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

alternative views of Gospel origins

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 3/6/1999 4:54:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, brian@TwoNH.demon.co.uk writes:
    Message 1 of 24 , Mar 7, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 3/6/1999 4:54:13 AM Eastern Standard Time,
      brian@... writes:

      <<
      The synoptists used documentary source material, otherwise the synoptic
      gospels would not have such significant similarities of wording and
      order of material. >>

      Qui nimis probat, nihil probat. Brian, the conclusion to this implied
      syllogism (found in its opening phrase) goes slightly beyond the evidence of
      the premises. The fact that "the Synoptic Gospels have such significant
      similarities of wording and order of material" does not necessarily prove that
      "the synoptists" (as a whole) used documentary source material, but rather
      that there was some mutual borrowing between synoptists, OR the use by all of
      them of identical or related documentary source(s). In other words, the
      evidence, as stated, does not suggest that every one of the synoptists was
      nothing more than an editor of older source material, but only that some
      probably were. I find it inherently strange in your system that the creative
      writer(s) of early Christianity are all completely anonymous, and rather
      second rate editors become known by name and assume such giant stature as to
      be compared to the four corners of the earth, etc., before the end of the
      second century. Where is justice? The beauty of the 2 GH is that it favors a
      creative starting point within the synoptic tradition (the Gospel of Matthew)
      and a creative re-writing effort as its second stage (the Gospel of Luke)
      before reverting to (only) somewhat less creative editing at the third and
      final stage (the Gospel of Mark).

      Leonard Maluf
    • Jeff Peterson
      ... It s part of the the beauty of the Farrer Hypothesis to grant all the extant Gospels their due as creative authors working to strengthen the churches they
      Message 2 of 24 , Mar 8, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        At 8:08 AM -0500 3/7/99, Leonard Maluf wrote:
        > The beauty of the 2 GH is that it favors a
        >creative starting point within the synoptic tradition (the Gospel of Matthew)
        >and a creative re-writing effort as its second stage (the Gospel of Luke)
        >before reverting to (only) somewhat less creative editing at the third and
        >final stage (the Gospel of Mark).

        It's part of the the beauty of the Farrer Hypothesis to grant all the
        extant Gospels their due as creative authors working to strengthen the
        churches they ministered to and wrote for. On FH Mark too is recognized as
        a creative genius whose Gospel is a biographical meditation on the mystery
        of the kingdom of God revealed through Jesus; next Matthew writes out the
        explanation of Marcan riddles and incorporates a substantial account of
        Jesus' teaching as a guide for ordering the lives of disciples and of the
        church; and Luke adapts both his predecessors to tell the story of the
        founding of the Christian people that is recognizably heir to both biblical
        and Hellenistic traditions of historiography. So if one is looking for an
        hypothesis that thinks all the evangelists were better than hacks, it's
        name is Farrer.

        Jeff

        ------------------------------------
        Jeffrey Peterson, Ph.D.
        Assistant Professor of New Testament
        Institute for Christian Studies
        Austin, Texas, USA
        ------------------------------------
      • Jim Deardorff
        ... Let s hear it now about the beauty of the neo-Augustinian hypothesis: a) It s supported by the external evidence; b) It explains the many, many points
        Message 3 of 24 , Mar 8, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          At 11:05 AM 3/8/99 -0700, Jeff Peterson wrote:
          >At 8:08 AM -0500 3/7/99, Leonard Maluf wrote:
          >> The beauty of the 2 GH is that it favors a
          >>creative starting point within the synoptic tradition (the Gospel of Matthew)
          >>and a creative re-writing effort as its second stage (the Gospel of Luke)
          >>before reverting to (only) somewhat less creative editing at the third and
          >>final stage (the Gospel of Mark).

          >It's part of the the beauty of the Farrer Hypothesis to grant all the
          >extant Gospels their due as creative authors working to strengthen the
          >churches they ministered to and wrote for. On FH Mark too is recognized as
          >a creative genius whose Gospel is a biographical meditation on the mystery
          >of the kingdom of God revealed through Jesus; [...]

          Let's hear it now about the beauty of the neo-Augustinian hypothesis:

          a) It's supported by the external evidence;
          b) It explains the many, many points where Mark's text seems dependent upon
          the content of Matthew, as pointed out by B.C. Butler and others (see my
          website for some 70 of these points);
          c) It explains the many Semitisms within both Mark & Matthew;
          d) It explains how, due to Matthew later being translated into Greek, it
          shows some instances of greater reverence than Mark, and shows some
          dependencies upon Mark's Greek and upon the LXX;
          e) It explains what the non-Markan source for Matthew was;
          f) It explains what the sources for Mark and Luke were;
          g) It explains why the Gospels were attributed to persons other than their
          writers;
          h) It explains why so very, very little literature survived to tell about
          the origin of the Gospels and why Papias's Logia did not survive;
          i) It supplies consistent authorial motivations for the successive Gospels
          to have been written, and reasons for their different editorial slants;
          j) It explains the existence of excessive numbers of long strings of
          consecutive identical Greek words between parallel passages of Matthew &
          Mark, and also between Matthew and Luke; and
          k) It explains peculiarities in the agreement or lack of in order between
          parallel pericopes in Matthew and Mark.

          Jim Deardorff
          Corvallis, Oregon
          E-mail: deardorj@...
          Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
        • Brian E. Wilson
          Leonard Maluf wrote - ... We give you two out of three, Leonard. (Pity about the Gospel of Mark.) The beauty of the Logia Translation Hypothesis is that not
          Message 4 of 24 , Mar 9, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Leonard Maluf wrote -
            >
            >The beauty of the 2 GH is that it favors a creative starting point
            >within the synoptic tradition (the Gospel of Matthew) and a creative
            >re-writing effort as its second stage (the Gospel of Luke) before
            >reverting to (only) somewhat less creative editing at the third and
            >final stage (the Gospel of Mark).
            >
            We give you two out of three, Leonard. (Pity about the Gospel of Mark.)

            The beauty of the Logia Translation Hypothesis is that not merely some
            but all of the synoptists creatively transformed the same set of Greek
            notes into three equally and amazingly superb books of Jesus tradition.

            I think this is three out of three?

            Best wishes,
            BRIAN WILSON

            E-MAIL : brian@... homepage -
            SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
            10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
          • Wieland Willker
            ... The beauty of the Logia Translation Hypothesis is that it always wins. You can always modify your Logia in the way you want. It s just a mirror of the
            Message 5 of 24 , Mar 9, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              > The beauty of the Logia Translation Hypothesis is that not merely some
              > but all of the synoptists creatively transformed the same set of Greek
              > notes into three equally and amazingly superb books of Jesus tradition.

              The beauty of the Logia Translation Hypothesis is that it always wins.
              You can always modify your Logia in the way you want. It's just a mirror of
              the Gospels.

              Best wishes
              Wieland
            • Mark Goodacre
              I think this exchange about the beauty of all of our theories has been fun and yet at the same time it illustrates one of the problems (or glories?) of both
              Message 6 of 24 , Mar 9, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                I think this exchange about the beauty of all of our theories has been fun and
                yet at the same time it illustrates one of the problems (or glories?) of both
                Synoptic-L specifically and Synoptic Problem scholarship more broadly. Here we
                have had people speaking for the Farrer Theory, the Griesbach Theory, a
                "modified Augustinian" Theory and a "Logia Translation" Theory. Yet, as we
                all know, 95 per cent of the world adheres to some form of the Two Source
                Theory. I suspect that one of the difficulties is that those who adhere to the
                Two Source Theory feel, on the whole, that to continue to worry about the
                Synoptic Problem is to "dig up old foundations", to use Farrer's image. Where
                does it actually get one to go back over old questions regarded as long since
                settled? Why bother?

                For those of us who do not accept the status quo, I would suggest that the
                greatest difficulty remains the question of establishing that there is
                actually something worth arguing about in the first place. In order to do
                this, one needs (I think) to understand the 2ST to see why it remains so
                attractive to so many. Perhaps one way to start would be to ask what the
                "beauty" of the two-source theory is. Anyone willing to have a stab at it?
                I'll have a go if no-one else comes forward, but I would rather someone else
                did it.

                Mark

                --------------------------------------
                Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

                http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                Aseneth Home Page
                Recommended New Testament Web Resources
                World Without Q
              • Wieland Willker
                Everybody aggrees that the Gospels are based on written sources. With the 2ST we FINALLY HAVE ONE OF THESE WRITTEN SOURCES! We can reconstruct it, we can name
                Message 7 of 24 , Mar 9, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  Everybody aggrees that the Gospels are based on written sources.
                  With the 2ST we FINALLY HAVE ONE OF THESE WRITTEN SOURCES! We can
                  reconstruct it, we can name it, we can print it, we can (mis)interpret it.
                  And Q is something NEW. It's not just the "Sondergut" of either Mt or Lk.
                  It's reconstructed from BOTH. That's the beauty of the 2ST.
                  M Goodacre has never produced a reconstruction of source(s) and even more
                  problematic he sees no necessity to do so. This breaks the beauty of his
                  otherwise equivalent theory (there is to much "Sondergut" unexplained).
                  For me a model is only complete if I have the source(s). Not only naming it
                  (like the Logia), but reconstruct it.
                  Give me a complete model and I will like it.

                  Best wishes
                  Wieland
                • Graham Hamer
                  Wieland Willker wrote ... it. ... One aspect of the beauty of the 2ST is its simplicity - after all most of us can cope with the concept of two sources. But
                  Message 8 of 24 , Mar 9, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Wieland Willker wrote
                    >
                    > Everybody aggrees that the Gospels are based on written sources.
                    > With the 2ST we FINALLY HAVE ONE OF THESE WRITTEN SOURCES! We can
                    > reconstruct it, we can name it, we can print it, we can (mis)interpret
                    it.
                    > And Q is something NEW. It's not just the "Sondergut" of either Mt or Lk.
                    > It's reconstructed from BOTH.

                    One aspect of the beauty of the 2ST is its simplicity - after all most of
                    us can cope with the concept of two sources. But therein lies the problem:
                    why not 20 sources? How can you demonstrate that Q was one source? Multiple
                    sources would destroy that beauty even though it would better explain the
                    phenomena of (occasional) verbal identity alongside other passages
                    containing consideration levels of variation between Matthew and Luke.

                    Agreement about the 2ST also hides much disagreement about actual wording
                    of this putative source. That's another sort of beauty: an overall
                    agreement about theory hiding a mass of disagreement at a detailed level.

                    Another aspect of the beauty is that Q appears to take us back in history
                    before the writing of the gospels and so (apparently) closer to the Jesus
                    of history.

                    Graham
                  • Mark Goodacre
                    ... I suppose that the point is that on the 2ST we have a source that is not the same as one of our canonical gospels, for on the other theories mentioned we
                    Message 9 of 24 , Mar 9, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 9 Mar 99 at 16:18, Wieland Willker wrote:

                      > Everybody aggrees that the Gospels are based on written sources.
                      > With the 2ST we FINALLY HAVE ONE OF THESE WRITTEN SOURCES! We can
                      > reconstruct it, we can name it, we can print it, we can (mis)interpret it. And
                      > Q is something NEW. It's not just the "Sondergut" of either Mt or Lk. It's
                      > reconstructed from BOTH. That's the beauty of the 2ST.

                      I suppose that the point is that on the 2ST we have a source that is not the
                      same as one of our canonical gospels, for on the other theories mentioned we
                      also have written sources, e.g. on Farrer we have both Mark and Matthew for
                      Luke. I think that this does make a difference for Matthew: without Q we have
                      only his Markan source. And to scholars of Matthew that can be a depressing
                      thought: no Q to help us to see what Matthew is doing in double tradition
                      sections. But for Luke, the Farrer Theory gives us both of his major written
                      sources, Mark and Matthew, so there is no disadvantage there.

                      > M Goodacre has never
                      > produced a reconstruction of source(s) and even more problematic he sees no
                      > necessity to do so. This breaks the beauty of his otherwise equivalent theory
                      > (there is to much "Sondergut" unexplained). For me a model is only complete if
                      > I have the source(s). Not only naming it (like the Logia), but reconstruct it.
                      > Give me a complete model and I will like it.

                      Give me time; I am still young! I think that I would be sympathetic to
                      attempts to reconstruct sources of non-Marcan Matthew (etc.) though I think
                      that that is a secondary task. The primary task to which I (personally) want
                      to apply myself is to establish the origin of the verbatim agreement between
                      Matthew and Luke that is not in Mark, i.e. to establish whether Q is a better
                      explanation than Luke's use of Matthew. Of course the question then arises:
                      what then are the origins of Matthew's non-Marcan material and this needs to be
                      dealt with in due course. But as far as I am concerned at least: first things
                      first.

                      Mark
                      --------------------------------------
                      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                      Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                      University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                      Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

                      http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                      Aseneth Home Page
                      Recommended New Testament Web Resources
                      World Without Q
                    • Mark Goodacre
                      ... I suppose that one answer to this would be to look at Q research over the last generation or so. Not long ago, Alan Kirk explained on Synoptic-L how he
                      Message 10 of 24 , Mar 9, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 9 Mar 99 at 16:41, Graham Hamer wrote:

                        > One aspect of the beauty of the 2ST is its simplicity - after all most of us
                        > can cope with the concept of two sources. But therein lies the problem: why
                        > not 20 sources? How can you demonstrate that Q was one source? Multiple
                        > sources would destroy that beauty even though it would better explain the
                        > phenomena of (occasional) verbal identity alongside other passages containing
                        > consideration levels of variation between Matthew and Luke.

                        I suppose that one answer to this would be to look at Q research over the last
                        generation or so. Not long ago, Alan Kirk explained on Synoptic-L how he finds
                        genre-comparison arguments a helpful means of establishing the reliability of
                        the 2ST. Kloppenborg and Jacobson have both hinted at the same thing. If Q is
                        one document, one will expect it to respond to genre analysis / comparison. If
                        it is lots of disparate material, it will be less likely so to respond.
                        >
                        > Agreement about the 2ST also hides much disagreement about actual wording of
                        > this putative source. That's another sort of beauty: an overall agreement
                        > about theory hiding a mass of disagreement at a detailed level.

                        Agreed, though I suspect that this is now less true than it used to be. After
                        all the painstaking work of the International Q Project we do have a
                        reconstruction that we can work with. And even those writing bookson Q largely
                        outside of the project (e.g. Tuckett, Allison) accept its findings most of the
                        time.
                        >
                        > Another aspect of the beauty is that Q appears to take us back in history
                        > before the writing of the gospels and so (apparently) closer to the Jesus of
                        > history.

                        I agree that this is part of Q's appeal. It is perhaps one of the most
                        important elements of its enduring appeal and it has become even more important
                        recently in the light of the work of Crossan and the Jesus Seminar, who
                        explicitly prejudice evidence from Q in their reconstructions. But Q has
                        massive international appeal even outside of Jesus research -- it has been used
                        in feminist exegesis (Luise Schottroff, Elizabeth Schuessler Fiorenza, Amy-Jill
                        Levine) and liberation theology (James Robinson), and in theologies
                        evangelical, catholic, sober and sensational.

                        There is a great Laurel and Hardy (Beau Chumps, I think) in which every man in
                        the foreign legion has gone away to forget the same woman. Hardy had said,
                        before she dumps him, "She has been all over the world, loved by everyone, and
                        she's mine, all mine". She is a little bit like Q -- everyone loves it, and
                        everyone appropriates it for themselves. But like that woman in Laurel and
                        Hardy, this love will only disappoint in the end.

                        Mark
                        --------------------------------------
                        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                        Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                        University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                        Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

                        http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                        Aseneth Home Page
                        Recommended New Testament Web Resources
                        World Without Q
                      • Robert Derrenbacker
                        ... It is worth noting that there are some 2STheorists (like myself) who are content with the status quo , but who are also content to keep excavating the
                        Message 11 of 24 , Mar 9, 1999
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Mark Goodacre wrote:

                          > I think this exchange about the beauty of all of our theories has been fun and
                          > yet at the same time it illustrates one of the problems (or glories?) of both
                          > Synoptic-L specifically and Synoptic Problem scholarship more broadly. Here we
                          > have had people speaking for the Farrer Theory, the Griesbach Theory, a
                          > "modified Augustinian" Theory and a "Logia Translation" Theory. Yet, as we
                          > all know, 95 per cent of the world adheres to some form of the Two Source
                          > Theory. I suspect that one of the difficulties is that those who adhere to the
                          > Two Source Theory feel, on the whole, that to continue to worry about the
                          > Synoptic Problem is to "dig up old foundations", to use Farrer's image. Where
                          > does it actually get one to go back over old questions regarded as long since
                          > settled? Why bother?
                          >
                          It is worth noting that there are some 2STheorists (like myself) who are
                          content with the "status quo", but who are also content to keep excavating
                          the "old foundations". Last time I checked, the Synoptic Problem was still
                          precisely that: a problem.

                          I return to lurking...

                          > For those of us who do not accept the status quo, I would suggest that the
                          > greatest difficulty remains the question of establishing that there is
                          > actually something worth arguing about in the first place. In order to do
                          > this, one needs (I think) to understand the 2ST to see why it remains so
                          > attractive to so many. Perhaps one way to start would be to ask what the
                          > "beauty" of the two-source theory is. Anyone willing to have a stab at it?
                          > I'll have a go if no-one else comes forward, but I would rather someone else
                          > did it.
                          >
                          > Mark
                          >
                          > --------------------------------------
                          > Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                          > Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                          > University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                          > Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom
                          >
                          > http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                          > Aseneth Home Page
                          > Recommended New Testament Web Resources
                          > World Without Q
                          >
                        • Yuri Kuchinsky
                          ... But, Mark, this has been done very well already by Koester, and his pMk theory. As I already explained, he argues that most of the verbatim agreements
                          Message 12 of 24 , Mar 9, 1999
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                            > On 9 Mar 99 at 16:18, Wieland Willker wrote:

                            > > M Goodacre has never
                            > > produced a reconstruction of source(s) and even more problematic he sees no
                            > > necessity to do so. This breaks the beauty of his otherwise equivalent theory
                            > > (there is to much "Sondergut" unexplained). For me a model is only complete if
                            > > I have the source(s). Not only naming it (like the Logia), but reconstruct it.
                            > > Give me a complete model and I will like it.
                            >
                            > Give me time; I am still young! I think that I would be sympathetic
                            > to attempts to reconstruct sources of non-Marcan Matthew (etc.) though
                            > I think that that is a secondary task. The primary task to which I
                            > (personally) want to apply myself is to establish the origin of the
                            > verbatim agreement between Matthew and Luke that is not in Mark,

                            But, Mark, this has been done very well already by Koester, and his pMk
                            theory. As I already explained, he argues that most of the verbatim
                            agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark seem to be the result of
                            both Mt and Lk copying from the much shorter proto Mk. These passages have
                            been subsequently changed in our canonical Mk, often for some very clear
                            theological reasons.

                            > i.e. to establish whether Q is a better explanation than Luke's use of
                            > Matthew.

                            Luke's use of Mt is valid and reasonable IMHO, but was quite limited.

                            > Of course the question then arises: what then are the origins of
                            > Matthew's non-Marcan material and this needs to be dealt with in due
                            > course.

                            One serious problem with the Farrer Theory is that it mostly neglects the
                            genre (gattung) of the Sayings Collection. Such Sayings Collections of
                            revered sages were a well established literary genre in antiquity. The
                            discovery of the Gospel of Thomas added weight to such Sayings Collections
                            also having been used by earliest Christians. This strengthens the Q
                            hypothesis, of course.

                            Yours,

                            Yuri.

                            Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

                            http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                            The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                            equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                          • Brian E. Wilson
                            Brian Wilson wrote- ... Wieland Wilker commented - ... Wieland, If the LTH is true, then would we not expect it always to win? Just because some hypotheses do
                            Message 13 of 24 , Mar 9, 1999
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Brian Wilson wrote-
                              >The beauty of the Logia Translation Hypothesis is that not merely some
                              >but all of the synoptists creatively transformed the same set of Greek
                              >notes into three equally and amazingly superb books of Jesus tradition.
                              >
                              Wieland Wilker commented -
                              >The beauty of the Logia Translation Hypothesis is that it always wins.
                              >You can always modify your Logia in the way you want. It's just a mirror of
                              >the Gospels.
                              >
                              Wieland,
                              If the LTH is true, then would we not expect it always to win?
                              Just because some hypotheses do not fit the data (for instance the 2DH
                              in relation to the minor agreements and "Mark-Q Overlaps"), it does not
                              follow that every hypothesis must have such difficulties.

                              This is not to say that the LTH is constructed in such a way that it is
                              beyond being tested against the data. I am continually testing it
                              against the data. I have several times been on a knife-edge awaiting the
                              outcome! So far the LTH has worked, but I do not know that this will
                              continue to be the case. I have to wait and see.

                              As it happens, I had to test the LTH less than 24 hours ago. I went to
                              a dinner for the launching of the European edition of "The New
                              International Bible Commentary" at Wesley House College, Cambridge,
                              yesterday evening. I was placed on a table with Professor G. N. Stanton,
                              Professor David Dungan, and Professor Morna Hooker, so that we formed a
                              group of four. One of them kindly asked me my views and set me a test
                              for the LTH. The argument went that if the LTH held that each synoptic
                              gospel was an independent re-hash of **selected passages** of the same
                              set of disconnected notes in Greek, then no synoptic gospel should have
                              a clear structure. I could therefore check the LTH by seeing whether any
                              synoptic gospel had a clear structure. If it did, then the LTH fails.
                              If none does, then the LTH fits the data to which it is applied in this
                              case.

                              I drove home making a mental note to look up Davies and Alison on
                              Matthew, Guelich on Mark, and E. E. Ellis on Luke. I had no idea what
                              would be the result. To be honest, I thought the LTH would fail the test
                              and I would be back at the drawing-board today! I managed to arrive home
                              safely.

                              To my surprise, I found the following on Mark in Guelich (page xxxvi) -

                              " One might well despair of finding any structure or outline for Mark's
                              Gospel based on consensus. The suggestions are as diverse as the
                              individual commentators. In fact, one finds little consensus around even
                              a principle for determining Markan structure. While some have found a
                              geographical basis....others have looked more toward thematic or
                              Christological schemes themes...some have tried a combination of the
                              two...more recently literary or rhetorical bases have surfaced..."

                              Again to my surprise, I found the following on Matthew in Davies and
                              Allison (page 58f., page 72) -

                              " The one incontestable fact about the structure of Matthew is this:
                              the gospel's narrative portions follow a rough chronological sequence -
                              birth, baptism, ministry in Galilee, journey to Jerusalem, passion,
                              resurrection - , and into this sequence large sections of teaching have
                              regularly been inserted. Unfortunately, this single indubitable fact
                              does not take us very far. It is consistent with a host of different
                              structural analyses, including, most notable, these: ...
                              Unfortunately, these conclusions do not add up to any grand scheme.
                              Leaving aside chronology, Matthew's arrangement has no one structural
                              principle...Gundry is right...our gospel is 'structurally mixed'
                              (Gundry, Commentary, p.11.)"

                              I was also suprised at what Ellis says (page 7) on Luke. He refers to F.
                              W. Farrar's view that Luke aimed mainly for chronological order, to Miss
                              Guilding who thinks Luke follows the order of lections, to Conzelmann,
                              Farrer, Morgenthaler and Schubert, who see the influence of various
                              theological interests upon the organization of the gospel of Luke, and
                              to his (Ellis') own view that there is a comprehensive thematic
                              structure in Luke.

                              So the LTH passed the test in this case, as in previous ones, and I have
                              stopped holding my breath for the moment! Another test is whether the
                              pericopes in each synoptic gospels show signs of being independently
                              linked. If the links between pericopes in one synoptic gospel are
                              always the same as in the others, this would disprove the LTH. In fact,
                              there are many instances in which the differences are consistent with
                              independent links having been made. Again, if trying to reconstruct the
                              set of Greek notes posited by the LTH led to contradiction, this would
                              rule out the hypothesis. But in fact it is possible to use a synopsis
                              to form a reconstruction without contradiction. And so on.

                              Best wishes,
                              BRIAN WILSON

                              E-MAIL : brian@... homepage -
                              SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
                              10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                            • Maluflen@aol.com
                              In a message dated 3/8/1999 1:06:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, peterson@mail.ics.edu writes:
                              Message 14 of 24 , Mar 9, 1999
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 3/8/1999 1:06:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                                peterson@... writes:

                                <<
                                It's part of the the beauty of the Farrer Hypothesis to grant all the
                                extant Gospels their due as creative authors working to strengthen the
                                churches they ministered to and wrote for. On FH Mark too is recognized as
                                a creative genius whose Gospel is a biographical meditation on the mystery
                                of the kingdom of God revealed through Jesus; next Matthew writes out the
                                explanation of Marcan riddles and incorporates a substantial account of
                                Jesus' teaching as a guide for ordering the lives of disciples and of the
                                church; and Luke adapts both his predecessors to tell the story of the
                                founding of the Christian people that is recognizably heir to both biblical
                                and Hellenistic traditions of historiography. So if one is looking for an
                                hypothesis that thinks all the evangelists were better than hacks, it's
                                name is Farrer.
                                >>

                                Nice try, Jeffrey! Honestly, though, the Farrer hypothesis clearly rates Mark
                                as the most creative of the four Gospel writers and considerably diminishes
                                the creativity of Matthew by comparison with the latter in [my version of] the
                                2 GH. The problem with the Farrer position [in this respect a problem it
                                shares with the 2 SH] is that we have virtually no evidence for Mark's ability
                                to write creatively outside of material he has in common with Matthew and/or
                                Luke. For Matthew, we have considerable such material, in particular his first
                                two chapters. If Mark's text were nevertheless evidently earlier than
                                Matthew's within the material these two evangelists have in common, then one
                                could perhaps still make a case for Markan priority with respect to the other
                                evangelists. But this is simply not the case. The evidence is at best
                                ambiguous, and in fact usually favors the view of Mark as a late user, for
                                dramatic purposes, of earlier literary material.

                                Leonard Maluf
                              • Jim Deardorff
                                ... Surely you will have several on the list take you up on this. The beauty of the 2ST is best brought out by noting what first made it an attractive
                                Message 15 of 24 , Mar 10, 1999
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  At 02:15 PM 3/9/99 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:

                                  >[...]
                                  >For those of us who do not accept the status quo, I would suggest that the
                                  >greatest difficulty remains the question of establishing that there is
                                  >actually something worth arguing about in the first place. In order to do
                                  >this, one needs (I think) to understand the 2ST to see why it remains so
                                  >attractive to so many. Perhaps one way to start would be to ask what the
                                  >"beauty" of the two-source theory is. Anyone willing to have a stab at it?
                                  >I'll have a go if no-one else comes forward, but I would rather someone else
                                  >did it.

                                  Surely you will have several on the list take you up on this. The "beauty"
                                  of the 2ST is best brought out by noting what first made it an attractive
                                  alternative back in the 19th century. It started from the assumption that
                                  the shortest gospel should have come first, which was accompanied by the
                                  thought that AMk would not have omitted Matthew's Sermon and many of the
                                  parables and discourses if Mark had come second or third. So this involved
                                  the assumption that AMk would have thought the same way a theologically
                                  committed scholar does. This assumption has received very little question
                                  ever since.

                                  At the same time, an even less discussed factor was involved: If Mark came
                                  after Matthew, then careful comparison of parallel verses involving Jesus
                                  and the disciples indicates that AMk purposely portayed the Jewish disciples
                                  as being obtuse, disrespectful and fearful relative to Matthew. Such
                                  behavior on the part of a gospel writer was deemed unspeakable and
                                  unthinkable, especially by theologically committed scholars. So by placing
                                  Mark first, and not worrying about its source, this unmentionable problem
                                  could be entirely avoided.

                                  Then regarding Luke, as we all know Q had to be invented so that Luke would
                                  not be seen as being dependent upon Matthew. Theological commitment involved
                                  the desire that the copying/translating by one gospel writer of another's
                                  preexisting gospel be kept at a minimum. Although dependencies between Mt-Mk
                                  and Mk-Lk were deemed too great for the 2SH advocates to require
                                  independence there, they could still maintain that ALk and AMt used Q rather
                                  than the other's gospel.

                                  As an example of the desire that hypotheses involving plagiarism be avoided
                                  as far as possible, one has this statement by T. H. Horne (incorrectly, I
                                  think, attributed to H. Alford by John Wenham in his 1992 book, p. 3): "I do
                                  not see how any theory of mutual interdependence will leave to our three
                                  Evangelists their credit as able or trustworthy writers, or even as honest
                                  men." Horne wrote this in vol. 4 of his 1823 set of volumes entitled _An
                                  Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures_.
                                  (Notice that "evangelists" was even capitalized.)

                                  A strong further consideration re Luke is that if it were dependent upon
                                  Matthew, then ALk would be seen (at least by Streeter and many others) as
                                  being an editorial crank, for having taken Matthean content so often out of
                                  its context, for not respecting Matthew's order, and for following Mark's
                                  order where Mark *deviates* from Matthew's order. This problem also could be
                                  avoided by hypothesizing Q. (The latter problem of order was deemed so
                                  serious to Griesbach and followers -- see Farmer -- that advocates of the
                                  2GH circumvented it by placing Mark last.)

                                  My apologies for the brevity of this summary.

                                  Continuing theological commitment is largely responsible, I contend, for the
                                  continued and present support for the 2SH (and also the 2GH) even though the
                                  percentage of scholars who are theologically committed has probably dropped
                                  a bit since the 19th century. But after nearly a century of assuming Markan
                                  priority and the existence of Q as a document by a majority, they cannot now
                                  entertain the possibility that one or both of these assumptions is faulty,
                                  as it would be a self-defeating and self-effacing admission for those within
                                  religious-study professions or with reputations built upon the correctness
                                  of the 2SH. The thought that the field of religious studies has not
                                  advanced, or has even retrogressed since the 19th century, is itself
                                  unthinkable to most. Thus today it is not just theological commitment alone
                                  that maintains the prominence of the 2SH. Thus the 2SH retains its "beauty"
                                  because it allows scholars to (more) easily publish pro-2SH papers and
                                  books, maintain their standings amongst fellow scholars, maintain their own
                                  theological commitment (in some cases, or to a maximum degree), and feel
                                  that their profession is making continued progress.

                                  The above considerations also explain why synoptic-problem scholars avoid
                                  discussion of the (undesired) motivations for the editorial behaviors of AMk
                                  and ALk, if Mark did not come first and Luke is not independent of Matthew.

                                  Jim Deardorff
                                  Corvallis, Oregon
                                  E-mail: deardorj@...
                                  Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                                • Peter Head
                                  Jim Deardorff s version of the history of the 2SH in the nineteenth century is entertaining, but undocumented and seemingly inaccurate at a number of points.
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Mar 10, 1999
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Jim Deardorff's version of the history of the 2SH in the nineteenth
                                    century is entertaining, but undocumented and seemingly inaccurate at a
                                    number of points. To begin with the priority of Mark needs to be
                                    understood as arising out of a rejection of the Christian tradition
                                    (from Augustine et al.) that Matthew was the first gospel. There were
                                    theological committments on each side of the issue (as there obviously
                                    still are!), but the pioneers seem to me to have been quite conscious of
                                    their opposition to both church and biblical authority.

                                    Opposition to Augustine's description of Mark as abbreviator/epitomator
                                    of Matthew goes back as far as Calvin but was expressed as opposition by
                                    scholars such as Jeremiah Jones (1719) and J. B. Koppe (1782) (neither
                                    offered an alternative, fully worked out theory).

                                    The origins of Markan priority are more likely to be found in the
                                    development of the Ur-Gospel theory from Lessing through Eichhorn's 42
                                    passages to the two pioneers of Markan Priorty: G.C. Storr (1786) and
                                    J.G. Herder (1796 & 1797). Their discussions show that the main
                                    arguments for Markan priority were in place before the nineteenth
                                    century even began. Herder's main arguments, which look like genuine
                                    attempts to construct a critical history of the problem (and not special
                                    pleading on the basis of "theological committments") were as follows:

                                    1. Mark's Gospel agrees with the outline of the gospel extant in
                                    Acts 1:1,22; while the others have added genealogies and a birth
                                    narrative, which had no place in the early reports.

                                    2. Mark's Gospel is also unstained by later polemics against a
                                    John the Baptist group. He recounts the story of John the Baptist very
                                    briefly, while the other gospels (esp Matthew in 3:14f and 11:1-10; and
                                    John) add much new material.

                                    3. Mark, in contrast to the other gospels (and especially
                                    Matthew), does not include the hard sayings of both John the Baptist and
                                    Christ against the Jewish nation (eg Matt 15:12-14; 16:2-4; 21:28-32).
                                    This corresponds to what we know from Acts. In the beginning the
                                    apostles spoke leniently to the Jewish people (2:22-39; 3:17-26), but
                                    later in the history of the church, when no unity between Jews and
                                    Christians was possible, and Christianity was persecuted by the Jews,
                                    the speeches of Christ against the Jews were emphasised.

                                    4. In addition to this last point in Mark it is not clear that
                                    Jesus stood against the Jewish services. In contrast Matthew is full of
                                    such teaching.

                                    5. Mark stands as an archetype of the other gospels. Matthew and
                                    Luke are more broadly comprehensive and it seems obvious that such
                                    comprehensiveness is added to a shorter original rather than left out by
                                    a later writer.

                                    More could be said ...

                                    Peter

                                    ............................................
                                    Peter M. Head
                                    Oak Hill College
                                    LONDON N14 4PS
                                    peterh@...
                                    ............................................

                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: Jim Deardorff [mailto:deardorj@...]
                                    Sent: 10 March 1999 19:14
                                    To: Synoptic-L@...
                                    Subject: Re: Beauty of the Two-Source Theory?


                                    At 02:15 PM 3/9/99 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:

                                    >[...]
                                    >For those of us who do not accept the status quo, I would suggest that
                                    the
                                    >greatest difficulty remains the question of establishing that there is
                                    >actually something worth arguing about in the first place. In order to
                                    do
                                    >this, one needs (I think) to understand the 2ST to see why it remains
                                    so
                                    >attractive to so many. Perhaps one way to start would be to ask what
                                    the
                                    >"beauty" of the two-source theory is. Anyone willing to have a stab at
                                    it?
                                    >I'll have a go if no-one else comes forward, but I would rather someone
                                    else
                                    >did it.

                                    Surely you will have several on the list take you up on this. The
                                    "beauty"
                                    of the 2ST is best brought out by noting what first made it an
                                    attractive
                                    alternative back in the 19th century. It started from the assumption
                                    that
                                    the shortest gospel should have come first, which was accompanied by the
                                    thought that AMk would not have omitted Matthew's Sermon and many of the
                                    parables and discourses if Mark had come second or third. So this
                                    involved
                                    the assumption that AMk would have thought the same way a theologically
                                    committed scholar does. This assumption has received very little
                                    question
                                    ever since.

                                    At the same time, an even less discussed factor was involved: If Mark
                                    came
                                    after Matthew, then careful comparison of parallel verses involving
                                    Jesus
                                    and the disciples indicates that AMk purposely portayed the Jewish
                                    disciples
                                    as being obtuse, disrespectful and fearful relative to Matthew. Such
                                    behavior on the part of a gospel writer was deemed unspeakable and
                                    unthinkable, especially by theologically committed scholars. So by
                                    placing
                                    Mark first, and not worrying about its source, this unmentionable
                                    problem
                                    could be entirely avoided.

                                    Then regarding Luke, as we all know Q had to be invented so that Luke
                                    would
                                    not be seen as being dependent upon Matthew. Theological commitment
                                    involved
                                    the desire that the copying/translating by one gospel writer of
                                    another's
                                    preexisting gospel be kept at a minimum. Although dependencies between
                                    Mt-Mk
                                    and Mk-Lk were deemed too great for the 2SH advocates to require
                                    independence there, they could still maintain that ALk and AMt used Q
                                    rather
                                    than the other's gospel.

                                    As an example of the desire that hypotheses involving plagiarism be
                                    avoided
                                    as far as possible, one has this statement by T. H. Horne (incorrectly,
                                    I
                                    think, attributed to H. Alford by John Wenham in his 1992 book, p. 3):
                                    "I do
                                    not see how any theory of mutual interdependence will leave to our three
                                    Evangelists their credit as able or trustworthy writers, or even as
                                    honest
                                    men." Horne wrote this in vol. 4 of his 1823 set of volumes entitled _An
                                    Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy
                                    Scriptures_.
                                    (Notice that "evangelists" was even capitalized.)

                                    A strong further consideration re Luke is that if it were dependent upon
                                    Matthew, then ALk would be seen (at least by Streeter and many others)
                                    as
                                    being an editorial crank, for having taken Matthean content so often out
                                    of
                                    its context, for not respecting Matthew's order, and for following
                                    Mark's
                                    order where Mark *deviates* from Matthew's order. This problem also
                                    could be
                                    avoided by hypothesizing Q. (The latter problem of order was deemed so
                                    serious to Griesbach and followers -- see Farmer -- that advocates of
                                    the
                                    2GH circumvented it by placing Mark last.)

                                    My apologies for the brevity of this summary.

                                    Continuing theological commitment is largely responsible, I contend, for
                                    the
                                    continued and present support for the 2SH (and also the 2GH) even though
                                    the
                                    percentage of scholars who are theologically committed has probably
                                    dropped
                                    a bit since the 19th century. But after nearly a century of assuming
                                    Markan
                                    priority and the existence of Q as a document by a majority, they cannot
                                    now
                                    entertain the possibility that one or both of these assumptions is
                                    faulty,
                                    as it would be a self-defeating and self-effacing admission for those
                                    within
                                    religious-study professions or with reputations built upon the
                                    correctness
                                    of the 2SH. The thought that the field of religious studies has not
                                    advanced, or has even retrogressed since the 19th century, is itself
                                    unthinkable to most. Thus today it is not just theological commitment
                                    alone
                                    that maintains the prominence of the 2SH. Thus the 2SH retains its
                                    "beauty"
                                    because it allows scholars to (more) easily publish pro-2SH papers and
                                    books, maintain their standings amongst fellow scholars, maintain their
                                    own
                                    theological commitment (in some cases, or to a maximum degree), and feel
                                    that their profession is making continued progress.

                                    The above considerations also explain why synoptic-problem scholars
                                    avoid
                                    discussion of the (undesired) motivations for the editorial behaviors of
                                    AMk
                                    and ALk, if Mark did not come first and Luke is not independent of
                                    Matthew.

                                    Jim Deardorff
                                    Corvallis, Oregon
                                    E-mail: deardorj@...
                                    Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                                  • Jim Deardorff
                                    ... Yes, the 18th-century questioning or rejection of the AH by some might be mentioned in this connection. Rejection of the AH required making the tough
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Mar 11, 1999
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      At 12:06 AM 3/11/99 -0000, Peter Head wrote:
                                      >Jim Deardorff's version of the history of the 2SH in the nineteenth
                                      >century is entertaining, but undocumented and seemingly inaccurate at a
                                      >number of points. To begin with the priority of Mark needs to be
                                      >understood as arising out of a rejection of the Christian tradition
                                      >(from Augustine et al.) that Matthew was the first gospel. There were
                                      >theological committments on each side of the issue (as there obviously
                                      >still are!), but the pioneers seem to me to have been quite conscious of
                                      >their opposition to both church and biblical authority.

                                      >Opposition to Augustine's description of Mark as abbreviator/epitomator
                                      >of Matthew goes back as far as Calvin but was expressed as opposition by
                                      >scholars such as Jeremiah Jones (1719) and J. B. Koppe (1782) (neither
                                      >offered an alternative, fully worked out theory).

                                      Yes, the 18th-century questioning or rejection of the AH by some might be
                                      mentioned in this connection. Rejection of the AH required making the tough
                                      decision of whether theological commitment (ThC) was being violated worse by
                                      rejecting the traditions dating back to the early church fathers, or by
                                      accepting the undesired editorial characteristics of AMk and ALk if the AH
                                      were to be upheld. Obviously this call could go either way, but I surmise
                                      that each scholar's particular form of ThC dictated the choice. It's only
                                      for several of the influential 19th-century scholars that their ThC is
                                      evident from summaries of their writings available to me.

                                      >The origins of Markan priority are more likely to be found in the
                                      >development of the Ur-Gospel theory from Lessing through Eichhorn's 42
                                      >passages to the two pioneers of Markan Priorty: G.C. Storr (1786) and
                                      >J.G. Herder (1796 & 1797).

                                      I don't see Lessing's hypothesis of a Nazarene gospel (or Gospel of the
                                      Hebrews) based upon oral tradition as pointing towards priority of any one
                                      synoptic gospel over another. But his work of course joined the other
                                      studies that helped question the priority of Matthew and the correctness of
                                      the AH. Similarly with Eichhorn.

                                      With Herbert Marsh, however, whom you didn't mention, I do see a more direct
                                      connection to the initiation of the 2SH. His "Alef," an Ur-gospel, was based
                                      on passages common to all three synoptic gospels. (I'm going by Farmer's
                                      summary here, in his _The Synoptic Problem_, whose sections I-V seem
                                      relatively unbiased to me). This assumption forced his Ur-gospel to look
                                      much more like Mark than like Matthew or Luke. This I see as arising from
                                      ThC, as it requires no acceptance of undesired editorial behavior on the
                                      part of AMk, as is realistically required when AMk is seen as being based
                                      upon Matthew.

                                      >Their discussions show that the main
                                      >arguments for Markan priority were in place before the nineteenth
                                      >century even began. Herder's main arguments, which look like genuine
                                      >attempts to construct a critical history of the problem (and not special
                                      >pleading on the basis of "theological committments") were as follows:
                                      >
                                      > 1. Mark's Gospel agrees with the outline of the gospel extant in
                                      >Acts 1:1,22; while the others have added genealogies and a birth
                                      >narrative, which had no place in the early reports.

                                      This only has a chance of holding true if Mark's long ending is genuine. And
                                      it's only an assumption that the genealogy and birth narrative didn't have a
                                      place in the earliest pre-gospel. Of course, it could easily have been seen
                                      by an evangelist who was writing for a gentile audience that the genealogy &
                                      birth narrative had no place in his gospel.

                                      Herder was following ThC here in having the oral-tradition material contain
                                      what was in all three synoptic gospels, not just two. It was quite an
                                      assumption then (and now) to think that the Son of David tradition and the
                                      star of Bethlehem had escaped the common oral tradition.

                                      However, it was in the 19th century (1820-21), I believe, that Herder came
                                      right out and assumed that Mark was the earliest gospel because it was the
                                      briefest (as explained by Meijboom in his _History and Critique of the
                                      Origin of the Marcan Hypothesis 1835-1866_, republished by Mercer Press in
                                      1993, pp. 16-17).

                                      > 2. Mark's Gospel is also unstained by later polemics against a
                                      >John the Baptist group. He recounts the story of John the Baptist very
                                      >briefly, while the other gospels (esp Matthew in 3:14f and 11:1-10; and
                                      >John) add much new material.

                                      ThC is again involved when the likelihood is simply ignored that AMk desired
                                      to abbreviate out Judaistic material either not of interest to him or deemed
                                      not of interest to his gentile audience. Mt 3:14-15 is easily seen as having
                                      been omitted also because it has Jesus coming to John the Baptist, thus
                                      detracting from Jesus' authority or divinity. Similarly, Mt 11:7-14 extols
                                      John, thus detracting from the reverence for Jesus. (AMk might have retained
                                      Mt 11:1-6 had he not wished to abbreviate heavily.)
                                      So these parts of Matthew did not involve polemics against John the Baptist,
                                      but instead spoke in his favor.

                                      You may be arguing at this point on not from Herder's viewpoint but from
                                      that of advocates of the 2SH.

                                      > 3. Mark, in contrast to the other gospels (and especially
                                      >Matthew), does not include the hard sayings of both John the Baptist and
                                      >Christ against the Jewish nation (eg Matt 15:12-14; 16:2-4; 21:28-32).
                                      >This corresponds to what we know from Acts. In the beginning the
                                      >apostles spoke leniently to the Jewish people (2:22-39; 3:17-26), but
                                      >later in the history of the church, when no unity between Jews and
                                      >Christians was possible, and Christianity was persecuted by the Jews,
                                      >the speeches of Christ against the Jews were emphasised.

                                      Again, it may be that the desire for AMk not to have been an
                                      editor/abbreviator possessing unacceptable editorial motivations lies behind
                                      the tendency to ignore the consequences stemming from the AH. Mt 15:13 was
                                      likely non-understandable to AMk and omitted for that reason, and so also
                                      then Mt 15:12,14 that are linked to it, considering that abbreviation
                                      wherever feasible was also a continuous motivation. Mt 16:4b was likely
                                      omitted because gentiles needn't know about Jonah; and since this was the
                                      kernel of the pericope, 16:2-3 was omitted also, except for Mt 16:4a. As for
                                      it, I think the AHer must fall back upon either an oversight by AMk in not
                                      including Matthew's "evil and adulterous generation," or the thought that
                                      this sweeping indictment included too many peoples, or the thought that it
                                      was a sufficient indictment against the Pharisees to have Jesus impugn their
                                      intelligence by the addition of asking specifically why they sought a sign.
                                      (Leonard may have still another interpretation.) Mt 21:28-32 has a punch
                                      line that extolls John and indicates that the chief priests and elders
                                      should have believed him; again this detracts from believing in Jesus and so
                                      could easily be omitted for that reason. Is not ThC the reason why such
                                      solutions are ignored by those who see beauty in the 2SH?

                                      > 4. In addition to this last point in Mark it is not clear that
                                      >Jesus stood against the Jewish services. In contrast Matthew is full of
                                      >such teaching.

                                      Again this falls within the category of Judaistic material that AMk was
                                      happy to omit in the course of abbreviating Matthew heavily. I do not think
                                      this motivation sets well for scholars beholden to ThC.

                                      > 5. Mark stands as an archetype of the other gospels. Matthew and
                                      >Luke are more broadly comprehensive and it seems obvious that such
                                      >comprehensiveness is added to a shorter original rather than left out by
                                      >a later writer.

                                      This takes us back to the argument that the shorter gospel must have come
                                      first, especially when the "comprehensiveness" you speak of involves
                                      material that ThC finds undesirable for AMk to have omitted.

                                      Thus I still find the upholding of ThC as a continuing, though perhaps no
                                      longer primary, cause for the 2SH appearing "beautiful" to its advocates. To
                                      many in the 19th century, however, including influential scholars like
                                      Weisse, Ruess, Ewald, and Holtzmann, I believe it was the primary cause.
                                      Although I grant you that the extent and effects of ThC have been different
                                      among different scholars, I see it as having been involved in each of the
                                      hypotheses: AH, 2GH and 2SH.

                                      Jim Deardorff
                                      Corvallis, Oregon
                                      E-mail: deardorj@...
                                      Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                                    • Dennis Sullivan
                                      On March 9, Leonard Maluf wrote: we have virtually no evidence for Mark s ability ... and/or ... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Mar 24, 1999
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On March 9, Leonard Maluf wrote:

                                        we have virtually no evidence for Mark's ability
                                        >to write creatively outside of material he has in common with Matthew
                                        and/or
                                        >Luke.
                                        ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                                        Regarding Mark's creativity...

                                        1:1
                                        1:6
                                        1:13b
                                        6:5b
                                        1:37
                                        1:45b
                                        2:1,2
                                        2:13b
                                        2:27
                                        3:5 "...with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart..."
                                        3:9, 11 "...whenever the unclean spirits beheld him, they fell down before
                                        him and..."
                                        3:19b, 20,21
                                        3:23
                                        3:30
                                        4:10a
                                        4:32 "...puts forth large branches...in its shade"
                                        4:38 "...in the stern...on the cushion..."
                                        5:4d, 5
                                        5:13c "...numbering about two thousand..."
                                        5:26, 27a, 29b
                                        5:30 "...immediately turned about in the crowd..."
                                        5:32
                                        5:39b "...why do you make a tumult..."
                                        5:42b "...and walked (she was twelve years of age), and they were
                                        immediately overcome with amazement."
                                        5:43b "...and told them to give her something to eat."
                                        6:8 "...except a staff...in their belts; but to wear sandals..."
                                        6:13 "...And they cast out many demons; and anointed with oil many that were
                                        sick..."
                                        6:16 "...has been raised."
                                        6:31
                                        6:33c
                                        6:34b "...because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to
                                        teach them many things."
                                        6:37b "...two hundred denarii worth of bread, and give it to them to eat?"
                                        6:38 "And he said to them, "How many loaves have you? Go and see. And when
                                        they had found out..."
                                        6:45 "Immediately...to Bethsaida..."
                                        6:48d "...He meant to pass by them..."
                                        6:51b, 52
                                        6:53c "...and moored to the shore."
                                        6:54 "And when they got out of the boat, immediately..."
                                        6:55 "...on their pallets to any place where they heard he was."
                                        6:56 "And whenever he came, in villages, cities, or country, they laid the
                                        sick in the market places..."
                                        7:2, 3, 4
                                        7:13b "...And many such things you do."
                                        7:17 "And when he had entered the house, and left the people..."
                                        7:18b "...from outside cannot defile him..."
                                        7:19b "...(Thus he declared all foods clean.)
                                        7:21 "...from within...of man..."
                                        7:22 "coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy...pride,
                                        foolishness."
                                        7:23 "All these evil things come from within, and they..."
                                        7:24 "And he entered a house and would not have any one know it; yet he
                                        could not be hid. (25) But immediately..."
                                        7:26 "Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by birth."
                                        7:29 "...For this saying you may go your way; the demon has left your
                                        daughter. (30) And she went home, and found the child lying in bed, and the
                                        demon gone."
                                        7:31-37
                                        8:1a
                                        8:3b
                                        8:7b
                                        8:12a "And he sighed deeply in his spirit..."
                                        8:13b "getting into the boat again, he...to the other side."
                                        8:14b
                                        8:15 "..cautioned them..."
                                        8:17 "...are your hearts hardened? (18) Having eyes do you not see, and
                                        having ears do you not hear?"
                                        8:31 "...began to teach..."
                                        8:32 "And he said this plainly."
                                        8:33 "...and seeing his disciples..."
                                        8:34a "And he called to him the multitude..."
                                        8:35c "...and the gospel's..."
                                        8:38b "...in this adulterous and sinful generation..."
                                        9:1 "...has come with power..."
                                        9:3b "...as no fuller on earth could bleach them."
                                        9:6b "...for they were exceedingly afraid."
                                        9:10
                                        9:12b
                                        9:13c
                                        9:14c--16
                                        9:18 "...and grinds his teeth and becomes rigid..."
                                        9:20c--27 (with a few exceptions)
                                        9:29
                                        9:30b--31a
                                        9:33--34a
                                        9:35
                                        9:36 "...and taking him in his arms...:
                                        9:39b
                                        9:43 "...to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire..."
                                        9:48
                                        9:49
                                        9:50 "...Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another."
                                        ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                                        Enough, already! Just wanted to show that Mark is very creative, even
                                        though in just a few words here and there in some cases.

                                        Curiously, in many of these short Markan passages, I found Greek words or
                                        phrases not used in the Matthean or Lukan parallels, but that could be found
                                        elsewhere in Luke or Acts. This seems to indicate some interaction between
                                        Mark and Luke-Acts in one direction or another. I've charted these in MSWord
                                        along with some others, in a work still in progress. There are about one
                                        hundred I've found so far.

                                        My apologies for the length of this! (But maybe it will prove useful.)

                                        Regards,

                                        Dennis Sullivan Dayton, Ohio
                                      • Maluflen@aol.com
                                        In a message dated 3/24/1999 11:13:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, densull@megsinet.net writes:
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Mar 25, 1999
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          In a message dated 3/24/1999 11:13:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                                          densull@... writes:

                                          << On March 9, Leonard Maluf wrote:

                                          we have virtually no evidence for Mark's ability
                                          >to write creatively outside of material he has in common with Matthew
                                          and/or
                                          >Luke.
                                          ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                                          Regarding Mark's creativity...

                                          1:1
                                          1:6
                                          1:13b
                                          6:5b
                                          1:37
                                          1:45b
                                          2:1,2
                                          2:13b
                                          2:27
                                          3:5 "...with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart..."
                                          3:9, 11 "...whenever the unclean spirits beheld him, they fell down before
                                          him and..."
                                          3:19b, 20,21
                                          3:23
                                          3:30
                                          4:10a
                                          4:32 "...puts forth large branches...in its shade"
                                          4:38 "...in the stern...on the cushion..."
                                          5:4d, 5
                                          5:13c "...numbering about two thousand..."
                                          5:26, 27a, 29b
                                          5:30 "...immediately turned about in the crowd..."
                                          5:32
                                          5:39b "...why do you make a tumult..."
                                          5:42b "...and walked (she was twelve years of age), and they were
                                          immediately overcome with amazement."
                                          5:43b "...and told them to give her something to eat."
                                          6:8 "...except a staff...in their belts; but to wear sandals..."
                                          6:13 "...And they cast out many demons; and anointed with oil many that were
                                          sick..."
                                          6:16 "...has been raised."
                                          6:31
                                          6:33c
                                          6:34b "...because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to
                                          teach them many things." [etc. etc.....]

                                          This line is virtually copied from Matt 9:35, isn't it?

                                          << Enough, already! Just wanted to show that Mark is very creative, even
                                          though in just a few words here and there in some cases. >>

                                          In virtually all cases. Yes, Denis. This is precisely what I meant by my
                                          original comment. Mark's demonstrable creativity is that of a good
                                          storyteller, not that of a writer in the sense of macro compositional talent.
                                          What I think is extremely unlikely, based on the evidence we have, is that
                                          Mark was the first Synoptic writer and did the mammoth job of macro-composing
                                          a Synoptic-type Gospel narrative that was later virtually copied by the
                                          demonstrably highly creative writers, Matthew and Luke. Mark's creativity, as
                                          you have beautifully illustrated, is for the most part limited to the addition
                                          of imaginative, minor details, suitable for a lower-class, not-particularly-
                                          literary audience whom he wished to reach, and most probably did reach, with
                                          his more colourful Gospel drama.

                                          << Curiously, in many of these short Markan passages, I found Greek words or
                                          phrases not used in the Matthean or Lukan parallels, but that could be found
                                          elsewhere in Luke or Acts. This seems to indicate some interaction between
                                          Mark and Luke-Acts in one direction or another.>>

                                          Yes, probably in the direction of Acts to Mark. We all have to get used to the
                                          very sensible idea that Mark is simply a late work. The evidence for this has
                                          been noted by many (as witness recent posts of Yuri Kuchinski, e.g.), but most
                                          scholars will do all kinds of contortions, such as the gratuitous positing of
                                          a pMk, to avoid the obvious conclusion that should be drawn from this
                                          evidence. There is extraordinary resistance, for some reason, to simply
                                          letting go of the security blanket of Marcan priority. It is very liberating
                                          to do so, and I would urge on all the wholesome exercise, even if only on a
                                          temporary and experimental basis. I find it hard to imagine that many would
                                          ever return to the theory of Marcan priority.

                                          Leonard Maluf

                                          P.S. Happy feast of the Annunciation of the Lord to everyone!
                                        • Dennis Sullivan
                                          ... From: Maluflen@aol.com To: densull@megsinet.net ; Synoptic-L@bham.ac.uk Date: Thursday,
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Mar 25, 1999
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            -----Original Message-----
                                            From: Maluflen@... <Maluflen@...>
                                            To: densull@... <densull@...>; Synoptic-L@...
                                            <Synoptic-L@...>
                                            Date: Thursday, March 25, 1999 8:01 AM
                                            Subject: Re: alternative views of Gospel origins



                                            >
                                            >In virtually all cases. Yes, Denis. This is precisely what I meant by my
                                            >original comment. Mark's demonstrable creativity is that of a good
                                            >storyteller, not that of a writer in the sense of macro compositional
                                            talent.
                                            >What I think is extremely unlikely, based on the evidence we have, is that
                                            >Mark was the first Synoptic writer and did the mammoth job of
                                            macro-composing
                                            >a Synoptic-type Gospel narrative that was later virtually copied by the
                                            >demonstrably highly creative writers, Matthew and Luke. Mark's creativity,
                                            as
                                            >you have beautifully illustrated, is for the most part limited to the
                                            addition
                                            >of imaginative, minor details, suitable for a lower-class,
                                            not-particularly-
                                            >literary audience whom he wished to reach, and most probably did reach,
                                            with
                                            >his more colourful Gospel drama.
                                            >
                                            ><< Curiously, in many of these short Markan passages, I found Greek words
                                            or
                                            > phrases not used in the Matthean or Lukan parallels, but that could be
                                            found
                                            > elsewhere in Luke or Acts. This seems to indicate some interaction between
                                            > Mark and Luke-Acts in one direction or another.>>
                                            >
                                            >Yes, probably in the direction of Acts to Mark. We all have to get used to
                                            the
                                            >very sensible idea that Mark is simply a late work. The evidence for this
                                            has
                                            >been noted by many (as witness recent posts of Yuri Kuchinski, e.g.), but
                                            most
                                            >scholars will do all kinds of contortions, such as the gratuitous positing
                                            of
                                            >a pMk, to avoid the obvious conclusion that should be drawn from this
                                            >evidence. There is extraordinary resistance, for some reason, to simply
                                            >letting go of the security blanket of Marcan priority. It is very
                                            liberating
                                            >to do so, and I would urge on all the wholesome exercise, even if only on a
                                            >temporary and experimental basis. I find it hard to imagine that many would
                                            >ever return to the theory of Marcan priority.
                                            >
                                            >Leonard Maluf
                                            >
                                            >P.S. Happy feast of the Annunciation of the Lord to everyone!

                                            +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                                            Thanks so much, Leonard! I appreciate your comments!

                                            Yes, Mark looks to me to be a preacher (as others including Lindsey, have
                                            suggested). Mark's is a fascinating and lively treatment of the gospel
                                            material, but is certainly late.

                                            Best wishes,

                                            Dennis Sullivan
                                          • Yuri Kuchinsky
                                            On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 Maluflen@aol.com wrote: [Dennis:] ... Yes, this is possible IMHO. ... I don t think so, Leonard. ... Yes, there s clear evidence of _some_
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Mar 25, 1999
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 Maluflen@... wrote:

                                              [Dennis:]
                                              > << Curiously, in many of these short Markan passages, I found Greek words or
                                              > phrases not used in the Matthean or Lukan parallels, but that could be found
                                              > elsewhere in Luke or Acts. This seems to indicate some interaction between
                                              > Mark and Luke-Acts in one direction or another.>>
                                              >
                                              > Yes, probably in the direction of Acts to Mark.

                                              Yes, this is possible IMHO.

                                              > We all have to get used to the very sensible idea that Mark is simply
                                              > a late work.

                                              I don't think so, Leonard.

                                              > The evidence for this has been noted by many (as witness recent posts
                                              > of Yuri Kuchinsky, e.g.),

                                              Yes, there's clear evidence of _some_ passages in Mk being late. Evidence
                                              to the contrary abounds also re other passages.

                                              > but most scholars will do all kinds of contortions, such as the
                                              > gratuitous positing of a pMk, to avoid the obvious conclusion that
                                              > should be drawn from this evidence.

                                              Have you read Koester, Leonard? It doesn't seem so, since his analysis of
                                              pMk is anything but "gratuitous".

                                              > There is extraordinary resistance, for some reason, to simply letting
                                              > go of the security blanket of Marcan priority. It is very liberating
                                              > to do so, and I would urge on all the wholesome exercise, even if only
                                              > on a temporary and experimental basis. I find it hard to imagine that
                                              > many would ever return to the theory of Marcan priority.

                                              You're still trying to oversimplify this whole matter...

                                              Regards,

                                              Yuri.

                                              Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

                                              http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                                              The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                                              equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                                            • Brian E. Wilson
                                              Leonard Maluf wrote - ... I agree. Try letting go the security blanket of Marcan priority, - and Matthean priority, and Lukan priority as well. You will see
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Mar 25, 1999
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Leonard Maluf wrote -
                                                >There is extraordinary resistance, for some reason, to simply letting
                                                >go of the security blanket of Marcan priority. It is very liberating
                                                >to do so, and I would urge on all the wholesome exercise, even if only
                                                >on a temporary and experimental basis. I find it hard to imagine that
                                                >many would ever return to the theory of Marcan priority.
                                                >
                                                I agree.

                                                Try letting go the security blanket of Marcan priority, - and Matthean
                                                priority, and Lukan priority as well.

                                                You will see the synoptic gospels in a new light.

                                                Best wishes,
                                                BRIAN WILSON

                                                E-MAIL : brian@... homepage -
                                                SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
                                                10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                                              • Maluflen@aol.com
                                                In a message dated 3/25/1999 9:55:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, yuku@globalserve.net writes:
                                                Message 23 of 24 , Mar 26, 1999
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  In a message dated 3/25/1999 9:55:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                                                  yuku@... writes:

                                                  <<
                                                  Have you read Koester, Leonard? It doesn't seem so, since his analysis of
                                                  pMk is anything but "gratuitous".
                                                  >>

                                                  No, Yuri, I must confess I have read very little of Koester. I have run into
                                                  the man casually at Harvard a couple of times, and he seems like a really nice
                                                  gentleman. I assume you mean something other than his 2 volume NT
                                                  Introduction, or does that include good sections on his Synoptic theory as
                                                  well? In any case, please tell me again the work of his I should start with,
                                                  and I will forthwith place it on my urgent "to do" list. My own impression of
                                                  Mark's Gospel, though, is that it is quite homogeneous, and from this fact I
                                                  have drawn the (hasty?) conclusion that if there are sections in Mk that are
                                                  clearly late, then the Gospel is clearly late. I wonder if a pMk would ever
                                                  have been hypothesized if Matt and Lk never existed? Perhaps I will learn wise
                                                  answers to these questions by working through your reading list. I do, by the
                                                  way, have a copy of the book you always quote from by A. Loisy. I found it
                                                  some years ago in a second-hand bookstore. It is certainly interesting, but I
                                                  haven't got through the whole thing yet either. It contains quite a bit of
                                                  detail, no?

                                                  Regards,
                                                  Leonard Maluf
                                                • Yuri Kuchinsky
                                                  ... Dear Leonard, Sorry for late reply. I ve been busy with other things of late. A good volume to look up is ANCIENT CHRISTIAN GOSPELS by Koester. He deals
                                                  Message 24 of 24 , Mar 31, 1999
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 Maluflen@... wrote:

                                                    > In a message dated 3/25/1999 9:55:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                                                    > yuku@... writes:
                                                    >
                                                    > <<
                                                    > Have you read Koester, Leonard? It doesn't seem so, since his analysis of
                                                    > pMk is anything but "gratuitous".
                                                    > >>
                                                    >
                                                    > No, Yuri, I must confess I have read very little of Koester. I have
                                                    > run into the man casually at Harvard a couple of times, and he seems
                                                    > like a really nice gentleman. I assume you mean something other than
                                                    > his 2 volume NT Introduction, or does that include good sections on
                                                    > his Synoptic theory as well? In any case, please tell me again the
                                                    > work of his I should start with, and I will forthwith place it on my
                                                    > urgent "to do" list.

                                                    Dear Leonard,

                                                    Sorry for late reply. I've been busy with other things of late.

                                                    A good volume to look up is ANCIENT CHRISTIAN GOSPELS by Koester. He deals
                                                    with pMk in some detail there, and provides many refs. But he's very
                                                    technical in this book, never taking it beyond text-criticism. What he
                                                    fails to provide is a historical background for these textual
                                                    developments. For this, I would recommend Alfred Loisy's books, especially
                                                    his

                                                    Loisy, Alfred Firmin, 1857-1940. The birth of the Christian religion =
                                                    (La naissance du Christianisme). London: G. Allen & Unwin. 1948.

                                                    Loisy, Alfred Firmin, 1857-1940. The Origins of the New Testament.
                                                    London: G. Allen and Unwin. 1950.

                                                    Basically, Koester is saying the same things as Loisy said, although I've
                                                    never seen a reference to Loisy in Koester. (Which I find a little
                                                    strange.)

                                                    From what I know, Loisy was never too popular among German scholars. I
                                                    guess their Protentantism may have come in the way of their appreciating
                                                    his points of view, among other things. Loisy was quite critical of
                                                    Protestant scholars' views (not less than he was critical of Catholics.)
                                                    So Koester may have acquired these views via Bultmann (who was very
                                                    appreciative of Loisy).

                                                    > My own impression of Mark's Gospel, though, is that it is quite
                                                    > homogeneous, and from this fact I have drawn the (hasty?) conclusion
                                                    > that if there are sections in Mk that are clearly late, then the
                                                    > Gospel is clearly late.

                                                    I see what you mean...

                                                    > I wonder if a pMk would ever have been hypothesized if Matt and Lk
                                                    > never existed?

                                                    Difficult to say.

                                                    > Perhaps I will learn wise answers to these questions by working
                                                    > through your reading list. I do, by the way, have a copy of the book
                                                    > you always quote from by A. Loisy. I found it some years ago in a
                                                    > second-hand bookstore. It is certainly interesting, but I haven't got
                                                    > through the whole thing yet either. It contains quite a bit of detail,
                                                    > no?

                                                    Are you referring to one of the above?

                                                    Regards,

                                                    Yuri.

                                                    Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

                                                    http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                                                    The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                                                    equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.