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

Complete List of 4972 Theories, was Re: 1488 Viable Synoptic Theories

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    Friends, For the sake of completeness, I ve uploaded a 226K file listing all 4972 viable documentary theories (with up to two hypothetical documents), with a
    Message 1 of 15 , Feb 2, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Friends,

      For the sake of completeness, I've uploaded a 226K file listing all 4972
      viable documentary theories (with up to two hypothetical documents),
      with a cross-reference number of the solution type that subsumes the
      supernumerary hypothetical documents. This list is found at:
      http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/enums.htm
      and is accessible from the main enumeration page.

      For example, synoptic theory 0073/4773 (a.k.a. the Logia Translation
      Hypothesis) belongs to solution type 0073 and is uniquely numbered 4773.
      This will allow for more proposed solutions to be numbered, while also
      indicating, to a certain extent, related hypotheses.

      Stephen Carlson
      --
      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
      Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
    • Brian E. Wilson
      Stephen Carlson wrote- ... Stephen, You write supernumerary hypothetical documents above. Why? Why not just supernumerary documents ? I would suggest that
      Message 2 of 15 , Feb 3, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Stephen Carlson wrote-
        >
        >For the sake of completeness, I've uploaded a 226K file listing all 4972
        >viable documentary theories (with up to two hypothetical documents),
        >with a cross-reference number of the solution type that subsumes the
        >supernumerary hypothetical documents. This list is found at:
        > http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/enums.htm
        >and is accessible from the main enumeration page.
        >
        >For example, synoptic theory 0073/4773 (a.k.a. the Logia Translation
        >Hypothesis) belongs to solution type 0073 and is uniquely numbered 4773.
        >This will allow for more proposed solutions to be numbered, while also
        >indicating, to a certain extent, related hypotheses.
        >
        Stephen,

        You write "supernumerary hypothetical documents" above. Why? Why not
        just "supernumerary documents"? I would suggest that the idea of
        "hypothetical document" is an unnecessary intrusion in your
        classification. Would the classification not work just as well, indeed
        would it not work better, if the term "hypothetical" was removed? On
        this scenario, instead of "supernumerary hypothetical document" you
        would have simply "supernumerary document".

        Your program is about systematically listing different structures of
        synoptic hypotheses. As far as the structure is concerned, it is
        irrelevant whether the supernumerary documents "a" and "b" are
        hypothetical documents or not. The program is designed to give an
        ordered list of structures. It has nothing to do with whether a
        particular "a" or "b" is hypothetical. There is no reason why "a" should
        not be I Corinthians where Luke and Mark both copied from this
        supernumerary document. (This is not an empty supposition. Scholars have
        suggested that Mark and Luke copied from I Corinthians.)

        I think, Stephen, you need to ask yourself whether you have a hidden
        agenda in placing "hypothetical" between "supernumerary" and "document"
        in what you have written above.

        In fact The Logia Translation Hypothesis, to which you refer, assumes
        two supernumerary documents which are not hypothetical documents. The
        Translation and the Logia are attested in the Papias tradition
        concerning a person named Matthew. Attested documents are lost
        documents, not hypothetical ones. The autograph manuscript of the Gospel
        of Mark (with or without material after Mk 16.8!) is a lost manuscript,
        but it is not a hypothetical one. It is attested by papyri, uncials and
        minuscules of the text of Mark, even though we cannot be sure of its
        exact contents.

        I know that some have said, "The relationship between the Logia and the
        Translation and the synoptic gospels remains hypothetical". But are not
        all relationships in hypotheses necessarily hypothetical relationships?
        If the Two Document Hypothesis is a hypothesis, then we do not know that
        Matthew copied from Mark. The relationship is hypothetical. I would
        entirely agree, therefore, that the actual relationship of Papias' Logia
        to the synoptics remains hypothetical. I hope those who have made this
        point, however, would agree with me that, for exactly the same reason,
        the actual relationship between Mark and Matthew, Mark and Luke, and
        Matthew and Luke, remains hypothetical on the Two Document Hypothesis,
        the Farrer Hypothesis, the Griesbach Hypothesis, or, indeed, on any of
        the 1488 hypotheses in the Carlson Classification. To say that "the
        actual relationship (of the Logia) to the synoptics remains
        hypothetical" is simply to say that the Logia Translation Hypothesis is
        a hypothesis. This is necessarily true, but really says nothing, since
        it is merely tautologous.

        With regard to the contents of the Logia, if the Logia Translation
        Hypothesis is assumed, the Logia (in translation) can easily be
        very largely reconstructed, with three witnesses for its wording
        throughout the triple tradition and two witnesses where each pair of
        synoptic gospels agrees against the third (including the minor
        agreements). For on the LTH, any material which occurs in similar
        wording in more than one synoptic gospel must have come from the
        Translation of the Logia.

        I would say that the Logia Translation Hypothesis is therefore no more
        hypothetical in what it affirms concerning either relationships between
        the synoptic gospels or the contents of its supernumerary sources than
        is the Two Document Hypothesis, or indeed any of the great majority of
        the 1488 hypotheses of the Carlson Classification.

        I am all for using graph and network theory for the systematic listing
        of synoptic structures. I think it is mis-leading, however, to imply
        that the supernumerary documents indicated on such a listing must be
        hypothetical documents.

        Best wishes,
        BRIAN WILSON

        E-MAIL : brian@... *** HOMEPAGE RECENTLY UPDATED ***
        SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
        10 York Close, Godmanchester, *** SEE HOMEPAGE FOR FIRST DRAFT OF PAPER ***
        Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK Comments please, either off-List or on-List
      • Graham Hamer
        ... Brian makes an important point about the potential for bias even in an apparently objective statement of theoretical relationships. However, I think there
        Message 3 of 15 , Feb 3, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Brian Wilson wrote:

          >
          > I would say that the Logia Translation Hypothesis is therefore no more
          > hypothetical in what it affirms concerning either relationships between
          > the synoptic gospels or the contents of its supernumerary sources than
          > is the Two Document Hypothesis, or indeed any of the great majority of
          > the 1488 hypotheses of the Carlson Classification.
          >
          > I am all for using graph and network theory for the systematic listing
          > of synoptic structures. I think it is mis-leading, however, to imply
          > that the supernumerary documents indicated on such a listing must be
          > hypothetical documents.

          Brian makes an important point about the potential for bias even in an
          apparently objective statement of theoretical relationships. However, I
          think there is a distinction to be drawn between a document we have in its
          entirety (like Mark - leaving aside 16.9ff - I Corinthians etc) and say Q -
          the existence (and reconstruction) of which must be hypothetical. To
          address Brian's example, It is not hypothetical that there was a Logia
          document - since Papias refers directly to it - but exactly what was in
          that document is hypothetical. What is in I Corinthians is not
          hypothetical but any relationship with any of the Gospels must be.

          Graham
        • Brian E. Wilson
          Graham Hamer wrote - ... Graham, OK, except that I would add at the end of your statement that any relationship between any two synoptic gospels and/or
          Message 4 of 15 , Feb 3, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Graham Hamer wrote -
            >
            > I think there is a distinction to be drawn between a document we have
            >in its entirety (like Mark - leaving aside 16.9ff - I Corinthians etc)
            >and say Q - the existence (and reconstruction) of which must be
            >hypothetical. To address Brian's example, It is not hypothetical that
            >there was a Logia document - since Papias refers directly to it - but
            >exactly what was in that document is hypothetical. What is in I
            >Corinthians is not hypothetical but any relationship with any of the
            >Gospels must be.
            >
            Graham,
            OK, except that I would add at the end of your statement that
            any relationship between any two synoptic gospels and/or supernumerary
            documents, is hypothetical. We do not know the relationship between
            Matthew and Mark, for instance. The best we can do is posit a
            hypothesis and see whether it fits well all the data. The relationship
            posited between Mark and the Letter of James by Robert Lindsey is
            absolutely no more and no less hypothetical than the relationship
            posited between Mark and Matthew by Austin Farrer in the Farrer
            Hypothesis, or the relationship between any two documents posited in any
            synoptic hypothesis.

            I would suggest that the following can be affirmed -

            (1) every relationship between any two synoptic gospels and/or
            supernumerary documents is a hypothetical relationship since every
            documentary relationship in a documentary synoptic hypothesis is
            necessarily hypothetical
            (2) every unattested document is a hypothetical document
            (3) no attested document is a hypothetical document
            (4) if the contents of a hypothetical document have been reconstructed
            on the basis of a synoptic hypothesis, these are hypothetical contents
            (5) if the contents of an attested document have been reconstructed on
            the basis of a synoptic hypothesis, these are hypothetical contents
            (6) the fact that the contents of a hypothetical documentary source can
            be reconstructed on the basis of a synoptic hypothesis does not turn the
            hypothetical source into a source which is not hypothetical
            (7) the fact that the contents of an attested document can be
            reconstructed on the basis of a synoptic hypothesis does not turn an
            attested document into a hypothetical document
            (8) a supernumerary documentary is either hypothetical or attested, but
            not both
            (9) the structure of a synoptic hypothesis does not determine whether a
            supernumerary document is, or is not, hypothetical

            Best wishes,
            BRIAN WILSON

            E-MAIL : brian@... *** HOMEPAGE RECENTLY UPDATED ***
            SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
            10 York Close, Godmanchester,
            Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK *** SEE HOMEPAGE FOR FIRST DRAFT OF PAPER ***
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            ... I think that I haven t been entirely clear in what I ve meant by supernumerary. If you take the definition of the synoptic problem, as I do, as the
            Message 5 of 15 , Feb 3, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              At 11:58 AM 2/3/99 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
              >I think, Stephen, you need to ask yourself whether you have a hidden
              >agenda in placing "hypothetical" between "supernumerary" and "document"
              >in what you have written above.

              I think that I haven't been entirely clear in what I've meant by
              "supernumerary." If you take the definition of the synoptic
              problem, as I do, as the inquiry into the existence and nature of
              the literary interrelationships between the synoptic gospels,
              then any hypothetical document that I'm interested in is one
              which could explain a literary interrelationship between two
              synoptic gospels. Q is one such example; it explains a relationship
              between Matthew and Luke. Your translated document is another
              example; it explains the relationships between Matthew, Mark,
              and Luke.

              There are hypothetical documents, while interesting perhaps
              for redaction critical or historical critical purposes, that
              do not explain the nature of a literary interrelation between
              two synoptic gospels. A dead-end hypothetical document that
              left no descendants is one example (suppose a monk wrote a
              novel based on canonical Matthew, but it was soon destroyed).
              This zero-descendant hypothetical document is completely
              gratuitous to postulate and does not explain any synoptic
              relationship. The structure of the synoptic theory with
              such a document is equivalent to the synoptic theory that
              lacks that document.

              I have also decided to subsume "supernumerary hypothetical
              documents" under a common solution type. As I understand this
              term (borrowed from H. Palmer), the term relates to hypothetical
              documents leaving only one descendant. For example, Chapman's
              first draft of Luke is one such supernumerary hypothetical
              document. In many respects, a supernumerary hypothetical
              document, which can be added ad infinitum in the chain between
              two synoptics, is convertible into an editorial hypothesis.

              My structural classification subsumes both supernumerary
              hypothetical documents and editorial hypotheses. For example,
              Jameson, Butler, and Wenham are all Augustinians in terms of
              the structure of their theories, but their editorial policies
              for Luke differ. If the latter is not controversial, then
              the former should also not be.

              >In fact The Logia Translation Hypothesis, to which you refer, assumes
              >two supernumerary documents which are not hypothetical documents.

              Actually, as I use the terms, the LTH postulates one hypothetical,
              source critical document and its supernumerary, hypothetical
              ancestor. Since only the translated document was used by Matthew,
              Mark, and Luke, and it is not strictly necessary to hypothecate
              the Aramaic ancestor to explain how Matthew, Mark, and Luke used
              its translation.

              Although Papias may provide independent evidence tending to
              corroborate the existence of one or more of your hypothetical
              documents, I still consider both of them to be hypothetical,
              because the text of Papias' lost logia compiled by Matthew is not
              independently known. There is no way to verify whether Papias'
              lost logia indeed matches your reconstructed documents. I also
              commend Graham Hamer's message.

              [...]
              >I would say that the Logia Translation Hypothesis is therefore no more
              >hypothetical in what it affirms concerning either relationships between
              >the synoptic gospels or the contents of its supernumerary sources than
              >is the Two Document Hypothesis, or indeed any of the great majority of
              >the 1488 hypotheses of the Carlson Classification.

              The documents postulated by the LTH is no more hypothetical than Q,
              and, in fact, might be better corroborated, given how to credit Papias.
              Q is not supernumerary, because Q has more than one descendant.
              Neither is the second one of your documents.

              >I am all for using graph and network theory for the systematic listing
              >of synoptic structures. I think it is mis-leading, however, to imply
              >that the supernumerary documents indicated on such a listing must be
              >hypothetical documents.

              First, the systematic list of 1488 has no supernumerary hypothetical
              documents, just as it has no dead-end hypothetical documents. Since
              supernumerary, hypothetical documents are a subset of hypothetical
              documents (those with a single descendant), the implication is
              necessary.

              Stephen Carlson
              --
              Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
              Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
              "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
            • Brian E. Wilson
              Brian Wilson wrote - ... Stephen Carlson replied - ... Stephen, The phrase supernumerary hypothetical documents was quoted from your letter headed Complete
              Message 6 of 15 , Feb 4, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                Brian Wilson wrote -
                >
                >I am all for using graph and network theory for the systematic listing
                >of synoptic structures. I think it is mis-leading, however, to imply
                >that the supernumerary documents indicated on such a listing must be
                >hypothetical documents.
                >
                Stephen Carlson replied -
                >First, the systematic list of 1488 has no supernumerary hypothetical
                >documents, just as it has no dead-end hypothetical documents.
                >
                Stephen,
                The phrase "supernumerary hypothetical documents" was quoted
                from your letter headed "Complete List of 4972 Theories". This letter
                implied that supernumerary documents in the 4792 list must be
                hypothetical. Presumably you meant what you said in this letter?

                Stephen continued -
                >supernumerary, hypothetical documents are a subset of hypothetical
                >documents (those with a single descendant), the implication is
                >necessary.
                >
                Absolutely. But the trivial implication to which you refer here is not
                the relevant one, and is not the one to which I refer.

                It is mis-leading to use a systematic listing of the structure of
                synoptic hypotheses to imply that every documentary source (other than
                synoptic gospels themselves), must have been a hypothetical document. If
                the existence of a document is attested, its existence is not
                hypothetical, even if its contents are. To quote from Graham Hamer's
                letter which you commend -

                >It is not hypothetical that there was a Logia document - since Papias
                >refers directly to it - but exactly what was in that document is
                >hypothetical.

                I think you have to decide, Stephen, whether you allow that documentary
                sources which are not hypothetical documents are to be included in your
                4972 or 1488 listings. Can "a" or "b" be a documentary source which is
                not a hypothetical document? Or do you rule this out a priori? I think
                this question should be answered so that those using the Carlson
                Classification will know what it is for.

                Best wishes,
                BRIAN WILSON

                E-MAIL : brian@... *** HOMEPAGE RECENTLY UPDATED ***
                SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                10 York Close, Godmanchester, *** SEE HOMEPAGE FOR FIRST DRAFT OF PAPER ***
                Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK Comments welcome - either off-List or on-List
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                I m sure this discussion on terminology and methodology is fascinating to no one, but I trudge on. ... I ve looked at my letter. I see nothing in the letter
                Message 7 of 15 , Feb 5, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  I'm sure this discussion on terminology and methodology is fascinating
                  to no one, but I trudge on.

                  At 09:56 AM 2/4/99 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                  > The phrase "supernumerary hypothetical documents" was quoted
                  >from your letter headed "Complete List of 4972 Theories". This letter
                  >implied that supernumerary documents in the 4792 list must be
                  >hypothetical. Presumably you meant what you said in this letter?

                  I've looked at my letter. I see nothing in the letter that allows
                  one to make the implication that "supernumerary documents in the 4792
                  list must by hypothetical." As I use the term "supernumerary" (having
                  a single descendant), the very first hypothesis contains a non-
                  hypothetical supernumerary document: Mark.

                  >I think you have to decide, Stephen, whether you allow that documentary
                  >sources which are not hypothetical documents are to be included in your
                  >4972 or 1488 listings. Can "a" or "b" be a documentary source which is
                  >not a hypothetical document? Or do you rule this out a priori? I think
                  >this question should be answered so that those using the Carlson
                  >Classification will know what it is for.

                  I don't really see the conflict. Structurally, "a" and "b" are documents
                  whose text is hypothesized for the purpose of explaining a hypothesis for
                  the synoptic problem, that is, the existence and nature of the literary
                  interrelationship between and among Matthew, Mark, and Luke. That is what
                  I mean by a hypothetical document.

                  There is nothing to prevent "a" or "b" from being documentary sources or
                  attested. In fact, if the hypothesis is correct, they must have existed.
                  However, there seems to be a tendency to use "hypothetical" as a term of
                  derogation, as in "Q is merely a hypothetical document."

                  Based on what you are saying, though, it appears we mean different things
                  by the word "hypothetical" and it appears that we mean different things
                  by the word "supernumerary." In fact, you're usage of the word "super-
                  numerary" appears to be nearly identical with mine own "hypothetical."
                  For me, a "hypothetical document" in the synoptic problem is a document
                  whose contents is hypothesized to explain the literary interrelationship
                  between any two or all three of the synoptic gospels.

                  It seems to me what you are doing is: coming up with a hypothetical
                  document to solve the synoptic problem and identifying an attested
                  document with your hypothetical document. I don't really have much
                  of a problem with that, except I don't really know enough about
                  Papias' document to feel comfortable in making that identification,
                  just as I am not comfortable with identifying Papias's logia of
                  Matthew with Q.

                  Stephen Carlson

                  --
                  Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                  Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                  "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.