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

Re: Delbert Burkett's paper on Mark

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.