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

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

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    Feb 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      At 08:15 AM 2/1/2005 +0100, Wieland Willker wrote:
      >Thanks Stephen for your detailed reply. Perhaps I should read Butler and

      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
      do is follow Mark instead of Matthew. It's that simple. It
      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


      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