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

[Synoptic-L] the order of pericopes in the Greek Notes

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Jim Deardorff wrote - ... Jim, I have only one definite idea, that if we assume the Greek Notes Hypothesis to be true, then it is possible to apply this
    Message 1 of 9 , Sep 17, 1999
      Jim Deardorff wrote -
      >
      >It's apparent that you have very definite ideas of what order each
      >pericope occurred within the GN. Why not, I therefore ask again, share
      >it with the rest of us in a full listing of GN pericopes?
      >
      Jim,
      I have only one definite idea, that if we assume the Greek Notes
      Hypothesis to be true, then it is possible to apply this hypothesis to
      the synoptic gospels and infer the contents of the Greek Notes, and to
      some extent their order and wording.

      On this basis, any reconstruction of the Greek Notes is bound to be
      provisional, particularly as regards order of material. It is also
      probably going to be incomplete, since there was probably some Greek
      Notes material which coincidentally all three synoptists independently
      omitted from the Greek Notes. I would hope one day to produce some kind
      of extended essay, or monograph, in which there is a provisional
      reconstruction of the Greek Notes. This will require a lot of careful
      and patient argument, some of it weighing probabilities. At the moment,
      the GNH is less than a year old, and I am still working out the details
      of what it implies, partly through discussions like this on Synoptic-L,
      of course. This is why I am sincerely grateful that contributors to
      Synoptic-L do criticize my contributions. What I am doing at the moment
      is checking for further "story dualities". I now have 46 stories
      forming 23 story dualities in the synoptic gospels. (See my homepage on
      this.) The most recent discovery was the Great Commandment in Mark, and
      the Good Samaritan (in its context) in Luke (which should be shown on my
      homepage in the next few weeks). Once it is realized that the account in
      Mark forms a story duality with the Good Samaritan (plus context) in
      Luke, then, on the GNH, it follows that there were two pieces of
      material in the Greek Notes, one of which contained wording which the
      writer of the Greek Notes deliberately repeated to form the second.
      Before I realized that these stories formed a story duality, they could
      have been regarded as having depended on only one piece, rather than on
      two pieces, of material in the Greek Notes. Each discovery of a story
      duality therefore changes the contents of the Greek Notes to a small,
      but real, extent. So the process continues. I hesitate to write out a
      "definitive" list of pericopes partly for this reason.

      You seem to be particularly interested, Jim, in the Sermon on the Mount.
      You might like to consider that, on the GNH, there were two Sermons in
      the Greek Notes, one in the same position (relative to the observed
      "Markan framework") as the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, and the other
      in the same position as the Sermon on the Plain in Luke. The earlier
      Sermon contained a lot of sayings material with many clear references to
      the Old Testament. The later Sermon was virtually free from clear
      references to the Old Testament. Matthew expanded the first Sermon,
      keeping it in its earlier position, by combining in with the later
      Sermon (and bringing in material from elsewhere in the Greek Notes),
      editing this material to form the Sermon on the Mount as we find it in
      Matthew chapters 5 to 7. Note, however, that Matthew does retain some
      of the later Sermon in the same position as Luke. Luke omitted the
      earlier (more "Jewish") Sermon and retained the later Sermon, editing
      this to some extent (particularly the Parable of the Two Housebuilders).
      Note that Luke has other non-Markan material (the Miraculous Catch of
      Fish) at the same position as Matthew has the Sermon on the Mount. I
      infer that Mark omitted both the earlier and later Sermons, not being
      very fond of long stretches of sayings material. I also infer that
      after the material retained in Mk 1.39 and parallels, the Greek Notes
      probably contained the earlier Sermon (partly retained in Matthew) which
      was probably followed by the Miraculous Catch of Fish (retained in
      Luke), and then the Healing of the Leper (retained by all three
      synoptists in Mk 1.40-45 and parallels). This explains, to some extent,
      how the Sermon on the Mount came to be constructed by Matthew and why it
      occurs in the "early" position relative to the observed common Markan
      framework.

      Best wishes,
      BRIAN WILSON

      E-MAIL: brian@... HOMEPAGE
      SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson,
      10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
      ... [snip] ... Each of these remarks indicates that you know what the order and wording of the GN was. One cannot make assertions about somebody s departure
      Message 2 of 9 , Sep 17, 1999
        "Brian E. Wilson" wrote:

        > I entirely agree, if, by "story" you mean narratives. On the
        > Greek Notes Hypothesis Luke did make major changes to the order of
        > narratives in the Greek Notes, and so produced his overall ordered
        > narrative account.

        [snip]

        > I think Matthew also made major changes to the order of material in the
        > Greek Notes, but he re-ordered much of the direct speech sayings
        > material as well as some of the narrative material, to form his
        > alternate blocks of mostly discourse and mostly narrative.
        >
        > I think Mark was relatively conservative in retaining wording and order
        > of material he selected from the Greek Notes, but still made some
        > changes to wording and order.

        Each of these remarks indicates that you know what the order and wording of
        the GN was. One cannot make assertions about somebody's departure from or
        adherence to the wording of an entity unless you already know what that from
        which these somebodies diverged or adhered to looked like.

        So I echo Jim Deardorff's call for you to post this proposed Vorlage. May we
        finally see your reconstruction of the Notes? Without seeing what it looked
        like, what its wording was, how can we evaluate the claims made above?

        Yours,

        Jeffrey
        --
        Jeffrey B. Gibson
        7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
        Chicago, Illinois 60626
        e-mail jgibson000@...
      • Mark Goodacre
        ... Yes -- I think imply is the right word. I reckon that many narrative- critics have been rather too quick to seize on the word DIHGHSIS and say that that
        Message 3 of 9 , Sep 17, 1999
          On 17 Sep 99, at 15:03, Brian E. Wilson wrote:

          > Incidentally, does not Luke himself imply in Lk 1.1 that what he is
          > concerned to set down in order is a DIHGHSIS - that is, a narrative
          > account?

          Yes -- I think "imply" is the right word. I reckon that many narrative-
          critics have been rather too quick to seize on the word DIHGHSIS
          and say that that is how Luke "describes" his own work (e.g both
          Luke Johnson and Joel Green). I suggested in my SBL paper last
          November (slightly facetiously but with a serious point) that Luke was
          really the first narrative-critic and that unlike his modern counterparts
          he is not afraid to compare his own work with that of his
          predecessors. Thus he encourages us to investigate the interaction
          between source-criticism and narrative-criticism, and to observe the
          chemical reaction that takes place when they meet.

          Mark
          --------------------------------------
          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
          Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
          University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
          Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

          http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
          The New Testament Gateway
          Mark Without Q
          Aseneth Home Page
        • Brian E. Wilson
          Brian Wilson wrote - ... Jeffrey Gibson comments- ... Jeffrey, My comments imply only that I have an approximate idea of the order and wording of some of the
          Message 4 of 9 , Sep 19, 1999
            Brian Wilson wrote -
            >
            >On the Greek Notes Hypothesis Luke did make major changes to the order
            >of narratives in the Greek Notes, and so produced his overall ordered
            >narrative account.
            >
            >I think Matthew also made major changes to the order of material in the
            >Greek Notes, but he re-ordered much of the direct speech sayings
            >material as well as some of the narrative material, to form his
            >alternate blocks of mostly discourse and mostly narrative.
            >
            >I think Mark was relatively conservative in retaining wording and order
            >of material he selected from the Greek Notes, but still made some
            >changes to wording and order.
            >

            Jeffrey Gibson comments-
            >
            >Each of these remarks indicates that you know what the order and
            >wording of the GN was. One cannot make assertions about somebody's
            >departure from or adherence to the wording of an entity unless you
            >already know what that from which these somebodies diverged or adhered
            >to looked like.
            >
            >So I echo Jim Deardorff's call for you to post this proposed Vorlage.
            >May we finally see your reconstruction of the Notes? Without seeing
            >what it looked like, what its wording was, how can we evaluate the
            >claims made above?
            >

            Jeffrey,
            My comments imply only that I have an approximate idea of the
            order and wording of some of the contents of the GN. The statements I
            make above are not part of the Greek Notes Hypothesis. They are the
            result of assuming it to be true and applying it to the synoptic
            gospels. The Greek Notes Hypothesis stands or falls not on my incomplete
            and tentative reconstruction of the Greek Notes but on whether the
            hypothesis fits well the observed patterns in the synoptic gospels.

            It is the same with the Two Document Hypothesis. The 2DH stands or falls
            not on the attempted reconstruction of the wording and order of "Q"
            inferred by assuming the 2DH to be true and applying it to the synoptic
            gospels, but on whether the 2DH fits well the observed data.

            If you really want to evaluate the Greek Notes Hypothesis, I would
            suggest you need to find a synoptic pattern which the GNH does not fit
            well. If you do this, there will be no need for anyone to reconstruct
            the Greek Notes, since the GNH will thereby have been shown to be false.
            If you cannot find such a synoptic pattern, then the GNH solves the
            Synoptic Problem even if no attempt is made to reconstruct the Greek
            Notes.

            I would add that I am in the process of refining my provisional
            reconstruction of the Greek Notes. I am all in favour of them being
            reconstructed as far as possible. The point I make above is that I do
            not agree that such attempted reconstruction is part of the GNH or is
            necessary for checking it. The GNH does not posit that the Greek Notes
            can be reconstructed, any more than the 2DH posits that "Q" can be
            reconstructed. The GNH can no more be checked by examining a
            reconstruction of the Greek Notes than the 2DH can be checked by
            examining a reconstruction of "Q".

            Notwithstanding the above, however, since Jim and yourself are
            apparently intrigued by the thought of the Greek Notes being
            reconstructed, the following is a tentative provisional outline of the
            contents of the beginning of the Greek Notes (up to the context of the
            earlier Sermon in the Greek Notes). Please note that reconstructing the
            exact wording of the material is not considered here. (It would take
            hundreds of lines to set out).

            _Provisional outline of the contents of beginning of the Greek Notes_

            (1) Lk 3.23-38 - see repetition in Mt 1.1-17. Luke moved this Genealogy
            to a later position to help form his "orderly narrative account" of
            Jesus.
            (2) Lk 1.5-2.52 - includes Annunciation to Mary; see repetition in Mt
            1.18-25.
            (3) Mt 1.1-17 - see repetition in Lk 3.23-38.
            (4) Mt 1.18-2.23 - includes Annunciation to Joseph. See repetition in Lk
            1.26-38.
            (5) Mt 3.1-2 - see Lk 3.2(b)-3. See also repetition in Mt 4.17(b).
            (6) Mk 1.2-6 - see repetition in Mt 11.10 // Lk 7.27. It is possible
            that Matthew retains the original order of material here, and that Mark
            has altered the order of Mk 1.4/1.6 to enable the next piece of GN
            material (direct speech) to be omitted more conveniently to him. Note
            that Mt 3.3 // Mk 1.2-3 // Lk 3.4 continues series of "proof text
            passages" in the immediately preceding Mt 1.18-2.23.
            (7) Lk 3.7-9 - see Mt 3.7-10. Mark omits a passage of direct speech.
            (8) Lk 3.10-14 - Matthew omits, retaining only part of the direct speech
            retained by Luke. Mark continues to omit passage of direct speech.
            (9) Mt 3.11-12 - note that Mark re-arranges order of Mk 1.7/8(a)
            possibly to prepare to omit direct speech material retained in Mt
            3.11(b)-12,14-15. See also Mk 1.7-8, Lk 3.16(b)-17.
            (10) Mt 3.13-17(a),Mk 1.11(b) - see also Mk 1.9-11(a) // Lk 3.21(b)-22.
            See repetition in Mt 17.5(b) // Mk 9.7(b) // Lk 9.35.
            (11) Mt 4.1-11(a) - see also Mk 1.12-13(a), Lk 4.1-13. Mark omits a
            passage of direct speech, retaining the deeds of Jesus here.
            (12) Mk 1.13(b) - see also Mt 4.11(b).
            (13) Mk 1.14-15 - note that Mt 4.17(b) // Mk 1.15(b) repeats Mt 3.2.
            (14) Mk 1.16-20 - see repetition in Lk 5.1.2(b)-3(a),10,11(b). See
            repetition also in Mk 2.13-17.
            (15) Mk 1.21-28 - see repetition in parts of Mk 5.1-8.
            (16) Mk 1.29-31 - see also Lk 4.38-39 and Mt 8.14-15.
            (17) Mk 1.32-34 - see repetition in Mk 3.10-11,12.
            (18) Mk 1.35-38 - see also Lk 4.42-43.
            (19) Mk 1.39 - see also Lk 4.44.
            (20) Mt 5.1(a)
            (21) Mt 5.2
            (22) Mt 5.7-10
            (23) Mt 5.17-20 (see repetition in Mk 13.31)
            (24) Mt 5.21-24
            (25) Mt 5.27-30 (see repetition in Mk 9.43-48)
            (26) Mt 5.31-32 (see repetition in Mk 10.11-12)
            (27) Mt 5.33-37
            (28) Mt 5.38
            (29) Mt 5.41
            (30) Mt 5.43
            (31) Mt 6.1-4
            (32) Mt 6.5-8
            (33) Mt 6.15 (see repetition in Mt 18.35)
            (34) Mt 6.16-18. - Using passages from elsewhere in the Greek Notes,
            Matthew expanded the material of numbers 20-34 above to form his long
            Sermon on the Mount - Mt 5.1-7.29.
            (35) Lk 5.1-11 - see repetition in Mk 1.16-20
            (36) Mk 1.40-45 - see also Mt 8.2-4 and Lk 5.12(b)-16.
            ...

            The above is not intended to be the reconstruction of the beginning of a
            continuous book. The Greek Notes were notes, each of which was to some
            extent self-contained. On the GNH, each synoptist was under continual
            pressure to omit material from the Greek Notes which were long.

            On the Greek Notes Hypothesis, the repetitions noted above were probably
            the result of the writer of the Greek Notes deliberately repeating
            wording in one piece of material already used in another piece.

            The exact wording of the above contents could be inferred to some extent
            by looking, for instance, for agreements of wording between two or more
            gospels, including minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark in
            the triple tradition (for instance in the Baptism of Jesus). Such
            agreements indicate the wording of the Greek Notes. We could also take
            note of instances of extensive Mattheanisms (such as "narrative TOTE"
            which occurs dozens of times in Matthew generally, and four times in the
            Matthean account of the Temptation but not once in the Lukan parallel),
            treating these as supplied by Matthew and therefore not original to the
            Greek Notes wording, and so on. Similarly we could look for extensive
            Lukanisms or Markanisms, and make similar use of these. Of course, where
            material is retained by only one synoptist, in many instances it may
            often be hard, if not impossible, to distinguish Greek Notes wording
            from wording supplied editorially by the synoptist, although most of the
            wording of "story dualities" material, even if special to one synoptic
            gospel, can be assigned to the Greek Notes. In the last resort, however,
            any reconstruction will be to some extent tentative, provisional and
            incomplete.

            You might like to note that I am going to be very busy on other matters
            over the next few weeks and may be unable to write to Synoptic-L during
            this time. If you have a pressing question you could write to me off-
            List.

            Best wishes,
            BRIAN WILSON

            E-MAIL: brian@... HOMEPAGE
            SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson,
            10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
          • Jim Deardorff
            ... It s good that you have made a start on this, Brian. Did you have in mind ... if the GN did have a definite order to it, then it wouldn t cover a certain
            Message 5 of 9 , Sep 20, 1999
              At 07:29 AM 9/20/99 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
              >.... the following is a tentative provisional outline of the
              >contents of the beginning of the Greek Notes (up to the context of the
              >earlier Sermon in the Greek Notes). Please note that reconstructing the
              >exact wording of the material is not considered here. (It would take
              >hundreds of lines to set out).

              It's good that you have made a start on this, Brian. Did you have in mind
              that a more detailed outline, even for this initial section, is needed? That is:

              >_Provisional outline of the contents of beginning of the Greek Notes_
              >
              >(1) Lk 3.23-38 - see repetition in Mt 1.1-17. Luke moved this Genealogy
              >to a later position to help form his "orderly narrative account" of
              >Jesus.
              >(2) Lk 1.5-2.52 - includes Annunciation to Mary; see repetition in Mt
              >1.18-25.
              >(3) Mt 1.1-17 - see repetition in Lk 3.23-38.
              >(4) Mt 1.18-2.23 - includes Annunciation to Joseph. See repetition in Lk
              >1.26-38.

              if the GN did have a definite order to it, then it wouldn't cover a certain
              amount of ground chronologically and then backtrack over the same ground
              again, as your (2) followed later by (4) indicates. Your (2) takes it up to
              Jesus' early youth or manhood, while (4) goes back to Mary being pregnant.
              Perhaps your "see repitition...." stands for "work in progress"?

              The particular question I had in this section is how the GN would resolve
              the discrepancy in the dating of Jesus' birth, in the light of Caesar's
              decree and the authority of Quirinius pointing to a date of C.E. 6.

              That and having both genealogies in the GN would suggest it was written by
              two different persons at different times.




              >(5) Mt 3.1-2 - see Lk 3.2(b)-3. See also repetition in Mt 4.17(b).
              >(6) Mk 1.2-6 - see repetition in Mt 11.10 // Lk 7.27. It is possible
              >that Matthew retains the original order of material here, and that Mark
              >has altered the order of Mk 1.4/1.6 to enable the next piece of GN
              >material (direct speech) to be omitted more conveniently to him. Note
              >that Mt 3.3 // Mk 1.2-3 // Lk 3.4 continues series of "proof text
              >passages" in the immediately preceding Mt 1.18-2.23.
              >(7) Lk 3.7-9 - see Mt 3.7-10. Mark omits a passage of direct speech.
              >(8) Lk 3.10-14 - Matthew omits, retaining only part of the direct speech
              >retained by Luke. Mark continues to omit passage of direct speech.
              >(9) Mt 3.11-12 - note that Mark re-arranges order of Mk 1.7/8(a)
              >possibly to prepare to omit direct speech material retained in Mt
              >3.11(b)-12,14-15. See also Mk 1.7-8, Lk 3.16(b)-17.
              >(10) Mt 3.13-17(a),Mk 1.11(b) - see also Mk 1.9-11(a) // Lk 3.21(b)-22.
              >See repetition in Mt 17.5(b) // Mk 9.7(b) // Lk 9.35.
              >(11) Mt 4.1-11(a) - see also Mk 1.12-13(a), Lk 4.1-13. Mark omits a
              >passage of direct speech, retaining the deeds of Jesus here.
              >(12) Mk 1.13(b) - see also Mt 4.11(b).
              >(13) Mk 1.14-15 - note that Mt 4.17(b) // Mk 1.15(b) repeats Mt 3.2.
              >(14) Mk 1.16-20 - see repetition in Lk 5.1.2(b)-3(a),10,11(b). See
              >repetition also in Mk 2.13-17.
              >(15) Mk 1.21-28 - see repetition in parts of Mk 5.1-8.
              >(16) Mk 1.29-31 - see also Lk 4.38-39 and Mt 8.14-15.
              >(17) Mk 1.32-34 - see repetition in Mk 3.10-11,12.
              >(18) Mk 1.35-38 - see also Lk 4.42-43.
              >(19) Mk 1.39 - see also Lk 4.44.
              >(20) Mt 5.1(a)
              >(21) Mt 5.2
              >(22) Mt 5.7-10
              >(23) Mt 5.17-20 (see repetition in Mk 13.31)
              >(24) Mt 5.21-24
              >(25) Mt 5.27-30 (see repetition in Mk 9.43-48)
              >(26) Mt 5.31-32 (see repetition in Mk 10.11-12)
              >(27) Mt 5.33-37
              >(28) Mt 5.38
              >(29) Mt 5.41
              >(30) Mt 5.43
              >(31) Mt 6.1-4
              >(32) Mt 6.5-8
              >(33) Mt 6.15 (see repetition in Mt 18.35)
              >(34) Mt 6.16-18. - Using passages from elsewhere in the Greek Notes,
              >Matthew expanded the material of numbers 20-34 above to form his long
              >Sermon on the Mount - Mt 5.1-7.29.
              >(35) Lk 5.1-11 - see repetition in Mk 1.16-20
              >(36) Mk 1.40-45 - see also Mt 8.2-4 and Lk 5.12(b)-16.
              >...
              >
              >The above is not intended to be the reconstruction of the beginning of a
              >continuous book. The Greek Notes were notes, each of which was to some
              >extent self-contained. On the GNH, each synoptist was under continual
              >pressure to omit material from the Greek Notes which were long.
              >
              >On the Greek Notes Hypothesis, the repetitions noted above were probably
              >the result of the writer of the Greek Notes deliberately repeating
              >wording in one piece of material already used in another piece.
              >
              >The exact wording of the above contents could be inferred to some extent
              >by looking, for instance, for agreements of wording between two or more
              >gospels, including minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark in
              >the triple tradition (for instance in the Baptism of Jesus). Such
              >agreements indicate the wording of the Greek Notes. We could also take
              >note of instances of extensive Mattheanisms (such as "narrative TOTE"
              >which occurs dozens of times in Matthew generally, and four times in the
              >Matthean account of the Temptation but not once in the Lukan parallel),
              >treating these as supplied by Matthew and therefore not original to the
              >Greek Notes wording, and so on. Similarly we could look for extensive
              >Lukanisms or Markanisms, and make similar use of these. Of course, where
              >material is retained by only one synoptist, in many instances it may
              >often be hard, if not impossible, to distinguish Greek Notes wording
              >from wording supplied editorially by the synoptist, although most of the
              >wording of "story dualities" material, even if special to one synoptic
              >gospel, can be assigned to the Greek Notes. In the last resort, however,
              >any reconstruction will be to some extent tentative, provisional and
              >incomplete.
              >
              >You might like to note that I am going to be very busy on other matters
              >over the next few weeks and may be unable to write to Synoptic-L during
              >this time. If you have a pressing question you could write to me off-
              >List.
              >
              >Best wishes,
              >BRIAN WILSON
              >
              >E-MAIL: brian@... HOMEPAGE
              >SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson,
              >10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
              >
              >
              >
              Jim Deardorff
              Corvallis, Oregon
              E-mail: deardorj@...
              Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.