlaps (everything after the
                      Temptation).



                      Dave: In my recent posts to Ron, I pointed out that I don't believe that
                      an earlier, less corrupted version of Mark contained most of the "Mark/Q
                      overlap" material. I described the idea of using text-critical methods
                      to go one step further. That is currently we would use the surviving
                      texts of Mark to reconstruct Mark, etc. But after we have these and a
                      synoptic solution with Markian priority, we can go one step more. We can
                      say that our reconstruction of canonical Mark is the conservative
                      witness to the original text of Mark, but Matthew and Luke are also
                      (less conservative) witnesses to the original text of Mark. We can then
                      use text-critical methods to reconstruct "synoptic-prime", a less
                      corrupted version of Mark. Having tried this exercise, just for myself,
                      the answer I got was that most Mark/Q sections were not in the original
                      Mark, and often probably not in Luke's copy of Mark.



                      Ken: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.



                      Dave: To use Occam's razor in its strict sense, it must be the case that
                      the proposed hypothesis (say B), when compared to another hypothesis
                      (say A), represents a decrease in parsimony without any increase in
                      explanatory power. To say that the saying source has no additional
                      explanatory power at all is a rather high burden of proof, don't you
                      think? Rather, we should acknowledge that your idea is more
                      parsimonious, and mine has at least some additional explanatory power
                      (as almost any *real* extra hypothesis will), and recognize that both
                      factors can contribute to the probable truth of a hypothesis. That is,
                      all else equal, the simple hypothesis is more probable, and all else
                      equal, the hypothesis with more explanatory power is more probable. When
                      all else is not equal there will be cases where the most probable
                      hypothesis is the most parsimonious, and there will be cases where the
                      most probable hypothesis is the one with the greater explanatory power.
                      Our task is to figure out which we are dealing with here.



                      Ken:



                      OK. I have, in fact, put these arguments to you before. When I point
                      out that Luke may have rearranged Matthew's order in response to the
                      conditions he faced in trying to combine Markan and Matthian material,
                      your response has invariably been to try to do away with the conditions
                      I describe by hypothesizing further lost sources for which those
                      conditions did not exist.

                      But I'll give it one more shot.



                      Dave: O.K. we from here on out we have actual arguments of the matter at
                      hand. I'd point out that my original intent was just to say that both
                      the FH, and the 2SH have merit and that my idea preserved some of the
                      merits of both. My intent was not really to do a critique of the
                      arguments for either side, which is what we seem to be doing here. But,
                      I'm interested in the argument anyway.



                      Ken: Luke has two main written sources, Mark and Matthew. He and the
                      Christian community he knows have had Mark for a while before Matthew
                      comes along.



                      Dave: Mostly I agree (except with the number and/or name of sources).
                      Mark has been around, Matthew is new.



                      Ken: Luke knows Mark well and can tell where Matthew has changed it by
                      adding, omitting, or recasting material.



                      Dave: O.K.



                      Ken: Some of the additional material he likes a great deal, particularly
                      some of Jesus' ethical teachings (which Mark does not have a lot of),
                      other material is less pleasing, and some of it is awful. Where Matthew
                      has recast Mark, he generally, but not always, prefers the original that
                      he and his church have used for a long time. But he recognizes the
                      potential of what Matthew has done in rewriting and "updating" Mark and
                      making it fit the needs of his target audience better.

                      He decides to do the same thing.



                      Dave: Sounds good.



                      Ken: Luke decides he's going to follow Mark, the older and usually
                      fuller [in the overlapping material] source for as far as Mark goes,
                      taking over its basic narrative and keeping it in its Markan order. He
                      will use Matthew's additional material primarily to supplement Mark.



                      Dave: Yep.



                      Ken: The question is: how will he go about adding the supplementary
                      material to his Markan framework?

                      There are two considerations that must be made before addressing this
                      question.



                      First, close conflation of two different written sources at the level of
                      wording is a difficult procedure. The consensus among classicists is
                      that that most ancient authors did not attempt close conflation but
                      wrote with one source in front of them at one time.



                      Dave: Is this an appeal to authority? (which can have merit) In support
                      of a point that may be rather critical to your argument? And what do we
                      mean by close conflation? I mean no one here is suggesting anything like
                      what the GH folks claim Mark did in conflating Matthew and Luke. The
                      question is more whether Luke could/would have kept Matthew in the same
                      order at a basically a pericope level. Certainly that could constitute
                      "chucks" of material, although smaller than your proposed chunks. Also,
                      most ancient authors were not dealing with two versions of the same
                      story. So, an analogy here may have little warrant.



                      Ken: In The Four Gospels, Streeter notes that Luke follows Mark and his
                      other source (which Streeter took to be Proto-Luke, a combination of Q
                      and L) in fairly large alternating blocks for a few chapters at a time.
                      He also noted that Luke's sources overlapped (the so-called Mark-Q
                      overlaps) and that when this happened, Luke followed one or the other
                      and didn't try to conflate them. Streeter noted that in the case of the
                      Mark-Q overlaps Luke chose to follow the version in his non-Markan
                      source instead of that of Mark. He admitted that he could not tell
                      where the reverse might have happened (i.e., if Luke was following
                      Mark's version, how would we tell if there were also a version in his
                      non-Markan source?).

                      So if Luke's sources are Mark and Matthew we might reasonably expect
                      that he would use them in alternate blocks and not try to conflate them
                      closely.



                      Dave: Why exactly from the above? You've pointed out that Luke seems to
                      have in fact done this, but that does nothing for establishing our prior
                      expectation that he would have done this. We want to ask if our prior
                      expectations, based on our hypothesis match with the facts, in order to
                      support or disconfirm the hypothesis. We can't use the facts to form the
                      prior expectation on our hypothesis, in this case.



                      Ken: Second, one of the most widely acknowledged characteristics of Luke
                      is his dislike of doublets. He does indeed have about ten doublets, all
                      sayings and none more than two verses in length. Whether he did not
                      care enough to take the the time to edit them out, or he especially
                      liked these sayings enough to use them twice I don't know. But in
                      general, he does not like doublets. We do not have two Temptations, two
                      Beelzebul pericopes, two Parables of the Mustard Seed, or two Feeding
                      Miracles in Luke, despite te fact that he would have had more than one
                      version of each in his sources.

                      So we might reasonably expect a Luke who knew Mark and Matthew generally
                      not to reuse the same material in both its Matthean and Markan forms.



                      Dave: Hmmm...this is rather circular. Your first sentence maintains that
                      Luke had a dislike of doublets. One would imagine that this is widely
                      acknowledged, *because* Luke in fact does not have many doublets. But
                      then we can't use Luke's dislike of doublets to form a prior expectation
                      that he would not form doublets. The fact of the doublets can't be part
                      of any prior expectation about doublets. And we care about the prior
                      expectation of doublets, because you want to argue that the reason for
                      the observed text is that Luke would consider elimination of doublets as
                      more important than keeping an (authoritative?) order. That would
                      require providing reasons to believe Luke would dislike doublets, other
                      that the fact that he avoided them. We need to know what might motivate
                      his distaste for doublets. I might suggest that maybe he didn't like
                      doublets, because he was concerned about actual events, and actual
                      events don't happen twice. Alternately, we might say he didn't want to
                      waste space, or something like that, but I thought I'd throw the
                      possible concern about actual events in there.



                      Ken: Now if Luke follows these two principles (as major scholars who
                      accept the 2DH argue he does) it will be almost impossible to follow
                      Matthew's order, and undesirable to try.



                      Dave: So your argument then is that Luke rearranged an (authoritative?)
                      source, because it would have been too difficult to keep in the correct
                      order and avoid doublets? That would not work for me, since we've agreed
                      Luke has a good working knowledge of Mark. He should be able to avoid
                      doublets (if this was his goal), with any order he chooses that at least
                      roughly follows Mark.



                      Or if keeping the order of Matthew was not too difficult the argument
                      would then be that Luke wants to avoid pericope-level conflation for
                      some reason, even though he could do it, if he chose to? Well, that
                      would be one side of an argument then. On the other side I would say
                      that given that Luke has two sources with the same basic story, and
                      given that he has expressed an interest in witnesses, sources, and
                      actual events, he probably would attempt such a pericope level
                      conflation if he viewed Matthew's order as historical. (All else being
                      equal)



                      Alternately if Luke did not think Matthew had a better knowledge of
                      actual events than Luke himself, then his decision to use Matthew at
                      all, and particularly to use verbatim quotes from Matthew that
                      contradict Mark, does not fit with Luke's own statement of his
                      intentions. In fact we stipulated above that Luke regards Matthew's
                      gospel as new on the scene, if we then hypothesis that Luke used Matthew
                      extensively then this contradicts Luke's statement of his intent to go
                      back to the beginning.



                      I suppose the other piece to testing these hypotheses would be to look
                      at the actions on Matthew's part. Given that Mark is well established,
                      and if we suppose Matthew does not himself have first hand knowledge,
                      then does Matthew have reasonable expectation that his gospel will be
                      accepted and read if he just writes it, without claiming any earlier
                      sources? (Luke, his contemporary, seems to think he needs a preface with
                      this claim), and renaming Levi to Matthew may be part of Matthew claim
                      to being based on first hand accounts) Is it reasonable for Matthew (if
                      this is a late work and not the work of a disciple) to expect people to
                      use his gospel instead of Mark? That would depend how the community of
                      Christians looked at the gospel of Mark at the time Matthew was written.
                      From Paul we might infer that they already had an idea of Christian
                      Scripture by the time Matthew writes. Maybe I'm wrong, but while people
                      generally accept commentary on scripture, or new insight, they generally
                      don't like fully contemporary re-writes to scripture. In any case, the
                      claim of a source (perhaps claimed to be translated from Hebrew of
                      Aramaic) could not help but increase the popularity of Matthew's gospel,
                      if people believed the claim.



                      So where are we in summary?



                      If say Matthew is fully contemporary to Luke we might expect some
                      problem with its acceptance, given that there is already a concept of
                      scripture, and that Luke needed to use a preface to say he used old
                      sources, and that Matthew's rename of Levi may be a claim of being based
                      on a first hand witness. Also contradicting this idea are Luke's
                      verbatim quotes from Matthew, after telling us he is interested in
                      original witnesses and events.



                      If we say Matthew is in fact in position to know first hand, then we
                      might wonder why it is written so late. We might also appeal to
                      authority and say most modern scholars do not hold this to be the case.
                      It also seems quite possible for Luke to keep Matthew's order of events
                      at a pericope level (this is not particularly close conflation), while
                      avoiding doublets. But Luke does not do this. And I would argue that
                      based on Luke's statement about his intentions, and given that Luke
                      regards Matthew as an authentic witness, all else being equal, we would
                      expect him to try to preserve Matthew's order where it was reasonably
                      achievable, but the facts contradict this expectation.



                      However, if Matthew is a contemporary of Luke, given the barrier that
                      might be present to the publication of a second more contemporary
                      version of the gospel, Matthew has motive to forge a saying source
                      (which could have quotes in no historical order, but say in thematic
                      order). Luke's behavior then is fully consistent with his stated
                      intentions of going to original sources and witnesses, and his
                      acceptance of the saying source as original, and his recognition of
                      Matthew as contemporary.



                      Dave Gentile

                      Riverside IL









                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Dave Gentile
                      ... round, it ... 16:17. ... That s reasonable. And, all else being equal, probably our first guess. But Christianity was also a fairly radical break from
                      Message 10 of 12 , Sep 12, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Ron wrote:

                        >
                        > As Christianity was born out of Judaism, and not the other way
                        round, it
                        > seems to me more natural to see Mk 13:31 as a development of Q
                        16:17.
                        >

                        That's reasonable. And, all else being equal, probably our first
                        guess. But Christianity was also a fairly radical break from
                        tradition.
                        Maybe we shouldn't expect much in the way of *conservative* Jewish
                        attitudes from the first followers. Paul didn't like them much in
                        his early conservative stage.


                        > But the synoptic gospels, within which this conservative reaction
                        is
                        > supposed to have been manifested, were all penned in the first
                        century,
                        > whereas my understanding is that Gnosticism didn't really have much
                        > influence until the early second century.

                        O.K. proto-Gnostic then. But for that matter, I doubt the author of
                        Matthew would have though much of the gospel of John (or the ideas
                        that led to it) either. Identifying Jesus as God may have been a
                        step to far for him. In any case, we agree the author of Matthew
                        represents a conservative turn from Mark, at least when it comes to
                        his attitude towards Hebrew scripture.

                        So we have this time line -

                        1) Early Jewish followers (probably rather radical)
                        2) Mark – with a liberal take on Hebrew scripture
                        3) Mathew, with a conservative view of Hebrew scripture.

                        So, if we have another document with a conservative attitude, where
                        does it fit in that time line? Well, anywhere really.

                        <snip>

                        >I think it's quite reasonable,
                        > bearing in mind Papias' statement that Matthew assembled the
                        logia, to
                        > attribute the first written form of Lk 16:17 to the apostle
                        Matthew.

                        Reasonable, yes. But a successfully forged early saying source, and
                        a real early saying source will probably have much in common,
                        including Papias' testimony about them, so that can't be used to
                        separate the ideas.

                        Dave Gentile
                        Riverside, IL
                      • E Bruce Brooks
                        To: Synoptic In Response To: Dave Gentile On: Sayings Sources, Real and Otherwise From: Bruce Among much else of interest in his latest contribution, Dave had
                        Message 11 of 12 , Sep 13, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          To: Synoptic
                          In Response To: Dave Gentile
                          On: Sayings Sources, Real and Otherwise
                          From: Bruce

                          Among much else of interest in his latest contribution, Dave had remarked,
                          "But a successfully forged early saying source and a real early saying
                          source will probably have much in common, including Papias' testimony about
                          them, so that can't be used to separate the ideas."

                          I merely want to say that I think this is a very important principle. Too
                          many things could correspond to certain bits of medium early external
                          testimony for complete certainty, and in any case, our ability to detect
                          forgeries at this distance is necessarily somewhat impaired. Any hypothesis
                          compatible with the words of Papias (wherever the boundary between them and
                          Eusebius's comments may lie, and whatever exactly they mean, and ignoring
                          the Johannine bias of Papias, and assuming that Papias in this remark has a
                          probity which is conspicuously missing from what we know of his own
                          writings) is probably the better for it, other things being equal. But it is
                          still worthwhile to be reminded that the category of hypotheses which could
                          be judged compatible with the words of Papias is a somewhat wide one.

                          Bruce

                          E Bruce Brooks
                          Warring States Project
                          University of Massachusetts at Amherst

                          [The name "Papias" reminds me that in the early China field, we have a
                          conspicuous case of a major court historian, a man of learning or anyway of
                          wide acquaintance in the world of texts, who showed incredible naivete in
                          evaluating recent forgeries as genuine productions of antiquity, and whose
                          own editing of earlier texts for inclusion in his book ranged from
                          amateurish to downright clumsy. He had an accepting mind and a trembling
                          hand].
                        • Emmanuel Fritsch
                          Hello, Arguing about technical details in Luke on a french forum, we deeply disagree about keramon in Luke 5:19. It has been said that tiles were not
                          Message 12 of 12 , Oct 11, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hello,

                            Arguing about technical details in Luke on a french forum, we deeply
                            disagree about "keramon" in Luke 5:19. It has been said that "tiles"
                            were not present in Syria at the beginning of Ist century, so that it
                            constitutes an error of Luke.

                            Since I was not convinced, I said it, and I have been sharply accused
                            for being a defender of inerrancy.
                            Hence I would like to look around the question.

                            Even if "tiles" for "keramon" is the mainstream translation, in french,
                            english, german, we have other translation for this "keramon". Segond
                            translate "par une ouverture du toit".

                            Bailly, the standard greek-french dictionnary, proposes "clay".
                            Greek online bible (http://www.greekbible.com) proposes :
                            > 1) clay, potter's earth
                            > 2) anything made of clay, earthen ware
                            > 3) a roofing tile
                            > 3a) the roof itself
                            > 3b) the phrase "through the roof", means through the door in the
                            > roof to which a ladder or stairway led up from the street
                            > (according to the Rabbis distinguish two ways of entering
                            > a house, "the way through the door" and "the way through
                            > the roof". For Synonyms see entry 5858

                            I would like to know :
                            - what is the source for this definition ? (and for the whole lexicon of
                            greek online bible)
                            - are there any other stuff about the translation of "keramon" I should
                            have looked at ?
                            - are there any other stuff about "keramon" in Luke ?

                            Thanks in advance,

                            a+
                            manu
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.