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

attested supernumerary documents are not hypothetical documents

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