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

Re: not necessarily hypothetical supernumerary documents

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 15 , Feb 3, 1999
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 15 , Feb 3, 1999
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 15 , Feb 3, 1999
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 15 , Feb 4, 1999
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 15 , Feb 5, 1999
            View Source
            • 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.