9979Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Q and the Lachmann fallacy

Expand Messages
• Feb 1, 2005
At 08:15 AM 2/1/2005 +0100, Wieland Willker wrote:
>Neville?

Perhaps Sanders & Davies STUDYING THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
is more accessible.

>On a theoretical level (logic) "Mark comes second" or "Mark comes third"
>can certainly also explain the evidence from order. But in reality these
>are just too improbable to take them serious.
>The problem with these two is that both are scenarios where one copies
>from two. In both cases one (Lk or Mk) have to carefully pick out those
>things that are in the same order in both other editions and re-sort
>everything else. Only "Mk comes first" avoids this problem (one copies
>from one).

I don't think that the procedure is particularly problematic
for Luke being third. Matthew incorporates 90% of Mark. For
Luke to adopt Mark's order instead of Matthew, all he has to
makes no difference when Mark and Matthew were actually written
relative to each other.

Here's what I wrote to Synoptic-L on Sep. 9, 1999 explaining
this in more detail:

------

I must admit that I've always been puzzled by Sanders and others
who argue that it does not make sense that the middle term could
be second. Let's use the AH as an example. Mark uses Matthew,
either copying Matthew (and creating Matt-Mark agreements) or
modifying Matthew (and creating Matt-Mark disagreements). [NB:
this result also occurs under the FH if Matt uses Mark.] When
Luke uses Mark for the narrative framework, he will either copy
Mark or modify Mark, for four possibilities:

1. If Luke copies Mark at the Matt-Mark agreements, then we have
Matt-Mark-Luke agreements.
2. If Luke copies Mark at the Matt-Mark disagreements, then we
have Mark-Luke agreements against Matt.
3. If Luke modifies Mark at the Matt-Mark agreements, then we
have Matt-Mark agreements against Luke.
4. If Luke modifies Mark at the Matt-Mark disagreement, then
we have a triple disagreement between Matt, Mark, and Luke,
unless Luke coincindentally modifies Mark to be in agreement
with Matthew, which I would estimate to be at the same
probability as for the Farrer Hypothesis.

Thus, the theory predicts that Matt-Mark-Luke agreements, Mark-Luke
agreements against Matt, Matt-Mark agreements against Luke, and
triple disagreements are more common than Matt-Luke agreements
against Mark, which is exactly what we see.

For the order of Luke->Mark->Matt, we apply the same argument,
mutatis mutandi, with the roles of Matt and Luke reversed, and
come to the same conclusion.

Interestingly, Butler thought that Griesbach was excluded as an
explanation for the middle term, but withdrew this criticism in
light of Farmer's work. I suspect that Butler was onto something
but could not articulate it. To me, it seems that Griesbach should
produce a slightly different prediction than the other middle term
explanations.

-----

Stephen
--
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• Show all 6 messages in this topic