[Synoptic-L] non-parallel words

Expand Messages
• 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
• ... 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@...
• 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.