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

Delbert Burkett's paper on Mark

Expand Messages
  • Dennis C. Sullivan
    Posting this to the list with Dr. Burkett s permission: (From Delbert Burkett) My paper Conclusive Evidence Against Markan Priority is now available on the
    Message 1 of 20 , Apr 8, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Posting this to the list with Dr. Burkett's permission:

      (From Delbert Burkett)

      My paper "Conclusive Evidence Against Markan Priority" is now available
      on the Internet. Go to the following address:

      http://www2.artsci.lsu.edu/phil/faculty/burkett/index.html

      At the bottom of the page on the left is the word "Paper." When you
      click on it, a box will ask you for the password. The password is
      "Judas" (don't ask me why)--case sensitive. Entering the password should
      take you to the paper, if all goes as it is supposed to.

      You can share this information with any of the scholars with whom you
      communicate. I would appreciate any criticisms or comments.

      Cordially,
      Delbert Burkett
      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      submitted by Dennis Sullivan Dayton, Ohio
    • Wieland Willker
      ... I ve found this paper quite interesting! So it s not so much a paper against Markan priority as such but against the priority of the *canonical* Mark. I
      Message 2 of 20 , Apr 10, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        >(From Delbert Burkett)
        > My paper "Conclusive Evidence Against Markan
        >Priority" is now available on the
        >Internet. Go to the following address:
        >http://www2.artsci.lsu.edu/phil/faculty/burkett/index.html

        I've found this paper quite interesting!
        So it's not so much a paper against Markan priority as such but against
        the priority of the *canonical* Mark.
        I have sympathy with the Rolland theory (similar to Koesters view). I
        think this theory fits the data quite well: Both, Mt and Lk used a
        different kind of 'proto-Mark'. This explains a lot. From the shape of
        Mk known to us today (sudden shifts, lost-ending, Secret Mark) it is
        quite probable that this is only ONE of the different versions floating
        around at that time.

        The other question is if Mt and Lk used Q or if Lk used Mt.
        What about a modification of this theory:
        Lk used a 'proto-Mt' for his Gospel?

        ATM I tend to Q. It is still true:
        "One of the strongest arguments against the use of Matthew by Luke is
        the fact that when Matthew has additional material in the triple
        tradition (`Matthean additions to the narrative'), it is `never' found
        in Luke."
        Though there are a few exceptions, Lk generally seems to be independent
        of Mt. Why is Lk following Mk closely but not Mt? If Lk wanted to create
        something new, literary, why is he then following Mk so closely?
        (Compare Jn in contrast!)
        But then there are these ugly Minor Agreements.
        Also disturbing are the
        DUAL TEMPORAL AND LOCAL EXPRESSIONS (table 6).
        Though I think they are the result of chance.

        Best wishes
        Wieland

        PS: Brian, I know your answer already, but it is not convincing. :-)

        -------------------------------------
        willker@...-bremen.de
        Secret Mark Homepage:
        http://purl.org/Willker/Secret/secmark_home.html
        Egerton Homepage:
        http://purl.org/Willker/Egerton/Egerton_home.html
        -------------------------------------
      • Antonio Jerez
        ... And I also found Burkett s paper quite interesting. ... I think the title of the paper is a bit misleading. What Burkett is actually arguing for is that
        Message 3 of 20 , Apr 11, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Wieland Willker wrote:


          >>(From Delbert Burkett)
          >> My paper "Conclusive Evidence Against Markan
          >>Priority" is now available on the
          >>Internet. Go to the following address:
          >>http://www2.artsci.lsu.edu/phil/faculty/burkett/index.html
          >
          >I've found this paper quite interesting!

          And I also found Burkett's paper quite interesting.

          >So it's not so much a paper against Markan priority as such but against
          >the priority of the *canonical* Mark.

          I think the title of the paper is a bit misleading. What Burkett is
          actually arguing for is that Markan priority is in reality incompatible
          with the 2SH. But what I believe Burkett has forgot is that the evidence
          he has unearthed is not incompatible with the Farrer hypothesis - at
          least not according to my version of Farrer. What Burkett sees as
          the author of GMark conflating differing versions of pericopes in
          GMtt and GLuke, I see as Luke choosing to diverge as much as
          possible when Matthew and Mark agree about a certain wording
          or expression in a particular verse. I've said it before and I say it
          again - Luke hates being a simple copycat, specially when two
          authors before him have already done the same thing. Burkett gives
          14 examples of pericopes where when Matthew and Mark share one
          expression Luke stays silent, or when Mark doesn't share an expression
          with Matthew Luke suddenly joins Mark. I'll show two examples from
          Burkett's paper.

          1.
          Matt 4:1 Mark 1:12-13 Luke 4:1
          eis ten eremon eis ten eremon ---
          --- en te eremo en te eremo

          According to Burkett the most reasonable explanation of this phenomenon
          is that Mark has conflated the two differing occurances of "the desert" in
          GMtt and GLuke. My claim is on the other hand that in the first instance
          Luke has decided to leave out the mention of "eis ten eremon" precisely
          because Matthew and Mark agree about it. In the other instance Luke has
          decided to copy "en te eremo" from Mark precisely because Mark doesn't
          share this with Matthew. Luke therefore feels free to share it with Mark.
          Luke's editorial rule is simple: two sharing the same thing is OK, three
          is one too many...

          The second example from Burkett:

          Matt 8:28 Mark 5:2-3 Luke 8:27
          ek ton mnemeion ek ton mnemeion ---
          --- en tois nmemasin en tois mnemasin

          The same applies here as in the above. Accoding to Burkett Mark
          has conflated. According to me Luke decides to stay silent where
          the other two agree, and then join Mark where Matthew is silent.


          >I have sympathy with the Rolland theory (similar to Koesters view). I
          >think this theory fits the data quite well: Both, Mt and Lk used a
          >different kind of 'proto-Mark'. This explains a lot. From the shape of
          >Mk known to us today (sudden shifts, lost-ending, Secret Mark) it is
          >quite probable that this is only ONE of the different versions floating
          >around at that time.


          I really do not think that complicated theories with proto-Marks
          and other proto-gospels are needed to explain the way our
          synoptic gospels look. It suffices with the Farrer hypothesis,
          some difting oral traditions and a creative writer like Luke.

          >The other question is if Mt and Lk used Q or if Lk used Mt.

          Unfortunately Burkett fails to ask the question if the evidence
          he finds could be compatible with Luke using GMark and
          GMatthew.

          >What about a modification of this theory:
          >Lk used a 'proto-Mt' for his Gospel?


          I don't think so. As a general rule I try to avoid working with
          hypothetical documents.

          >Also disturbing are the
          >DUAL TEMPORAL AND LOCAL EXPRESSIONS (table 6).
          >Though I think they are the result of chance.

          This phenomenon is hardly due to pure "chance". Didn't
          you see Burkett's statistical calculation. According to the
          laws of statistics the odds are 1 chance in 157 that Matthew
          and Luke independently of each other happened to edit
          GMark in the way they did in the 14 examples Burkett gives.
          I think I can make those odds even higher. It is quite strange
          that Burkett and me indepently of each other happened to
          take a closer look at the way the synoptic writers handle
          "temporal and local expressions". Burkett looked at the
          dual expressions. I looked also at non-dual temporal and
          local expressions. What I found was that Luke in almost
          all cases avoids the temporal and local expressions that
          Mark shares with Matthew. While Burkett claims that his
          study of the phenomenon is best explained by Mark conflating
          GMatthew and GLuke, I claim that my study goes beyond
          Burkett and is best explained by Luke's habitual policy of
          disagreeing when Matthew and Mark agree. I append my
          earlier study to this message and plan to send it to Burkett
          for comments.

          Whatever my quibbles with Burkett's final conclusion I think
          he has done a very valuable study. I actually believe he has
          shown with his many examples that the traditional 2SH is
          unworkable. But he hasn't sunk the Farrer hypothesis yet.


          Best wishes

          Antonio Jerez
          antonio.jerez@...
        • Mark Goodacre
          I am grateful to Prof. Burkett for making his interesting paper Conclusive Evidence Against Markan Priority available for discussion. To attempt a detailed
          Message 4 of 20 , Apr 12, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            I am grateful to Prof. Burkett for making his interesting paper "Conclusive
            Evidence Against Markan Priority" available for discussion. To attempt a
            detailed refutation from the perspective of Markan Priority would
            take some time, but I would like to sketch out some reasons that I have for
            uncertainty about the "conclusive evidence", with one or two examples picked
            from the article.

            (1) Markan Priority is equated with the independent use of Mark by Matthew and
            Luke throughout the piece. It is, however, possible to accept Markan Priority
            and at the same time believe that Luke knew and used Matthew. This is the
            Farrer Theory (named after A.M. Farrer; most vigorously argued by Michael
            Goulder; advocates include J. Drury, E.P. Sanders, H. B. Green, E. Franklin;
            introduction on the web at http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q).

            (2) In my opinion the linguistic argument is allowed to have it too easy. The
            difficulty with lists of words with charts and references is that they can
            quickly give a misleading impression. A given writer might well omit, include
            or substitute a given word for a variety of reasons including context, nuance,
            mood, literary sensitivity, personal quirk. The absence of given words in a
            chosen text does not necessarily imply that the writer in question "objected"
            to the words and inclusion does not necessarily mean that the writer in general
            terms somehow "approved" of the words. I am concerned that there may be too
            simplistic a notion of literary technique operating here.

            (3) Specifically, we need to be cautious about what counts as a parallel when
            we are doing this kind of careful linguistic study. It is not informative to
            know that a given Markan word in a given triple tradition text is absent
            from Matthew and / or Luke unless the precise line in question is present in
            the parallel.

            (a) This point can be illustrated clearly from the discussion of POLLA
            adverbial in Mark (see table 1):

            - Mark 1.45: Matthew has no parallel to Mark 1.45 so it is not the case that
            on the assumption of Markan Priority he "omits" POLLA

            - Mark 5.10: again Matthew has no parallel to this verse, so the absence of
            POLLA is irrelevant.

            - Mark 5.23: here Matthew has no exhorting, so again the absence of POLLA is
            irrelevant -- the verb it qualifies in Mark is not present in Matt.

            - Mark 5.38: again Matthew does not have the verb it is qualifying in Mark, so
            again this is irrelevant.

            - Mark 5.43: Matthew has something quite different in parallel, so again it is
            not the case that POLLA is being strangely avoided.

            - Mark 6.20: the whole pericope has no parallel in Luke, so again it is
            inaccurate to speak about Lukan omission of POLLA here; and Matthew does not
            have the line in which it occurs in Mark, for that line of thought is absent
            from his version.

            -Mark 9.26: Luke has no parallel to the relevant line, so again he is not
            omitting POLLA; so too Matthew.

            -Mark 15.3: Matt. has a terse rewording of the verse in question and Luke has
            no direct parallel.

            Careful attention to the direct parallels to the verses in question shows that
            the absence of POLLA in Matthew and Luke's triple tradition material is not a
            striking phenomenon. On the odd remaining occasion where POLLA is absent in a
            precise and direct parallel, a careful look at the passage will suggest obvious
            reasons why an evangelist might have omitted the word in question. At Mark
            5.23 // Luke 8.41 Mark qualifies PARAKALEW with POLLA and Luke doesn't. I
            would have thought that "exhorted much" is not particularly to Luke's taste and
            the superflous Markan adverb goes.

            I think that it needs to be added also that that neither Matthew nor Luke
            employs POLLA adverbial elsewhere in their gospels in either Markan or
            non-Markan material.

            (b) The same is true with the second example, ALLOI POLLOI:

            - Mark 7.4: the whole pericope in which this occurs is absent in Luke and this
            verse absent in Matthew.

            - Mark 12.5: the entire verse is absent in Matthew and (as is well known) Luke
            has omitted the entire element in his version of the parable. It is not a
            question of Matthew or Luke objecting to a particular phrase; it is a phrase
            that has gone by the wayside in the omission / re-writing of an element in the
            story.

            (4) On the matter of dual temporal and local expressions (table 6 and
            discussion), I think that we need a comprehensive listing. As it stands the
            list comprises "17 instances where Mark has two expressions indicating the same
            time or place, while Matthew and Luke each have one and only one such
            expression". But why limit the discussion to places where Matthew and Luke
            have one and only one such expression? The odds against them are considerably
            diminished when one takes into account the occasions where Matthew and Luke (on
            the assumpiton of Markan Priority) retain two parts of a dual expression in
            Mark.

            (5) On the same point, I am concerned about what is held to count as identity
            with Mark in most of the instances: Mark 1.28 //, Mark 2.19 //, Mark
            5.12 //, Mark 11.2 //, Mark 14.12 //, Mark 15.42 //, Mark 16.2//. I wonder
            here if the variation in precise wording is too great to carry the point.
            And one cannot help thinking that examples like Mark 6.31-2 // are simply cases
            of how one reads the synopsis.

            These are my thoughts on a first reading of the article. I am grateful for the
            stimulation, but at the moment remain unconvinced by the case.

            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
            ... What I suggest is that you actually list for yourself the Matthean additions to Markan narrative in Matthew (on the assumption of Markan Priority). then
            Message 5 of 20 , Apr 12, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              On 10 Apr 99 at 11:42, Wieland Willker wrote:

              > ATM I tend to Q. It is still true:
              > "One of the strongest arguments against the use of Matthew by Luke is
              > the fact that when Matthew has additional material in the triple
              > tradition (`Matthean additions to the narrative'), it is `never' found
              > in Luke."
              > Though there are a few exceptions, Lk generally seems to be independent
              > of Mt. Why is Lk following Mk closely but not Mt? If Lk wanted to create
              > something new, literary, why is he then following Mk so closely?
              > (Compare Jn in contrast!)

              What I suggest is that you actually list for yourself the Matthean additions to
              Markan narrative in Matthew (on the assumption of Markan Priority). then
              when one asks the key question about Luke, one finds that three things
              obtain:

              (1) The addition in question occurs in a passage that is not paralleled in
              Luke. Fitzmyer, for example, artificially extends his list of relevant
              examples by including Peter's Walking on the Water. This is indeed a Matthean
              addition to the Markan narrative, but it is a Markan narrative that is absent
              in Luke!

              (2) The addition in question does occur in Luke. This is common too,
              especially early on (John the Baptist's preaching, Jesus' baptism,
              temptation = "exceptions to the rule") but also later (Five Thousand, Tenants
              in the Vineyard, Who is it who smote you = "minor agreements").

              (3) Having omitted several "additions" under (1) and (2), we are left with a
              small cluster of examples, the most obvious of which are:

              Matt. 16.17-19
              Commendation of Peter

              Matt. 27.19
              Pilate's wife's dream

              Matt. 27.52-53
              Graves opening at Jesus' death

              Which of these do you think would have been particularly congenial to Luke? I
              think it quite likely that these are passages that Luke chose to omit rather
              than that they are passages about which he did not know.

              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
            • Brian E. Wilson
              Mark Goodacre wrote - ... I am not sure that it has been shown that there is no difficulty for the Farrer Hypothesis here. For there is still a pattern for
              Message 6 of 20 , Apr 13, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                Mark Goodacre wrote -
                >
                >Careful attention to the direct parallels to the verses in question shows that
                >the absence of POLLA in Matthew and Luke's triple tradition material is not a
                >striking phenomenon.
                >
                >I think that it needs to be added also that that neither Matthew nor Luke
                >employs POLLA adverbial elsewhere in their gospels in either Markan or
                >non-Markan material.
                >
                I am not sure that it has been shown that there is no difficulty for the
                Farrer Hypothesis here. For there is still a pattern for which the FH
                needs to account - the occurrence of adverbial POLLA in Mark with no
                parallel usage of this in Matthew and/or Luke. If the FH is true, it
                should be able to account for the pattern. It is a striking coincidence
                that, on the FH, **every** instance of adverbial POLLA in Mark is absent
                from **both** Matthew and Luke, whether or not there is a parallel to
                the Markan contexts of these occurrences.

                More generally, any Markanism absent from both Matthew and Luke (that
                is, not occurring once in either Mt or Lk) is a difficulty for the FH,
                and any Mattheanism absent from Luke is also a difficulty for the FH.
                For instance, the occurrence of so many instances of "narrative TOTE" in
                Matthew **none** of which is parallelled in Luke, is a striking pattern,
                and a further difficulty for the FH.

                The problem is not solved by picking off individual instances of a
                Markanism, or Mattheanism, and explaining each occurrence separately
                from the others. The problem is to account for the occurrence of the
                pattern as a whole. Any individual instance of an agreement in wording
                between Mark and Matthew could be the coincidental use of the same word
                by the two evangelists. This, however, definitely does not account for
                the pattern of the many agreements of wording of Matthew and Mark as a
                whole. If we have to resort to picking off each instance within an
                observed pattern (as Streeter did with the Minor Agreements), then this
                is an indication that the synoptic hypothesis being used is in
                difficulties.

                More generally still, there are Mattheanisms absent from Mark and/or
                Luke, Markanisms absent from Matthew and/or Luke, and Lukanisms absent
                from Matthew and/or Mark. It looks as though any synoptic hypothesis
                which posits that one synoptist copied from another is in difficulty,
                therefore.

                To avoid such difficulty, do we not need a synoptic hypothesis which
                does not posit that any synoptist copied from any synoptic gospel? On
                such a hypothesis, the Mattheanisms, Markanisms and Lukanisms would have
                been supplied by AMt, AMk and ALk respectively.

                Such a hypothesis would also account for the fact, observed by J. C.
                Hawkins, that the words and phrases characteristic of each synoptic
                gospel occur more frequently (that is, there are more instances per one
                hundred words) in material special to the synoptic gospel concerned,
                than in material which is parallelled in other synoptic gospels. "So
                those words and phrases are rather more frequent in the 'peculiar' than
                in the 'common' parts." ("Horae Synopticae" page 15, which deals with
                Mark. See also Section B on page 26 which deals in turn with each
                synoptic gospel.) On the 2DH or FH, we should not expect this phenomenon
                in the Gospel of Mark. On the GH or AH, we should not expect it in
                Matthew. And on the Lindsey Hypothesis we should not expect it in Luke.
                The occurrence of this phenomenon in all three synoptic gospels,
                however, is fully consistent with a synoptic hypothesis positing that no
                synoptist copied from any synoptic gospel.

                Best wishes,
                BRIAN WILSON

                E-MAIL : brian@... homepage -
                SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
                10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                ... Thank you for your thoughts about Prof. Burkett s paper. I would agree that the Farrer Theory has been overlooked (as too common in American scholarship),
                Message 7 of 20 , Apr 13, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 05:00 PM 4/12/99 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                  >I am grateful to Prof. Burkett for making his interesting paper "Conclusive
                  >Evidence Against Markan Priority" available for discussion. To attempt a
                  >detailed refutation from the perspective of Markan Priority would
                  >take some time, but I would like to sketch out some reasons that I have for
                  >uncertainty about the "conclusive evidence", with one or two examples picked
                  >from the article.

                  Thank you for your thoughts about Prof. Burkett's paper. I would
                  agree that the Farrer Theory has been overlooked (as too common in
                  American scholarship), but I'm not sure this neglect here affects
                  Burkett's arguments against Markan priority very much.

                  As to your other points, I though you a good job of pointing out
                  some of the weaker parts of Burkett's paper, but I would still be
                  curious as to your views on Burkett's more intriguing arguments.
                  For example, what do you think about the lack of Mark's benign themes
                  (teaching, great popularity, even Jesus in a circule) in Matthew
                  and Luke?

                  Stephen Carlson


                  --
                  Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                  Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                  "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                • Stephen C. Carlson
                  ... I don t think that the lack of Matthew s narrative TOTE in Luke is much of a difficulty for the FH, because on the FH, Luke s narrative is taken from Mark
                  Message 8 of 20 , Apr 13, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 07:46 PM 4/13/99 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                    >More generally, any Markanism absent from both Matthew and Luke (that
                    >is, not occurring once in either Mt or Lk) is a difficulty for the FH,
                    >and any Mattheanism absent from Luke is also a difficulty for the FH.
                    >For instance, the occurrence of so many instances of "narrative TOTE" in
                    >Matthew **none** of which is parallelled in Luke, is a striking pattern,
                    >and a further difficulty for the FH.

                    I don't think that the lack of Matthew's narrative TOTE in Luke is
                    much of a difficulty for the FH, because on the FH, Luke's narrative
                    is taken from Mark not Matthew. Rather, FH's Luke uses Matthew
                    mostly for non-narrative material.

                    Stephen Carlson
                    --
                    Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                    Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                    "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                  • Mark Goodacre
                    ... I agree that it does not make a great deal of difference but it does make a little difference. There are occasions on which Prof. Burkett expresses
                    Message 9 of 20 , Apr 14, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 13 Apr 99 at 19:45, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                      > Thank you for your thoughts about Prof. Burkett's paper. I would
                      > agree that the Farrer Theory has been overlooked (as too common in
                      > American scholarship), but I'm not sure this neglect here affects
                      > Burkett's arguments against Markan priority very much.

                      I agree that it does not make a great deal of difference but it does make a
                      little difference. There are occasions on which Prof. Burkett expresses
                      surprise at the notion of simultaneous, independent omission of material from
                      Mark by both Matthew and Luke (on the assumption of Markan Priority). It is
                      possible, of course, that Matthew's omission of given material might influence
                      Luke's simultaneous omission. One example that springs to mind is the MA at
                      Mark 6.34, one of Burkett's examples of Mark's interest in teaching
                      terminology. Here Matthew and Luke both replace Jesus' teaching with Jesus'
                      healing, so it is a case where Markan Priority and the non-independence of
                      Matthew and Luke is important.
                      >
                      > As to your other points, I though you a good job of pointing out
                      > some of the weaker parts of Burkett's paper, but I would still be
                      > curious as to your views on Burkett's more intriguing arguments.
                      > For example, what do you think about the lack of Mark's benign themes
                      > (teaching, great popularity, even Jesus in a circule) in Matthew
                      > and Luke?

                      I think my comments on this material would partly echo my comments on the othe
                      aspects of the paper, which I might summarise as:

                      (1) I am sceptical about the over-emphasis on linguistic argument of this kind.
                      It does not provide the conclusive evidence desired.

                      (2) Parallels need to be direct and relevant. If the relevant passage, verse
                      or even line *as a whole* is absent from Matthew or Luke, we cannot make much
                      of the absence of a given word that is part of that passage, verse or line.

                      I have now read the paper again and would add:

                      (3). The implication in the paper seems to be that Matthew and Luke would not
                      have omitted the expressions in question because they are "benign" in Mark.
                      Here we need to remember again that a writer rewrites and manipulates material
                      in particular ways for a variety of reasons, context, nuance, even mood and
                      personal quirk. Writers often omit "benign" features from their source
                      material as a moment's consideration will make clear.

                      (4) Further, it might be asked whether Mark's stress on "Jesus' Popularity and
                      Consequent Desire for Privacy" (Table 3) is indeed "benign"? Luke of course
                      does not want his narrator saying, as does Mark's, "that he could no longer
                      enter a city openly" (1:45), because in Luke he does continue to enter cities
                      openly, e.g. blatantly in Capernaum (7.1) and Nain (7.11). Luke stresses
                      Jesus' popularity in different ways.

                      (5) Circular language (Table 2): this particularly problematic for Burkett's
                      thesis because of the two occurrences in Luke (6.10, 9.12). If the circular
                      language is such a key feature of Mark's redaction -- and I agree that a good
                      case is made for this -- then we have two cases of Mark's distinctive,
                      redactional phraseology cropping up in Luke.

                      Arguments about total absence of a feature are always difficult because a given
                      writer may not have liked the feature in question (whether benign or not);
                      but where one has a feature characteristic of text A appearing in text B where
                      it is uncharacteristic, then one usually concludes that B is likely to have got
                      it from A. [There are problems with this kind of argument, but they are best
                      left for another day. My point here is to note the problem for the pure form
                      of Burkett's paper.]

                      (6) The teaching thing is interesting. I would imagine that it is not a
                      coincidence that the gospels that feature lots of teaching (Matthew and Luke)
                      are the two that don't keep using the words for it. Jesus as teacher is a key
                      and sometimes neglected feature of Mark's christology -- it is good to be
                      reminded of 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
                    • Jim Deardorff
                      ... Stephen, The modified AH can respond to this question in a reasonable manner. The document discovered in 1963, whose translation I ve been investigating,
                      Message 10 of 20 , Apr 14, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 07:45 PM 4/13/99 -0400, Stephen C. Carlson, replying to Mark Goodacre, wrote:

                        >As to your other points, I though you a good job of pointing out
                        >some of the weaker parts of Burkett's paper, but I would still be
                        >curious as to your views on Burkett's more intriguing arguments.
                        >For example, what do you think about the lack of Mark's benign themes
                        >(teaching, great popularity, even Jesus in a circule) in Matthew
                        >and Luke?

                        Stephen,

                        The modified AH can respond to this question in a reasonable manner. The
                        document discovered in 1963, whose translation I've been investigating,
                        forces one to consider seriously that a short concurrent writing of Jesus'
                        early ministry had been undertaken by one of the disciples, but the writing
                        task had to be aborted and postponed until later years due to this first
                        writing having been stolen. It would appear that this stolen writing was
                        later recovered by Peter and/or John Mark, after it was no longer of any
                        value to a chief priest in searching for evidence of blasphemy. Peter and
                        Mark then took it with them when they went to Rome, judging from both
                        internal and external evidence.

                        Decades later, when AMk in Rome was prompted to improve upon Matthew by
                        writing a gospel suitable for gentiles, he had this old writing, which Mark
                        had wished to promote but which Peter had been reluctant to do, available to
                        him as additional motivation for writing the gospel he named after Mark.

                        This writing, or kernel of Mark, contained mainly the healing miracles and
                        material within Mt 8-11, though in a more vivid and better remembered form,
                        and included a couple healings and details forgotten when the complete story
                        of Jesus' ministry and teachings was written/rewritten years later, and
                        which soon thereafter was acquired by AMt. By comparing the "kernel of Mark"
                        against parallel passages in Matthew, AMk could see Jesus' strong teaching
                        role, which had been downplayed a bit by AMt, could see that the crowds had
                        been very real, and could read of details sometimes not in Matthew, such as
                        the crowds pressing about Jesus or gathered about him. The Messianic secret
                        falls into this same category. So AMk filled in such details, when
                        abbreviating and editing Matthew, and emphasized some of them.

                        Comparison of this "kernel of Mark" against Matthew by AMk allowed him to
                        notice that AMt had taken plenty of liberties here and there, and so AMk
                        felt free to make plenty of editorial alterations of his own, though mostly
                        minor ones except for major omissions. It also made him realize that
                        GMatthew had not been written by the disciple Matthew, and this must have
                        suggested to AMk how to atribute his own gospel to someone else.

                        This is the key modification to the AH, and it explains why the items you
                        mentioned are not in Matthew. Study of the document (proto-Matthew, or its
                        translation) I mentioned earlier indicates that it had been available to
                        ALk, and suggests that he had found it as difficult to utilize or interpret
                        as AMt had earlier. It would seem that ALk was reluctant to include some
                        items in his gospel that were in Mark if they had not been either in this
                        proto-Matthew or in Matthew. Only AMk, among the evangelists, was privy to
                        this "kernel of Mark," but AMk was not privy to this proto-Matthew, due
                        probably to his being located in Rome.

                        Jim Deardorff
                        Corvallis, Oregon
                        E-mail: deardorj@...
                        Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                      • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                        ... No lawyer, I,; but I issue a writ of habeas corpus. Otherwise, there is isn t even the beginning of a case. Jeffrey Gibson -- Jeffrey B. Gibson 7423 N.
                        Message 11 of 20 , Apr 14, 1999
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Jim Deardorff wrote:

                          > At 07:45 PM 4/13/99 -0400, Stephen C. Carlson, replying to Mark Goodacre, wrote:
                          >
                          > >As to your other points, I though you a good job of pointing out
                          > >some of the weaker parts of Burkett's paper, but I would still be
                          > >curious as to your views on Burkett's more intriguing arguments.
                          > >For example, what do you think about the lack of Mark's benign themes
                          > >(teaching, great popularity, even Jesus in a circule) in Matthew
                          > >and Luke?
                          >
                          > Stephen,
                          >
                          > The modified AH can respond to this question in a reasonable manner. The
                          > document discovered in 1963, whose translation I've been investigating,
                          > forces one to consider seriously that a short concurrent writing of Jesus'
                          > early ministry had been undertaken by one of the disciples, but the writing
                          > task had to be aborted and postponed until later years due to this first
                          > writing having been stolen. It would appear that this stolen writing was
                          > later recovered by Peter and/or John Mark, after it was no longer of any
                          > value to a chief priest in searching for evidence of blasphemy. Peter and
                          > Mark then took it with them when they went to Rome, judging from both
                          > internal and external evidence.
                          >

                          No lawyer, I,; but I issue a writ of habeas corpus. Otherwise, there is isn't even
                          the beginning of a case.

                          Jeffrey Gibson
                          --
                          Jeffrey B. Gibson
                          7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
                          Chicago, Illinois 60626
                          e-mail jgibson000@...
                        • Maluflen@aol.com
                          In a message dated 4/13/1999 2:48:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, brian@TwoNH.demon.co.uk writes:
                          Message 12 of 20 , Apr 14, 1999
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In a message dated 4/13/1999 2:48:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                            brian@... writes:

                            <<
                            Such a hypothesis would also account for the fact, observed by J. C.
                            Hawkins, that the words and phrases characteristic of each synoptic
                            gospel occur more frequently (that is, there are more instances per one
                            hundred words) in material special to the synoptic gospel concerned,
                            than in material which is parallelled in other synoptic gospels. "So
                            those words and phrases are rather more frequent in the 'peculiar' than
                            in the 'common' parts." ("Horae Synopticae" page 15, which deals with
                            Mark. See also Section B on page 26 which deals in turn with each
                            synoptic gospel.) On the 2DH or FH, we should not expect this phenomenon
                            in the Gospel of Mark. On the GH or AH, we should not expect it in
                            Matthew. >>

                            Do we in fact find it in Matt? I just checked out, e.g., the narrative "tote"
                            in Matt 2, which is proper to Matt, and Matt 3, which contains common
                            synoptic material; and then in Matt 25, which is mostly proper to Matt, and
                            Matt 26, which contains common Synoptic material. In both sets of chapters,
                            "tote" is used with almost exactly the same frequency in the proper Matthean
                            material and in the following chapter of Matt that has extensive common
                            synoptic material.

                            Leonard Maluf
                          • Maluflen@aol.com
                            In a message dated 4/14/1999 11:09:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, M.S.GOODACRE@bham.ac.uk writes:
                            Message 13 of 20 , Apr 14, 1999
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In a message dated 4/14/1999 11:09:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                              M.S.GOODACRE@... writes:

                              <<
                              (6) The teaching thing is interesting. I would imagine that it is not a
                              coincidence that the gospels that feature lots of teaching (Matthew and
                              Luke)
                              are the two that don't keep using the words for it. Jesus as teacher is a
                              key
                              and sometimes neglected feature of Mark's christology -- it is good to be
                              reminded of it.
                              >>
                              This observation really works better in reverse (on the assumption of Markan
                              posteriority): I would imagine that it is not a coincidence that the gospel
                              that has (purposely) omitted lots of the teaching of Jesus is the one that
                              keeps referring to Jesus' teaching activity, and referring to Jesus as a
                              teacher, as if to compensate.

                              Leonard Maluf
                            • Brian E. Wilson
                              Brian Wilson wrote - ... Stephen Carlson replied - ... Stephen, There are narrative passages in the double tradition, surely? Luke could hardly have taken such
                              Message 14 of 20 , Apr 15, 1999
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Brian Wilson wrote -
                                >
                                >More generally, any Markanism absent from both Matthew and Luke (that
                                >is, not occurring once in either Mt or Lk) is a difficulty for the FH,
                                >and any Mattheanism absent from Luke is also a difficulty for the FH.
                                >For instance, the occurrence of so many instances of "narrative TOTE"
                                >in Matthew **none** of which is parallelled in Luke, is a striking
                                >pattern, and a further difficulty for the FH.
                                >
                                Stephen Carlson replied -
                                >
                                >I don't think that the lack of Matthew's narrative TOTE in Luke is
                                >much of a difficulty for the FH, because on the FH, Luke's narrative
                                >is taken from Mark not Matthew...
                                >
                                Stephen,
                                There are narrative passages in the double tradition, surely?
                                Luke could hardly have taken such narratives from Mark, since they are
                                not in Mark.

                                Did Luke take his account of the Temptation (Lk 4.1-13) from Matthew (Mt
                                4.1-11), without referring to the fragment in Mark (Mk 1.12-13)? If so,
                                then on the FH, Luke omitted the "narrative TOTE" from Mt 4.1. But then
                                too, in the body of the Temptation narrative, clearly absent from Mark,
                                Matthew has "narrative TOTE" in 4.5, 4.10, and 4.11. Luke has none of
                                these in his parallel version of the Temptation. Why not? If all four
                                instances were in Matthew, and if, as the Farrer Hypothesis affirms,
                                Luke took this narrative from Matthew, is it not rather odd that Luke
                                omits all four instances of "narrative TOTE" from Matthew?

                                Also, there are short narrative introductions to sayings material in
                                Matthew in the double tradition, which is not in Mark, and which
                                therefore could not have been taken by Luke from Mark. Could not these
                                short pieces of double tradition narrative also include occurrences of
                                "narrative TOTE"? For instance, Mt 9.37 has TOTE LEGEI TOIJ MAQHTAIJ
                                AUTOY, where the parallel Lk 10.2 reads ELEGEN DE PROJ AUTOUJ, the
                                material being double tradition not found in Mark. This is another
                                instance of "narrative TOTE" which is in Matthew in the double tradition
                                but which Luke omits. Again, in the double tradition Mt 11.20-24 // Lk
                                10.13-15, Matthew has a narrative introduction which begins TOTE HRCATO
                                ONEIDIZEIN TAJ POLEIJ, this being omitted by Luke, and so another
                                example of "narrative TOTE" in double tradition Matthew which Luke
                                omits. Again, in the double tradition Mt 18.21-22 // Lk 17.4, Matthew
                                begins TOTE PROSELQWN hO PETROJ EIPEN AUTW, this being omitted by Luke.
                                Why these further examples of "narrative TOTE" in Matthew which are not
                                in the parallel double tradition passage in Luke? If the FH is true, it
                                seems odd that none of these further three instances of "narrative TOTE"
                                in Matthew is in the parallel double tradition material in Luke, even
                                though Luke, on the FH, knew Matthew and must have obtained his double
                                tradition from Matthew.

                                Furthermore, I wonder whether the "narrative TOTE" construction occurs
                                not merely in straight narrative material but also in **parables** in
                                Matthew? There are a fair number of parables in the double tradition,
                                some using "TOTE" in what might appear to be "narrative within a
                                parable". Does it make sense to suppose that Matthew has instances of
                                "narrative TOTE" in his parables, or would this be ruled out at the
                                outset by the definition of "narrative TOTE"? Perhaps Randall Buth would
                                like to give an answer to this last question. I have no idea what the
                                answer is.

                                Either way, we should perhaps bear in mind that the double tradition is
                                only about 240 verses in length - less that one quarter of the length of
                                Matthew or Luke. The seven examples of "narrative TOTE" considered above
                                all occur within only 240 verses of Matthew, therefore. And the Farrer
                                Hypothesis supposes that Luke copied from Matthew. If so, is it not
                                very odd that there are seven instances of "narrative TOTE" in the
                                double tradition in Matthew, and that Luke omits every one of these?

                                I think the phenomenon is a difficulty for the Farrer Hypothesis, just
                                as is any other Mattheanism absent from Luke, and any Markanism absent
                                from both Matthew and Luke.

                                Best wishes,
                                BRIAN WILSON

                                E-MAIL : brian@... homepage -
                                SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
                                10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                              • Brian E. Wilson
                                Brian Wilson wrote - ... Leonard Maluf comments - ... Leonard, Hawkins gives frequencies in Matthew of 95 different words and phrases characteristic of the
                                Message 15 of 20 , Apr 15, 1999
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Brian Wilson wrote -
                                  >
                                  >Such a hypothesis would also account for the fact, observed by J. C.
                                  >Hawkins, that the words and phrases characteristic of each synoptic
                                  >gospel occur more frequently (that is, there are more instances per
                                  >one hundred words) in material special to the synoptic gospel
                                  >concerned, than in material which is parallelled in other synoptic
                                  >gospels. "So those words and phrases are rather more frequent in the
                                  >'peculiar' than in the 'common' parts." ("Horae Synopticae" page 15,
                                  >which deals with Mark. See also Section B on page 26 which deals in
                                  >turn with each synoptic gospel.) On the 2DH or FH, we should not
                                  >expect this phenomenon in the Gospel of Mark. On the GH or AH, we
                                  >should not expect it in Matthew.
                                  >
                                  Leonard Maluf comments -
                                  >
                                  >Do we in fact find it in Matt? I just checked out, e.g., the narrative
                                  >"tote" in Matt 2, which is proper to Matt, and Matt 3, which contains
                                  >common synoptic material; and then in Matt 25, which is mostly proper
                                  >to Matt, and Matt 26, which contains common Synoptic material. In both
                                  >sets of chapters, "tote" is used with almost exactly the same frequency
                                  >in the proper Matthean material and in the following chapter of Matt
                                  >that has extensive common synoptic material.
                                  >
                                  Leonard,
                                  Hawkins gives frequencies in Matthew of 95 different words and
                                  phrases characteristic of the Gospel of Matthew. The columns cover five
                                  pages (the book having to be turned through ninety degrees to view
                                  them). The Greek words or phrases are listed in the left-most column.
                                  And there are useful comments in the right-most column. The numbers of
                                  occurrences in Matthew as a whole are also broken down, in each case, to
                                  those in the "common parts" (parallels in Mark and/or Luke), those in
                                  chapters 1 and 2, and those in the "other peculiar parts" (sic!). The
                                  numbers are then nicely totalled at the bottom of each five-page-long
                                  column. The final line shows that there are 422 words or phrases
                                  characteristic of the Gospel of Matthew in the "common parts" and 482 in
                                  the rest of the gospel. As Hawkins comments (page 26), "In Matthew, they
                                  (the characteristic words and phrases) are scattered MORE THAN TWICE AS
                                  THICKLY over the peculiar portions (including chapters i-ii) as they are
                                  over the common portions."

                                  The same sort of analysis is made, and leads to a similar result in the
                                  case of Mark, and of Luke.

                                  The result is a difficulty for any Matthean Priority, Markan Priority or
                                  Lukan Priority hypothesis. On a Matthean Priority, hypothesis, we
                                  should expect the characteristic words and phrases to be spread
                                  reasonably evenly throughout Matthew, since Mark and Luke had supposedly
                                  not yet been written, and therefore could not have influenced Matthew.
                                  Similarly, the characteristic words and phrases should be evenly spread
                                  throughout Mark on a Markan Priority hypothesis, and evenly spread
                                  throughout Luke on a Lukan Priority hypothesis. What Hawkins observed is
                                  therefore inconsistent with the priority of Matthew, or Mark, or Luke.

                                  The finding by Hawkins, however, is fully consistent with a hypothesis
                                  that all three synoptists independently copied from a common documentary
                                  source.

                                  Best wishes,
                                  BRIAN WILSON

                                  E-MAIL : brian@... homepage -
                                  SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
                                  10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                                • Dennis C. Sullivan
                                  Dear Brian: You wrote: characteristic words and phrases...evenly spread throughout Luke on a Lukan Priority hypothesis The fact is that characteristic words
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Apr 15, 1999
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Dear Brian:

                                    You wrote: "characteristic words and phrases...evenly spread throughout Luke
                                    on a Lukan Priority hypothesis"

                                    The fact is that "characteristic words and phrases" are not evenly spread
                                    throughout Luke, and that fact does no harm to a Lukan priority hypothesis.
                                    We might expect such a uniformity if we disregard the Lukan author's
                                    statement that he had assembled more than one source, and was
                                    attempting to create an orderly account by editing material from these
                                    sources. Verbal patterns within GLuke illustrate that this is indeed the
                                    case. GLuke repeats certain grammatical constructions consistently in some
                                    sections, and doesn't use them at other places. KAI EGENETO (29X) is an
                                    example of this (and is an obvious Hebraism represented literally hundreds
                                    of times in the LXX ). The Lukan "doublets" noted by
                                    Lindsey are a further example of underlying "sources" rather than a
                                    "source". Luke obviously authored sections of his Gospel, but much of the
                                    material was adapted from other sources. I understand that we can devise
                                    various "workarounds" for these
                                    and other phenomena in trying to postulate a single source, but few of them
                                    will be convincing. Your earlier "two notebooks" hypothesis was a much
                                    better fit.

                                    By the way: I just found a few copies of Hawkins' book, and have one on
                                    order. Thanks for mentioning it!

                                    Best Wishes,

                                    Dennis Sullivan Dayton Ohio
                                    www.jerusalemperspective.com



                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: Brian E. Wilson <brian@...>
                                    To: Synoptic-L@... <Synoptic-L@...>
                                    Date: Thursday, April 15, 1999 2:59 AM
                                    Subject: words and phrases characteristic of Mt, Mk, or Lk

                                    >The result is a difficulty for any Matthean Priority, Markan Priority or
                                    >Lukan Priority hypothesis. On a Matthean Priority, hypothesis, we
                                    >should expect the characteristic words and phrases to be spread
                                    >reasonably evenly throughout Matthew, since Mark and Luke had supposedly
                                    >not yet been written, and therefore could not have influenced Matthew.
                                    >Similarly, the characteristic words and phrases should be evenly spread
                                    >throughout Mark on a Markan Priority hypothesis, and evenly spread
                                    >throughout Luke on a Lukan Priority hypothesis. What Hawkins observed is
                                    >therefore inconsistent with the priority of Matthew, or Mark, or Luke.
                                    >
                                    >The finding by Hawkins, however, is fully consistent with a hypothesis
                                    >that all three synoptists independently copied from a common documentary
                                    >source.
                                    >
                                    >Best wishes,
                                    >BRIAN WILSON
                                    >
                                    >E-MAIL : brian@... homepage -
                                    >SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
                                    >10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                                  • Mark Goodacre
                                    On 15 Apr 99 at 8:34, Brian E. Wilson wrote (some omitted) ... There is actually no such difficulty because Hawkins s definition of a characteristic word is,
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Apr 15, 1999
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On 15 Apr 99 at 8:34, Brian E. Wilson wrote (some omitted)

                                      > As Hawkins comments (page 26), "In Matthew, they
                                      > (the characteristic words and phrases) are scattered MORE THAN TWICE AS
                                      > THICKLY over the peculiar portions (including chapters i-ii) as they are
                                      > over the common portions."
                                      >
                                      > The same sort of analysis is made, and leads to a similar result in the
                                      > case of Mark, and of Luke.

                                      > The result is a difficulty for any Matthean Priority, Markan Priority or
                                      > Lukan Priority hypothesis.

                                      There is actually no such difficulty because Hawkins's definition of a
                                      characteristic word is, for each of the Synoptics, worked out in relation to
                                      the other Synoptics. That makes it inevitable that words characteristic of
                                      Matthew, for example, will be spread more thickly in parts peculiar to Matthew
                                      by virtue of the fact that the peculiar part has, by definition, no
                                      relationship to anything in Mark or Luke. If I may quote myself:

                                      "But this is obvious: one of the ways in which we identify common parts is
                                      common vocabulary and this common vocabulary will necessarily reduce the
                                      number of words characteristic of an evangelist in these sections."
                                      (_Goulder and the Gospels_, p. 87, n. 152).

                                      Goulder made the same mistake of overemphasising data that was reached by
                                      comparison between Gospels in his "proof" of Markan Priority and
                                      Matthean creativity (_Midrash and Lection in Matthew_, pp. 122-3, etc.;
                                      _Goulder and the Gospels_, pp. 85-88).

                                      Mark






                                      On a Matthean Priority, hypothesis, we
                                      > should expect the characteristic words and phrases to be spread
                                      > reasonably evenly throughout Matthew, since Mark and Luke had supposedly
                                      > not yet been written, and therefore could not have influenced Matthew.
                                      > Similarly, the characteristic words and phrases should be evenly spread
                                      > throughout Mark on a Markan Priority hypothesis, and evenly spread
                                      > throughout Luke on a Lukan Priority hypothesis. What Hawkins observed is
                                      > therefore inconsistent with the priority of Matthew, or Mark, or Luke.
                                      >
                                      > The finding by Hawkins, however, is fully consistent with a hypothesis
                                      > that all three synoptists independently copied from a common documentary
                                      > source.
                                      >
                                      > Best wishes,
                                      > BRIAN WILSON
                                      >
                                      > E-MAIL : brian@... homepage -
                                      > SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
                                      > 10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                                      --------------------------------------
                                      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
                                    • Brian E. Wilson
                                      BRIAN WILSON wrote - ... MARK GOODACRE replied - ... Mark, Your use of the word necessarily indicates that you are implicitly making a logical deduction. I
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Apr 17, 1999
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        BRIAN WILSON wrote -
                                        >
                                        > As Hawkins comments (page 26), "In Matthew, they (the characteristic
                                        >words and phrases) are scattered MORE THAN TWICE AS THICKLY over the
                                        >peculiar portions (including chapters i-ii) as they are over the common
                                        >portions."
                                        >The same sort of analysis is made, and leads to a similar result in the
                                        >case of Mark, and of Luke. The result is a difficulty for any Matthean
                                        >Priority, Markan Priority or Lukan Priority hypothesis.
                                        >
                                        MARK GOODACRE replied -
                                        >
                                        >There is actually no such difficulty because Hawkins's definition of a
                                        >characteristic word is, for each of the Synoptics, worked out in
                                        >relation to the other Synoptics. That makes it inevitable that words
                                        >characteristic of Matthew, for example, will be spread more thickly in
                                        >parts peculiar to Matthew by virtue of the fact that the peculiar part
                                        >has, by definition, no relationship to anything in Mark or Luke.
                                        >
                                        >"One of the ways in which we identify common parts is common vocabulary
                                        >and this common vocabulary will necessarily reduce the number of words
                                        >characteristic of an evangelist in these sections." (_Goulder and the
                                        >Gospels_, p. 87, n. 152).
                                        >
                                        Mark,
                                        Your use of the word "necessarily" indicates that you are
                                        implicitly making a logical deduction. I think the argument you imply is
                                        as follows -

                                        (1) The words and phrases characteristic of Matthew can be listed
                                        without referring to other books such as the Gospel of Mark and the
                                        Gospel of Luke.
                                        (2) Alternatively, the words and phrases characteristic of Matthew can
                                        be listed using Hawkins's criterion that the words or phrases
                                        'characteristic' of the Gospel of Matthew are those which occur at least
                                        four times in Matthew, and which (a) are not found at all in Mark or
                                        Luke, or (b) are found in Matthew at least twice as often as in Mark and
                                        Luke together.
                                        (3) On Hawkins's analysis, the words or phrases characteristic of
                                        Matthew are either not found in Mark or Luke, or are found at least
                                        twice as often in Mark and Luke together. It follows that some words or
                                        phrases in the 'common parts' which (under premise 1 above) would
                                        otherwise be deemed characteristic of Matthew, are not 'characteristic'
                                        of Matthew under Hawkins's analysis. This is because the 'common parts'
                                        are, by definition, passages in Matthew which are similar in wording to
                                        corresponding passages in Mark and/or Luke, and wording in both Matthew
                                        and Mark and/or Luke is thereby liable to be disqualified from being
                                        'characteristic' of Matthew.
                                        (4) Therefore, under Hawkins's analysis, the proportion of words common
                                        to Mark and/or Luke is NECESSARILY significantly decreased in number
                                        (compared to the number in the listing under premise 1 above) in
                                        Matthean passages in the common parts.
                                        (5) But, also under Hawkins's analysis, since the 'peculiar parts' are
                                        not found in MARK AND/OR LUKE, the number of words characteristic of
                                        Matthew in the 'peculiar parts' remains unchanged from what it is in the
                                        listing obtained under premise 1 above.
                                        (6) Therefore, there is necessarily a significantly higher frequency of
                                        words characteristic of Matthew in the peculiar parts than in the common
                                        parts simply as a result of the use of Hawkins's criterion under his
                                        analysis of 'common parts' and 'peculiar parts' of Matthew.
                                        (7) Therefore the phenomenon Hawkins describes is not a problem for the
                                        Farrer Hypothesis, or any other, but is obviously what we should in any
                                        case expect to observe.

                                        First of all, it must be said the argument in the seven steps above is
                                        valid. There is nothing wrong with the logical form of the argument, as
                                        far as I can see.

                                        The argument fails, however, because the first premise is false. It is
                                        simply not true that the words and phrases characteristic of Matthew can
                                        be listed without referring to other books. It is true that we can list
                                        the words of Matthew in order of frequency, beginning with the most
                                        common, the next most common, and so on, and show which are the
                                        commonest words and phrases in Matthew. But these would be the definite
                                        article hO, KAI, AUTOJ, and so on - words which are generally very
                                        common, that is to say words which are very likely to be the commonest
                                        words in other books also. These commonest words would not be
                                        "characteristic" of Matthew in any meaningful way, therefore, but would
                                        be just the reverse. The only way to determine 'characteristic' words
                                        and phrases in a book is to relate it to other writing. Premise 1 above
                                        is therefore false.

                                        But Premise 1 is essential for the argument that Hawkins's analysis will
                                        "necessarily REDUCE the number of words characteristic of" Matthew. The
                                        reduction can only be in relation to the supposed listing in Premise 1,
                                        and that listing simply does not exist.

                                        So the argument fails not on the grounds of faulty logic, but because
                                        its initial assumption is false.

                                        So, is the phenomenon observed by Hawkins a difficulty for the Farrer
                                        Hypothesis, and generally for hypotheses assuming the priority of
                                        Matthew, Mark or Luke?

                                        I think it is. Hawkins's analysis lists (1) words and phrases
                                        characteristic of Matthew relative to Mark and Luke, (2) words and
                                        phrases characteristic of Mark relative to Matthew and Luke, and (3)
                                        words and phrases characteristic of Luke relative to Matthew and Mark.
                                        His analysis is "symmetrical" in Matthew, Mark and Luke in this respect.
                                        The phenomenon observed by Hawkins shows that words and phrases
                                        characteristic in each synoptic gospel are spread more thickly over the
                                        peculiar parts than over the common parts. This is not consistent with
                                        the Farrer Hypothesis, or with any Matthean Priority, Markan Priority or
                                        Lukan Priority hypothesis. It is a difficulty for the Farrer Hypothesis,
                                        and generally for hypotheses of the priority of a synoptic gospel.

                                        It is, however, fully consistent with a synoptic hypothesis positing
                                        that no synoptist was documentarily dependent on any synoptic gospel.

                                        Best wishes,
                                        BRIAN WILSON

                                        E-MAIL : brian@... homepage -
                                        SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
                                        10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                                      • Brian E. Wilson
                                        DENNIS SULLIVAN wrote - ... Dennis, I have looked carefully again at Lk 1.1-4. I can see that Luke refers to many others having compiled narratives of Jesus
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Apr 17, 1999
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          DENNIS SULLIVAN wrote -
                                          >Dear Brian:
                                          > You wrote: "characteristic words and phrases...evenly
                                          >spread throughout Luke on a Lukan Priority hypothesis"
                                          >
                                          >The fact is that "characteristic words and phrases" are not evenly spread
                                          >throughout Luke, and that fact does no harm to a Lukan priority hypothesis.
                                          >We might expect such a uniformity if we disregard the Lukan author's
                                          >statement that he had assembled more than one source, and was
                                          >attempting to create an orderly account by editing material from these
                                          >sources.
                                          Dennis,
                                          I have looked carefully again at Lk 1.1-4. I can see that Luke
                                          refers to many others having compiled narratives of Jesus tradition. As
                                          far as I can see, however, Luke does not say that he copied from any of
                                          them at all. He obviously thought the "many" were all below par, and
                                          something better was needed. According to Lk 1.1-4, Luke (ALk, the
                                          writer) could have used none, one, two, or any number of these
                                          documents. But to argue from ALk himself saying that he used more than
                                          one source is to argue from a false premise, I would suggest.
                                          >
                                          >Verbal patterns within GLuke illustrate that this is indeed the
                                          >case.
                                          >
                                          The verbal patterns within GLuke are consistent with hundreds of
                                          different synoptic hypotheses. Of themselves, the patterns do not show
                                          that it "is indeed the case" that ALk used more than one documentary
                                          source.
                                          >
                                          >GLuke repeats certain grammatical constructions consistently in some
                                          >sections, and doesn't use them at other places. KAI EGENETO (29X) is
                                          >an example of this (and is an obvious Hebraism represented literally
                                          >hundreds of times in the LXX ).
                                          >
                                          Yes. But this could be for a variety of reasons. ALk may have liked the
                                          traditional wording of the LXX, and opted to write in the style of the
                                          LXX with no recourse to the Hebrew original. Or he could have been using
                                          documentary source material which was an uneven translation into Greek
                                          of a Hebrew/Aramaic original. Or he could have hated this construction
                                          but used it because it occurred in his source material. And so on, and
                                          so on. Furthermore, when you compare GLk with Acts, it is rather odd
                                          that these EGENETO constructions suddenly disappear in some cases. For
                                          instance, there are 22 instances of EGENETO followed by a finite verb
                                          (HAWKINS, page 37) in GLk, but none whatsoever in Acts. This is even
                                          odder when we notice that Mark has EGENETO with a finite verb in Mk 4.4
                                          in the Parable of the Sower, but ALk does not have this in his parallel
                                          version of the same parable. The possibilities are so numerous that, I
                                          would suggest, it is pointless comparing them or trying to list them.
                                          >
                                          >The Lukan "doublets" noted by Lindsey are a further example of
                                          >underlying "sources" rather than a "source".
                                          >
                                          The word "doublets" carries the connotation of two pieces of material
                                          from two related documentary sources. Perhaps you should use the term
                                          "two-fold repetitions" to avoid pre-supposing your conclusion here. Two-
                                          fold repetitions can be the result of dependence on two related
                                          documentary sources, but they can also be the result of a writer
                                          choosing to re-use wording he likes. Look at any posting to this List,
                                          and you will probably find many "two-fold repetitions" which are not
                                          necessarily from two related documentary sources, but are simply the
                                          writer choosing to use the same words again.
                                          >
                                          >Luke obviously authored sections of his Gospel
                                          >
                                          I am sure that ALk authored Lk 1.1-4, but I tend to think of this as the
                                          dedicatory statement to the Gospel proper which follows from Lk 1.5
                                          onwards. Beyond that, I think the only meaningful way to proceed is to
                                          posit a synoptic hypothesis of the documentary relation between the
                                          synoptic gospels, test that hypothesis against the synoptic gospels, and
                                          then, if it passes the test, apply it to the synoptic gospels to
                                          ascertain what passages, if any, ALk authored.
                                          >
                                          >but much of the material was adapted from other sources.
                                          >
                                          We do not know this to be the case just by looking at the Gospel of
                                          Luke. We must first posit a synoptic hypothesis, test it, and apply it.
                                          Then draw conclusions concerning the use of source material by ALk.
                                          >
                                          >I understand that we can devise various "workarounds" for these and
                                          >other phenomena in trying to postulate a single source, but few of them
                                          >will be convincing.
                                          >
                                          This is not the way to proceed, is it? First posit your synoptic
                                          hypothesis, test it, apply it. "Workarounds" are not on the agenda, as
                                          far as I am concerned.
                                          >
                                          >Your earlier "two notebooks" hypothesis was a much better fit.
                                          >
                                          Confusion reigns if we try comparing synoptic hypotheses. We should deal
                                          with one synoptic hypothesis at a time, test it against the data in the
                                          synoptic gospels (not against other hypotheses), and then apply it.
                                          >
                                          >By the way: I just found a few copies of Hawkins' book, and have one
                                          >on order. Thanks for mentioning it!
                                          >
                                          It is one of the first books I bought on the Synoptic Problem. I had to
                                          travel to Oxford University Press in Oxford, literally hammer on the
                                          counter, and ask them to find me a copy, please! (It may have been out
                                          of print at the time?) I think someone must have sold me a specimen copy
                                          intended for reference pending a re-print.

                                          I wonder whether anyone knows when J. C. Hawkins died? The first edition
                                          of "Horae Synopticae" was written over a hundred years ago. The
                                          copyright may have expired. In which case, it might be legal to photo-
                                          copy it, or put it on the web.

                                          But, yes. It is a remarkable work which, even after hundred years, is
                                          still very well worth possessing.

                                          Best wishes,
                                          BRIAN WILSON

                                          E-MAIL : brian@... homepage -
                                          SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
                                          10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                                        • Dennis Sullivan
                                          Brian Wilson wrote: Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 5:12 AM Dennis, I have looked carefully again at Lk 1.1-4. I can see that Luke refers to many others having
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Apr 17, 1999
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Brian Wilson wrote:

                                            Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 5:12 AM

                                            Dennis,
                                            I have looked carefully again at Lk 1.1-4. I can see that Luke
                                            refers to many others having compiled narratives of Jesus tradition. As
                                            far as I can see, however, Luke does not say that he copied from any of
                                            them at all. He obviously thought the "many" were all below par, and
                                            something better was needed. According to Lk 1.1-4, Luke (ALk, the
                                            writer) could have used none, one, two, or any number of these
                                            documents. But to argue from ALk himself saying that he used more than
                                            one source is to argue from a false premise, I would suggest.

                                            DENNIS: ALuke doesn't seem to include himself in the mention of
                                            "eyewitnesses". Other than possible familiarity with an extensive oral
                                            tradition, where was he to get the material for his proposed "orderly
                                            account"?

                                            We could say that he got it from the same source (LTH) that the other
                                            synoptics writers used, but he cites "many" as having written earlier
                                            accounts of some sort. We can infer from this that Luke is writing sometime
                                            after the earliest written accounts were generally available, or at least,
                                            available to him as (apparently) a relative latecomer on the scene. This
                                            opens up the possibility that he was looking at Matthew or Mark--although I
                                            don't see this as being the case.

                                            Luke "obviously" thinking that the "many" were all below par is an
                                            assumption, as is my "editing material from these sources". On the LTH, he
                                            certainly edited whatever material was available to him in the "notes"
                                            document(s). So, editing is certainly obvious in that case, considering the
                                            observable differences in the other synoptics. I suggest, then, that the
                                            possible editing of some of the "many" narratives he cited doesn't require a
                                            stretch of the imagination.
                                            +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                                            (On KAI EGENETO...)

                                            BRIAN: Yes. But this could be for a variety of reasons. ALk may have liked
                                            the
                                            traditional wording of the LXX, and opted to write in the style of the
                                            LXX with no recourse to the Hebrew original. Or he could have been using
                                            documentary source material which was an uneven translation into Greek
                                            of a Hebrew/Aramaic original. Or he could have hated this construction
                                            but used it because it occurred in his source material. And so on, and
                                            so on.

                                            DENNIS: All those are possibilities that need to be considered, although I
                                            think that the "Septuagintisms" argument is much overworked. There are too
                                            many occurrences of LXX-type words and phrases in Luke to dismiss them so
                                            easily. Any of the "many" narratives to which Luke refers could have
                                            contained "Septuagintisms", which would have been no more than attempts to
                                            literally translate from an earlier Hebrew document which used typical
                                            Hebrew verbal constructions (as you noted above). The "notes" of the LTH
                                            could also have preserved the Hebrew syntax, considering the presence of
                                            such phrases in the other synoptics. (I haven't read any opinions that Luke
                                            would have been fluent enough in Hebrew to do his own translating.)

                                            If he had indeed "hated" this type of construction, he might not have used
                                            it at all, considering that he doesn't consistently repeat such phrases in
                                            similar story contexts. It may seem too "black and white" to say this, but
                                            perhaps if he really liked a certain construction he might have used it
                                            consistenly, and if he didn't like it, he might have avoided it
                                            consistently. I suggest that the more logical argument is that he took
                                            these texts as he found them in his source(s), and when the text did not
                                            contain phrasing reminiscent of the LXX, he didn't add it--and, when it was
                                            there, he didn't arbitrararily remove it. I think this is the most logical
                                            explanation of the variations we find in Luke. Mark, on the other hand,
                                            seems to have leaned heavily on some the words and phrases that he
                                            particularly liked. He also seems to have avoided at least one perfectly
                                            acceptable Greek verb for some reason-POREUOMAI--(except in the last part of
                                            chapter 16, which is probably not part of the original)--that commonly
                                            appears in the other synoptics and in GJohn.
                                            ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                                            (Also on KAI EGENETO...)

                                            BRIAN: Furthermore, when you compare GLk with Acts, it is rather odd
                                            that these EGENETO constructions suddenly disappear in some cases. For
                                            instance, there are 22 instances of EGENETO followed by a finite verb
                                            (HAWKINS, page 37) in GLk, but none whatsoever in Acts. This is even
                                            odder when we notice that Mark has EGENETO with a finite verb in Mk 4.4
                                            in the Parable of the Sower, but ALk does not have this in his parallel
                                            version of the same parable. The possibilities are so numerous that, I
                                            would suggest, it is pointless comparing them or trying to list them.

                                            DENNIS: Not odd at all. Simply serves to illustrate my earlier suggestion
                                            that Luke (if he indeed authored Acts) did not encounter this construction
                                            in his source(s) for the earlier section of Acts, and didn't think it
                                            necessary to add these "Septuagintisms" anywhere at all.

                                            Apologies for adding to the confusion of hypotheses, but I may as well make
                                            it clear at this point that I generally operate on the basis of the JSH, not
                                            having been convinced as yet of an alternative scenario. According to that
                                            hypothesis, Mark selectively copied from Luke, often substituting different
                                            words (usually verbs) for those he found in Luke, and then often took the
                                            excised words and used them in his own non-parallel additions. He appears
                                            to have borrowed many words and phrases from Luke and Acts to include in his
                                            embellishments to the accounts. Following Lindsey's work, I have charted
                                            some five pages of comparisons so far of words and phrases shared (some
                                            exclusively) by Mark and Luke/Acts. These examples indicate to me that
                                            Lindsey was on the right track when he suggested that Mark was borrowing
                                            expressions from other extant N.T. writings to weave into his own. I have
                                            also posted in the past some examples of Mark's apparent usage of Pauline
                                            terms, and expressions found in the book of James. Coming from this
                                            perspective (the Jerusalem Perspective?), it's easy for me to understand
                                            that Mark may have substituted this KAI EGENETO phrase from his library of
                                            "borrowings" when copying the parable. This even fits into your suggestion
                                            that the writers used certain words and phrases simply because they wanted
                                            to. Mark has certainly left a long trail of his "preferred" words and
                                            expressions! Dr. Burkett has noted some interesting examples of this
                                            tendency.

                                            Why would Mark do this? Who knows? Lindsey thought that Mark was using a
                                            "Targumic" style, which allowed for some liberties in re-interpretation and
                                            enhancement during the re-telling of a story. It does appear to me, as it
                                            did to Lindsey, that Mark wrote in the style of a preacher. This is the
                                            kind of presentation that gave a certain vitality, human interest "feel",
                                            and excitement to the Gospel account. That approach makes sense, when you
                                            seriously consider the "Markan creativity" enhancements that I listed here a
                                            few weeks ago. When you analyze these non-parallel bits and pieces in
                                            relation to Luke and Matthew, you find very little of substance--just
                                            somewhat trivial observations that could have been added by anyone, almost
                                            at anytime, to the texts of Luke and Matthew in order to create a new and
                                            more colorful version of the story.

                                            Indeed, if one were fascinated by "conspiracy theories", one might conclude
                                            that the Markan author deliberately set out to "create" a new Gospel by the
                                            "copy-substitute words-add color" techniques that seem to be observable in
                                            his work. This scenario, of course, suggests that Mark may have followed
                                            both of the other synoptics. I can see why some might come to this
                                            conclusion. The JSH, on the other hand, posits that Matthew was influenced
                                            by Mark. The possibility also exists, I suppose, that Matthew might have
                                            been "harmonized" early on by a redactor to more closely follow Mark’s
                                            wording rather than that of another source.

                                            Maybe we get back to the LTH "notes" here, and find that only Matthew and
                                            Luke had seen them(?) and that Mark did indeed copy from both of these
                                            synoptists(?)
                                            Sorry for adding yet more confusion! (I need to study that idea further
                                            before I buy into it...)
                                            +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                                            (On the Lukan "Doublets")

                                            BRIAN: The word "doublets" carries the connotation of two pieces of material
                                            from two related documentary sources. Perhaps you should use the term
                                            "two-fold repetitions" to avoid pre-supposing your conclusion here. Two-
                                            fold repetitions can be the result of dependence on two related
                                            documentary sources, but they can also be the result of a writer
                                            choosing to re-use wording he likes. Look at any posting to this List,
                                            and you will probably find many "two-fold repetitions" which are not
                                            necessarily from two related documentary sources, but are simply the
                                            writer choosing to use the same words again.

                                            DENNIS: I've borrowed here the term that Lindsey used and assumed the
                                            connotation that he intended. I do subscribe to his theories, so I have no
                                            reservations about using those terms. I would accept the idea that a writer
                                            might re-use some favored words, but the contexts for some of the
                                            repetitions don't seem to be logical. It looks more like an effort to put
                                            things back together that had been disassociated. I think here of your own
                                            "good fit—bad fit" demonstrations. Very good illustrations of a attempts at
                                            re-assembly, or of gospel harmonization attempts by an editor. Some worked,
                                            some didn't.
                                            ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                                            (On ALuke's editorial insertions)

                                            BRIAN: I am sure that ALk authored Lk 1.1-4, but I tend to think of this as
                                            the
                                            dedicatory statement to the Gospel proper which follows from Lk 1.5
                                            onwards. Beyond that, I think the only meaningful way to proceed is to
                                            posit a synoptic hypothesis of the documentary relation between the
                                            synoptic gospels, test that hypothesis against the synoptic gospels, and
                                            then, if it passes the test, apply it to the synoptic gospels to
                                            ascertain what passages, if any, ALk authored.


                                            DENNIS: I must say, although I'm somewhat of an amateur compared to the very
                                            impressive scholarship exhibited on this list, that I don’t find it
                                            necessary to postulate a hypothesis before examining the textual patterns in
                                            GLluke. Some conclusions about Lukan editorial insertions can be reached by
                                            observing the characteristics of the Greek narrative styles used, and
                                            contrasting them to the passages which show the influence of Hebrew syntax
                                            and narrative structure. Yes, this presumes that there are Hebraic
                                            influences in Luke, but this is not to say that ALuke himself was the
                                            translator. He seems to adapt these passages from his source(s) in whole
                                            sections into his narrative, without consistently disturbing the word order
                                            or attempting to correct some constructions that would be nearly impossible
                                            for a contemporary Greek-speaker (or a modern English-speaker) to
                                            comprehend. It seems that he simply tries to connect these pieces into a
                                            logical order—according to his announced intention.

                                            I’m convinced that we can make more progress toward solving the synoptic
                                            problem by careful textual analysis than by most other approaches that we
                                            might try.

                                            Sorry for rambling on so. I started out to criticise your LTH, and wandered
                                            into some of the JSH--plus my own speculations.

                                            We want to give your LTH a good workout, so that you don’t encounter too
                                            many surprises when you present your paper in July.

                                            I appreciate the time you take to respond to my arguments, and consider you
                                            a fine and knowledgeable scholar. Hope we can meet some day!

                                            Sincerely

                                            Dennis Sullivan Dayton, Ohio
                                            www.jerusalemperspective.com (Closest thing I have to a home page so far.)
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.