- Mark Goodacre wrote -
>Since absolute Mattheanisms are defined as those words that do not
>occur in Mark and Luke, then they do not appear in Mark and Luke
>by definition. What this therefore amounts to is a statement that
>there are words that occur frequently in Matthew that appear nowhere in
>Mark and Luke. This is precisely what one would expect on
>practically all major theories of gospel relationships, unless you can
>convince us otherwise.
I think that, in the above, the phrase "all major theories" begs a
lot of questions. I assume you had your tongue in your cheek when using
If your argument above is valid, then should you not be able to show
that the Mattheanisms, Lukanisms and Markanisms we actually observe in
the synoptic gospels are compatible with the Griesbach Hypothesis
(whether or not it is a "major theory")?
I would challenge you to do this.
I think I have shown several times in recent postings that the observed
Mattheanisms, Markanisms and Lukanisms are compatible with the Greek
Notes Hypothesis. Will you do the same for the Griesbach Hypothesis
I would hope you would be able to give an account, on the Griesbach
Hypothesis, of how the words of absolute Mattheanisms came not to be in
Luke, and of how the words of both absolute Mattheanisms and of absolute
Lukanisms came not to be in Mark.
My mind is open on this matter. I am ready to be convinced by you.
E-MAIL: brian@... HOMEPAGE:
SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
10 York Close, Godmanchester,
- Brian Wilson wrote to Mark Goodacre -
>Jim Deardorff commented -
>I am afraid you have not explained why, on the Farrer Hypothesis,
>no synoptic gospel is usually the middle term on the level of wording.
>Do I take it that the Farrer Hypothesis cannot explain this, in fact?
>If so, is that not pretty damaging to the Farrer Hypothesis? Are you
>really stuck on this one?
>It seems you are now moving to the idea that "there is simply no doubt
>that Mark is usually the middle term" in the order of triple tradition
>material (previously you were talking in terms of "SUBSTANTIAL
>agreements of wording", or "MINOR agreements of wording", of two
>synoptic gospels against the third.) I am not at all clear what you now
>mean, I must confess.
>Are you saying that the Gospel of Mark is the middle term as regards
>order of pericopes in a way in which neither Matthew nor Luke are the
>middle term? If this is the case, could you please say in just what
>way Mark is the middle term as regards order in which Matthew and Luke
>There is the well known agreement in order between Matthew & Mark from
>Mt 12 or 13 on and Mk 6 or so on. Then there is the general agreement
>in order between Luke and Mark from Lk 4:31 and Mk 1:21 on to Lk 9:17
>and Mk 6:43. Aside from the triple tradition commencing around Lk 18,
>there is then very little agreement in order between Matthew and Luke.
>Hence Mark is the middle term here.
Your posting was in two parts. I here answer the first part (shown
above), since this keeps to the point I was making. I am answering the
second part in a different posting (and under a different subject
heading), since it goes on to a quite separate matter concerning the
Greek Notes Hypothesis and the distribution of the "double tradition" in
the synoptic gospels.
I agree with your above description of the general agreement in order
of pericopes of Mark and Matthew in the "second half" of Mark, and of
Mark and Luke in the "first half" of Mark. My question is, given these
observations, what makes Mark the "middle term" with regard to order of
pericopes in a way in which Matthew is NOT the middle term, and in which
Luke is NOT the middle term?
In other words, even if Mark is the middle term with regard to the order
of pericopes, how do you know that neither Matthew nor Luke is the
middle term also in this respect?
E-MAIL: brian@... HOMEPAGE
SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson,
10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk