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

[Synoptic-L] non-parallel words

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Brian Wilson wrote - ... Again, SFODRA is a non-parallel word found at - ... Jim Deardorff replied - ... Jim, The Synoptic Problem is to put forward a
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 29 2:34 PM
      Brian Wilson wrote -
      >
      >We all know of words in one synoptic gospel being found in parallel
      >passages in another synoptic gospel. But what do we make of words which
      >occur in two or more synoptic gospels and yet nowhere in parallel
      >passages? We could call these "non-parallel words".
      >
      >EPANW occurs in all three synoptic gospels -
      >
      >Mt 5.14, 21.7, 23.18, 23.20, 23.22, 27.37, 28.2
      >Mk 14.5
      >Lk 2.9, 4.39, 10.19, 11.44, 19.17, 19.19
      >
      >Yet no instance in Matthew is in a parallel to the instance in Mark, or
      >any of the instances in Luke. And the instance in Mark is not parallel
      >to any instance in Luke either.
      >
      >FOBOS is another instance of a non-parallel word. It occurs -
      >
      >Mt 14.26, 28.4, 28.8
      >Mk 4.41
      >Lk 1.12, 1.65, 2.9, 5.26, 7.16, 8.37, 21.26
      >
      Again, SFODRA is a non-parallel word found at -
      >
      >Mt 2.10, 17.6, 17.23, 18.31, 19.25, 26.22, 27.54
      >Mk 2.10
      >Lk 18.23
      >
      >And LIAN is another non-parallel word found at -
      >
      >Mt 2.16, 4.8, 8.28, 27.14
      >Mk 1.35, 6.51, 9.3, 16.2
      >Lk 23.8
      >
      >IDE occurs in non-parallel passages in Matthew and Mark, but nowhere in
      >Luke -
      >
      >Mt 25.20, 25.22, 25.25, 26.65
      >Mk 2.24, 3.34, 11.21, 13.1, 13.21, 13.21, 15.4, 15.35, 16.6
      >
      >SUNZHTEW occurs in non-parallel passages in Mark and Luke but nowhere
      >in Matthew -
      >
      >Mk 1.27 8.11, 9.10, 9.14, 9.16, 12.28
      >Lk 22.23, 24.15
      >
      >STREFW is found in non-parallel passages in Matthew and Luke but
      >nowhere in Mark -
      >
      >Mt 5.29, 7.6, 9.22, 16.23, 18.3, 27.3
      >Lk 7.9, 7.44, 9.55, 10.23, 14.25, 22.61, 23.28
      >
      >So far I have found 49 non-parallel words with an average of about 8
      >words in each instance.
      >
      >Since Matthew, Mark and Luke are synoptic gospels, we often look at
      >occurrences of the same word in parallel passages, and we can account
      >for these in terms of synoptic hypotheses of a documentary relationship
      >between the synoptic gospels. But can we give an account of non-
      >parallel words which occur in at least two synoptic gospels and yet
      >never in parallel passages?
      >

      Jim Deardorff replied -

      >
      >I failed to get the point, Brian. Would you have expected a lot more
      >than 49, or a lot less? When different persons write things about
      >somewhat different topics, but use the same language, one expects the
      >same word to have been used in quite a few instances, like "above," or
      >"fear" or "very much" or "exceedingly", when they are not rare words.
      >

      Jim,
      The Synoptic Problem is to put forward a hypothesis of the
      documentary relationship between the synoptic gospels and SHOW THAT THIS
      FITS WELL every observed pattern of similarities of wording and order of
      material in the synoptic gospels. How do you show the pattern that I
      describe above is consistent with, for instance, the Farrer Hypothesis?
      If Luke copied from both Matthew and Mark, and if Matthew copied from
      Mark, why does Luke never have IDE in parallel with material from
      Matthew and Mark, and why does Matthew never have IDE in parallel with
      material from Mark? And so on, for all the instances of the whole
      pattern. And so on for all the other synoptic hypotheses. The pattern as
      a whole is inconsistent with the Two Document, the Griesbach and the
      Farrer Hypotheses, if you try testing each of these in turn against the
      whole pattern.

      The purpose of putting forward a synoptic hypothesis is to go on and
      test it against the data and see whether it actually works. If it does
      not work, we need to find a hypothesis which does. If it works, we have
      arrived. Isn't that the point of what we are doing?

      Best wishes,
      BRIAN WILSON

      E-MAIL: brian@... HOMEPAGE ***RECENTLY UPDATED*** (AGAIN)
      SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson,
      10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
    • Jim Deardorff
      ... Brian, The reason I am still missing the point is that, in non-parallel passages, one writer is not making use of the other s text. The various hypotheses
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 29 5:35 PM
        At 10:34 PM 7/29/99 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
        >Brian Wilson wrote, in part -
        >>
        >>We all know of words in one synoptic gospel being found in parallel
        >>passages in another synoptic gospel. But what do we make of words which
        >>occur in two or more synoptic gospels and yet nowhere in parallel
        >>passages? We could call these "non-parallel words".
        >>
        >>EPANW occurs in all three synoptic gospels -
        >>
        >>Mt 5.14, 21.7, 23.18, 23.20, 23.22, 27.37, 28.2
        >>Mk 14.5
        >>Lk 2.9, 4.39, 10.19, 11.44, 19.17, 19.19
        >>
        >>Yet no instance in Matthew is in a parallel to the instance in Mark, or
        >>any of the instances in Luke. And the instance in Mark is not parallel
        >>to any instance in Luke either.
        >>
        >>FOBOS is another instance of a non-parallel word. It occurs -
        >>
        >>Mt 14.26, 28.4, 28.8
        >>Mk 4.41
        >>Lk 1.12, 1.65, 2.9, 5.26, 7.16, 8.37, 21.26
        >>
        >Again, SFODRA is a non-parallel word found at -
        >>
        >>Mt 2.10, 17.6, 17.23, 18.31, 19.25, 26.22, 27.54
        >>Mk 2.10
        >>Lk 18.23
        >>
        >>And LIAN is another non-parallel word found at -
        >>
        >>Mt 2.16, 4.8, 8.28, 27.14
        >>Mk 1.35, 6.51, 9.3, 16.2
        >>Lk 23.8
        >>
        >>IDE occurs in non-parallel passages in Matthew and Mark, but nowhere in
        >>Luke -
        >>
        >>Mt 25.20, 25.22, 25.25, 26.65
        >>Mk 2.24, 3.34, 11.21, 13.1, 13.21, 13.21, 15.4, 15.35, 16.6
        >>
        >>SUNZHTEW occurs in non-parallel passages in Mark and Luke but nowhere
        >>in Matthew -
        >>
        >>Mk 1.27 8.11, 9.10, 9.14, 9.16, 12.28
        >>Lk 22.23, 24.15
        >>
        >>STREFW is found in non-parallel passages in Matthew and Luke but
        >>nowhere in Mark -
        >>
        >>Mt 5.29, 7.6, 9.22, 16.23, 18.3, 27.3
        >>Lk 7.9, 7.44, 9.55, 10.23, 14.25, 22.61, 23.28
        >>
        >>So far I have found 49 non-parallel words with an average of about 8
        >>words in each instance.
        >>
        >>Since Matthew, Mark and Luke are synoptic gospels, we often look at
        >>occurrences of the same word in parallel passages, and we can account
        >>for these in terms of synoptic hypotheses of a documentary relationship
        >>between the synoptic gospels. But can we give an account of non-
        >>parallel words which occur in at least two synoptic gospels and yet
        >>never in parallel passages?

        >Jim Deardorff replied -

        >>I failed to get the point, Brian. Would you have expected a lot more
        >>than 49, or a lot less? When different persons write things about
        >>somewhat different topics, but use the same language, one expects the
        >>same word to have been used in quite a few instances, like "above," or
        >>"fear" or "very much" or "exceedingly", when they are not rare words.

        >Jim,
        > The Synoptic Problem is to put forward a hypothesis of the
        >documentary relationship between the synoptic gospels and SHOW THAT THIS
        >FITS WELL every observed pattern of similarities of wording and order of
        >material in the synoptic gospels. How do you show the pattern that I
        >describe above is consistent with, for instance, the Farrer Hypothesis?
        >If Luke copied from both Matthew and Mark, and if Matthew copied from
        >Mark, why does Luke never have IDE in parallel with material from
        >Matthew and Mark, and why does Matthew never have IDE in parallel with
        >material from Mark?

        Brian,

        The reason I am still missing the point is that, in non-parallel passages,
        one writer is not making use of the other's text. The various hypotheses
        involving gospel dependence allow that each writer was free to add text of
        his own and to refrain from copying certain portions of text, which then
        produces the category of "special" material or of redactions. And in the
        particular case of IDE, since ALk never utilized it in his gospel, it could
        never be in a parallel or non-parallel verse.

        If one takes three short stories written by different authors, whether or
        not they were aware of the others' works, one would find quite a number of
        different words in each story not utilized by the other two authors. This I
        am likening to the special material. This can be due to different or
        somewhat different subject matter, to verbal preferences, to somewhat
        different vocabularies, and to other minor differences that could be lumped
        under "chance." So I hope you can understand my puzzlement; it would be
        quite a problem to try to estimate how many such different words among
        different texts one compares one should expect within non-paralleled
        material, but except for pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions and common
        verbs, they should be numerous.

        >And so on, for all the instances of the whole
        >pattern. And so on for all the other synoptic hypotheses. The pattern as
        >a whole is inconsistent with the Two Document, the Griesbach and the
        >Farrer Hypotheses, if you try testing each of these in turn against the
        >whole pattern.

        Thus, I don't see how it would be suggestive for or against any synoptic
        hypothesis. Hopefully you will get some comments from others who see your point.

        Jim Deardorff
        Corvallis, Oregon
        E-mail: deardorj@...
        Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
      • Brian E. Wilson
        Brian Wilson wrote - ... Jim Deardorff replied (Wed 28 July 99)- ... Jim Deardorff replied again (Thurs 29 July 99)- ... Jim, I think you may be missing the
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 30 1:51 AM
          Brian Wilson wrote -
          >
          >We all know of words in one synoptic gospel being found in parallel
          >passages in another synoptic gospel. But what do we make of words which
          >occur in two or more synoptic gospels and yet nowhere in parallel
          >passages? We could call these "non-parallel words".
          >
          >EPANW occurs in all three synoptic gospels -
          >
          >Mt 5.14, 21.7, 23.18, 23.20, 23.22, 27.37, 28.2
          >Mk 14.5
          >Lk 2.9, 4.39, 10.19, 11.44, 19.17, 19.19
          >
          >Yet no instance in Matthew is in a parallel to the instance in Mark, or
          >any of the instances in Luke. And the instance in Mark is not parallel
          >to any instance in Luke either.
          >
          >FOBOS is another instance of a non-parallel word. It occurs -
          >
          >Mt 14.26, 28.4, 28.8
          >Mk 4.41
          >Lk 1.12, 1.65, 2.9, 5.26, 7.16, 8.37, 21.26
          >
          >Again, SFODRA is a non-parallel word found at -
          >
          >Mt 2.10, 17.6, 17.23, 18.31, 19.25, 26.22, 27.54
          >Mk 2.10
          >Lk 18.23
          >
          >And LIAN is another non-parallel word found at -
          >
          >Mt 2.16, 4.8, 8.28, 27.14
          >Mk 1.35, 6.51, 9.3, 16.2
          >Lk 23.8
          >
          >IDE occurs in non-parallel passages in Matthew and Mark, but nowhere in
          >Luke -
          >
          >Mt 25.20, 25.22, 25.25, 26.65
          >Mk 2.24, 3.34, 11.21, 13.1, 13.21, 13.21, 15.4, 15.35, 16.6
          >
          >SUNZHTEW occurs in non-parallel passages in Mark and Luke but nowhere
          >in Matthew -
          >
          >Mk 1.27 8.11, 9.10, 9.14, 9.16, 12.28
          >Lk 22.23, 24.15
          >
          >STREFW is found in non-parallel passages in Matthew and Luke but
          >nowhere in Mark -
          >
          >Mt 5.29, 7.6, 9.22, 16.23, 18.3, 27.3
          >Lk 7.9, 7.44, 9.55, 10.23, 14.25, 22.61, 23.28
          >
          >So far I have found 49 non-parallel words with an average of about 8
          >words in each instance.
          >
          >Since Matthew, Mark and Luke are synoptic gospels, we often look at
          >occurrences of the same word in parallel passages, and we can account
          >for these in terms of synoptic hypotheses of a documentary relationship
          >between the synoptic gospels. But can we give an account of non-
          >parallel words which occur in at least two synoptic gospels and yet
          >never in parallel passages?
          >
          Jim Deardorff replied (Wed 28 July 99)-

          >
          >I failed to get the point, Brian.
          >

          Jim Deardorff replied again (Thurs 29 July 99)-

          >
          >The reason I am still missing the point is that, in non-parallel
          >passages, one writer is not making use of the other's text.
          >
          Jim,
          I think you may be missing the point because you are not testing
          one synoptic hypothesis at a time against the pattern. On the Farrer
          Hypothesis, for instance, Mark is NOT making use of the text of Matthew
          or the text of Luke, because, according to the Farrer Hypothesis neither
          Matthew nor Luke had been written when Mark wrote his gospel.

          Lets take just one synoptic hypothesis, the Farrer Hypothesis, and lets
          test it against the pattern of non-parallel words.

          The Farrer Hypothesis states that Luke copied from both Mark and
          Matthew, and that Matthew copied from Mark. In the pattern of non-
          parallel words, EPANW is found in 7 places in Matthew, 1 place in Mark,
          and 6 places in Luke. In no case does EPANW occur in a passage in one
          synoptic gospel which is parallel to a passage containing EPANW in
          another synoptic gospel. Is this consistent with the Farrer Hypothesis?

          On the Farrer Hypothesis, the one instance in Mark could have been
          supplied by AMk. No problem with this since Mark is supposed to have
          been written first. But then Matthew has 7 instances. He did not copy
          the one instance from Mark since the instance in Mark is in a passage
          not parallel to any passage in Matthew which contains EPANW. So Matthew
          omitted the occurrence in Mark but then added 7 instances elsewhere in
          his gospel. But Luke then copied from Mark and Matthew, except that he
          did not copy the instance of EPANW from Mark, and he copied none of the
          7 instances of EPANW from Matthew. Nevertheless, having got rid of a
          total of 8 instances of EPANW from his sources, Luke then proceeded to
          add 6 instances of his own, and he does this not in parallel with the
          one instance in Mark, and he does this also not in parallel with the 7
          instances in Matthew. So, in the one case of the one non-parallel word
          EPANW, Luke manages to ditch all the instances in his sources and yet
          insert instances of his own without happening to coincide with any
          passages parallel to his sources. It seems to me rather unlikely that
          Luke did this deliberately. He hardly said to himself, "I will get rid
          of EPANW from Mark and Matthew, but use instances of EPANW in passages
          where I do not copy from them." But it also seems to me rather unlikely
          that it happened by coincidence that Luke got rid of all instances in
          his sources and the proceeded, coincidentally, to insert all his
          instances of EPANW in passages none of which happened to have a parallel
          in Mark or Matthew.

          The argument so far has been concerned with only one non-parallel word -
          EPANW. But then there are others which are the same - that is which have
          non-parallel words in each synoptic gospel. In every such case the same
          argument applies. It is very improbable that, taken together, ALL these
          cases were the result of mere coincidence. So the Farrer Hypothesis is
          already in difficulties, it would seem.

          Furthermore, there are also instances of non-parallel words which occur
          in Matthew and Mark but not in Luke. For example, IDE is found 4 times
          in Matthew and 9 times in Mark, but nowhere in Luke. None of the
          occurrences in Matthew is in a passage parallel to a passage in Mark
          containing an occurrence of IDE. On the Farrer Hypothesis, Mark wrote
          his 9 instances of IDE in his gospel before Matthew and Luke were
          penned. But then Matthew is supposed to have copied Mark. If so, he
          must have omitted all 9 occurrences of IDE from Mark, and then, in
          passages not parallel to any of the 9 passages containing IDE in Mark,
          inserted 4 instances of his own. Again, it would seem rather unlikely
          that Matthew deliberately proposed to get rid of all Mark's occurrences
          of IDE and to insert 4 of his own in non-parallel passages. And when he
          inserted his own, if it was not by his deliberate policy, it would seem
          an unlikely coincidence that in all 4 cases he managed to do so in
          passages which had no parallel in Mark. Now there are other instances of
          non-parallel words in Matthew and Mark but not Luke. The same argument
          applies to each of these. Taken together, it would seem very improbable
          that all these cases were the result of mere coincidence. So the Farrer
          Hypothesis would seem to be in trouble not only with non-parallel words
          in all three synoptic gospels but also with non-parallel words in
          Matthew and Mark but not Luke.

          Above, we have tested the Farrer Hypothesis against the pattern of non-
          parallel words, and come to the conclusion that it is in difficulties.

          Now the same approach can be used to test the Two Document and the
          Griesbach Hypotheses, and so on. On my reckoning, the 2DH and the
          Griesbach Hypotheses are also in difficulties with the pattern of non-
          parallel words.

          I hope this makes sense to you, Jim. The key is to take only one
          synoptic hypothesis at a time, and to test it against the synoptic
          pattern observed.

          Best wishes,
          BRIAN WILSON

          E-MAIL: brian@... HOMEPAGE ***RECENTLY UPDATED*** (AGAIN)
          SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson,
          10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.