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

[Synoptic-L] Re: The Three Source Hypothesis

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    Brian, Thanks for your comments. I agree that the Sermon on the Mount and the Lord s Prayer are a problem for the Farrer Hypothesis. To me it is incredible
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 6, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Brian,
      Thanks for your comments.

      I agree that the Sermon on the Mount and the Lord's Prayer are a
      problem for the Farrer Hypothesis. To me it is incredible either that
      Au_Matt composed them, or that such relatively primitive material could
      have been preserved so well in oral tradition for around 50 years (up
      to the date when Matthew was written) without much distortion.

      You wrote:
      > Since the 3SH affirms that all three sources (Q,
      >Matthew and Mark) feed into Luke, should we not expect to find triplets,
      >or even quadruplets, in Luke? There do not seem to be very many, if any.

      I did argue on this List for the existence of one triplet in a message
      entitled "Triplets in Luke?" dated 26 Aug 1999. It is mentioned on my
      Web site under "The source sQ", contents, 2. , though I inadvertently
      omitted to use the word "triplet" there. (An omission now corrected.)
      Admittedly the case is not crystal clear as it depends on the hypothesis
      of a common origin for Luke 8:18, 12:48 and 19:26.

      You added:
      >....... should we not
      >expect even more triplets/quadrupletss, and even quintuplets, in Luke,
      >since Luke would be fed not only by the three overlapping documentary
      >sources (one of these containing doublets as a consequence), but also by
      >oral tradition which overlapped all of those?

      My contention is that Au_Luke disliked duplication more than the other
      synoptic writers. In his commentary on Luke, Fitzmyer quotes nine
      instances where Au_Luke omitted Markan material because he had used
      something similar earlier. Au_Luke generally permitted duplication
      **only out of reverence for his primary (and favourite) written sources,
      Mark and sQ **. There are only three exceptions of which I am aware:
      1. Au_Matt had composed the parable of the Talents around the nucleus of
      an sQ saying (Matt 25:29 = Luke 19:26). Luke 19:26 , duplicating 8:18
      (from Mark) , was acquired as part of the parable which Au_Luke took
      from Matthew. The saying had to be copied (in spite of the duplication
      involved) because it had become an integral part of the parable.
      2. In Luke 18:14 , Au_Luke deliberately duplicated 14:11 (from sQ) in
      order, I believe, to mark out a sub-section of the gospel.
      3. Luke 21:18 duplicates 12:7 (from sQ).

      Ron Price

      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

      e-mail: ron.price@...

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • Brian E. Wilson
      Ron Price wrote - ... I think you put this well. I would even go further, myself, and suggest that the whole idea of oral Jesus tradition in Greek (other than
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 7, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron Price wrote -
        >
        >I agree that the Sermon on the Mount and the Lord's Prayer are a
        >problem for the Farrer Hypothesis. To me it is incredible either that
        >Au_Matt composed them, or that such relatively primitive material could
        >have been preserved so well in oral tradition for around 50 years (up
        >to the date when Matthew was written) without much distortion.
        >
        I think you put this well. I would even go further, myself, and suggest
        that the whole idea of oral Jesus tradition in Greek (other than oral
        tradition secondary to written Greek documents) is a difficulty for the
        Farrer Hypothesis. If Jesus spoke Hebrew/Aramaic, some oral tradition
        might have been passed on by word of mouth in Hebrew/Aramaic (hence
        "ABBA" in various places in the NT, and so on), but hardly in Greek. The
        Jesus tradition in Greek in Paul's letters shows many signs of being
        secondary to written Greek material, in my view. There are no clear
        indications of Greek primary oral Jesus tradition. Papias spoke Aramaic,
        as well as Greek. The "living voice" which Papias favoured was probably
        Hebrew/Aramaic oral tradition.
        >
        >My contention is that Au_Luke disliked duplication more than the other
        >synoptic writers. In his commentary on Luke, Fitzmyer quotes nine
        >instances where Au_Luke omitted Markan material because he had used
        >something similar earlier.
        >
        It may well be that there are nine observed instances of Luke including
        only once something which is included twice in Mark. But this would
        support your contention only if there were comparatively few instances
        in the reverse direction. I would suggest that the following two-fold
        repetitions in Luke have only one component parallelled in Mark -

        (1) Lk 4.43(b) // Mk 1.38, and Lk 8.1(b)
        (2) Lk 5.20-21 // Mk 2.5-7 and Lk 7.48-49
        (3) Lk 5.29b-31a // Mk 2.15(b)-17(a) and Lk 15.1-3
        (4) Lk 6.6-9 // Mk 3.1-4a and Lk 14.1-3
        (5) Lk 7.50 and Lk 8.48 // Mk 9.22(a)
        (6) Lk 8.16 // Mk 4.21 and Lk 11.33
        (7) Lk 8.18b //Mk 4.25 and Lk 19.26(b)
        (8) Lk 9.3b-5 // Mk 6.8(b)-11 and Lk 10.4-11(a)
        (9) Lk 9.24 // Mk 8.34(b)-35 and Lk 17.33
        (10) Lk 10.11(b) and Lk 21.31 // Mk 13.29
        (11) Lk 10.25 and Lk 18.18-19(a) // Mk 10.17b
        (12) Lk 19.44(b) and Lk 21.6(b) // Mk 13.2(b)

        In addition to these there are two-fold repetitions in Luke with no
        component parallelled in Mark -

        (13) Lk 1.59 and Lk 2.21
        (14) Lk 12.7 and Lk 21.18
        (15) Lk 16.17 and Lk 21.33

        A hundred and three years ago, Alfred Plummer ("International Critical
        Commentary, The Gospel according to S. Luke", page xxviii) wrote -
        >
        >"The statement that Luke avoids duplicates on principle has been made
        >and accepted too hastily...If he made it a rule to exclude duplicates,
        >the exceptions are more numerous than the examples, and they extend
        >throughout the Gospel."
        >
        Plummer then gives a long list of duplicates in Luke and ends with the
        rhetorical question -
        >
        >"Could more duplicates be found in any other Gospel?" (page xxix).
        >
        I would suggest that Luke actually welcomed duplication, even though,
        possibly because he was short of space, he did not include some
        duplication found in the other synoptic gospels. Luke was for
        duplication, not against it, on balance.

        This makes it all the harder to understand why so few clear examples of
        triplets are apparent in Luke. If, as the 3SH affirms, Matthew contained
        doublets (partly as a result of using overlapping Q and Mark), and if
        Luke used Q, Mark and Matthew (all overlapping, with Matthew already
        overlapping Q and Mark), and since Luke positively welcomed repetition,
        why are there so very few, if any, clear examples of triplets in Luke?
        The dearth of clear triplets in Luke is a significant difficulty for the
        3SH.

        This difficulty is exacerbated, I would suggest, if, as the 3SH affirms,
        the overlap between Q and Mark is to be explained by dependence on oral
        tradition in Greek. For if an oral Greek tradition is assumed, this
        would presumably have been available also to Luke, so that Luke had the
        opportunity for repetition of the **same** material from (1) oral
        tradition in Greek available to Mark and to Matthew, (2) from Q, (3)
        from Mark, and (4) from Matthew (which already contained some of this
        material twice partly as a result of dependence on overlapping Q and
        Mark).

        On a lesser scale, there is the same difficulty with the Farrer
        Hypothesis. If Luke used Mark and Matthew, Matthew containing some
        repetition of material from Mark, why are there so very few, if any,
        instances of clear triplets in Luke? And if Matthew used oral tradition
        to expand on Mark, oral tradition which presumably would have been
        available also to Luke, would not clear triplets in Luke be expected
        even more?

        Best wishes,
        BRIAN WILSON

        E-MAIL : brian@... HOMEPAGE
        SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
        10 York Close, Godmanchester, www.twonh.demon.co.uk
        Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE18 8EB, UK
      • Stephen C. Carlson
        ... Although I ve been fascinated by Papias for many years, I ve never read until now that Papias spoke Aramaic. What is the basis for this view? Papias did
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 7, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          At 10:37 AM 12/7/99 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
          >Papias spoke Aramaic,
          >as well as Greek. The "living voice" which Papias favoured was probably
          >Hebrew/Aramaic oral tradition.

          Although I've been fascinated by Papias for many years, I've never
          read until now that Papias spoke Aramaic. What is the basis for
          this view?

          Papias did say that he talked to those who heard the apostles. If
          many of these apostles taught in Aramaic (or Hebrew) rather than
          Greek (even though Greek was common), it is only necessary for
          Papias' informants to be bilingual, not Papias.

          Papias also knows of a compilation of LOGIA in a Hebrew manner of
          speech, which others interpreted. We are not sure, however,
          whether Papias had first hand knowledge of this nor even whether
          hEBRAIDI DIALEKTWi means Hebrew language or style (cf. K├╝rzinger).

          Stephen Carlson
          --
          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
          Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
          "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
        • Brian E. Wilson
          Stephen Carlson wrote - ... Stephen, Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I now realize I was confusing Papias with Josephus. Sorry about that. Best wishes,
          Message 4 of 6 , Dec 7, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Stephen Carlson wrote -
            >
            >Although I've been fascinated by Papias for many years, I've never
            >read until now that Papias spoke Aramaic. What is the basis for
            >this view?
            >
            Stephen,
            Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I now realize I was
            confusing Papias with Josephus. Sorry about that.

            Best wishes,
            BRIAN WILSON

            E-MAIL : brian@... HOMEPAGE
            SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
            10 York Close, Godmanchester, www.twonh.demon.co.uk
            Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE18 8EB, UK
          • Ron Price
            Brian Wilson wrote:
            Message 5 of 6 , Dec 8, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Brian Wilson wrote:

              << I would suggest that the following two-fold
              repetitions in Luke have only one component parallelled in Mark -

              (1) Lk 4.43(b) // Mk 1.38, and Lk 8.1(b)
              (2) Lk 5.20-21 // Mk 2.5-7 and Lk 7.48-49
              (3) Lk 5.29b-31a // Mk 2.15(b)-17(a) and Lk 15.1-3
              (4) Lk 6.6-9 // Mk 3.1-4a and Lk 14.1-3
              (5) Lk 7.50 and Lk 8.48 // Mk 9.22(a)
              (6) Lk 8.16 // Mk 4.21 and Lk 11.33
              (7) Lk 8.18b //Mk 4.25 and Lk 19.26(b)
              (8) Lk 9.3b-5 // Mk 6.8(b)-11 and Lk 10.4-11(a)
              (9) Lk 9.24 // Mk 8.34(b)-35 and Lk 17.33
              (10) Lk 10.11(b) and Lk 21.31 // Mk 13.29
              (11) Lk 10.25 and Lk 18.18-19(a) // Mk 10.17b
              (12) Lk 19.44(b) and Lk 21.6(b) // Mk 13.2(b)

              In addition to these there are two-fold repetitions in Luke with no
              component parallelled in Mark -

              (13) Lk 1.59 and Lk 2.21
              (14) Lk 12.7 and Lk 21.18
              (15) Lk 16.17 and Lk 21.33 >>

              Brian,
              Six of these cases result, I believe, from the overlap of the written
              sources Mark and sQ.
              Many others involve repeated phrases and clauses which do not make
              sense in isolation.
              O.K., so you force me to be more precise. Rather than say that Au_Luke
              didn't like duplication as such, I will say that (s)he did not like
              duplicating pericopae, and normally only did so when a pericope appeared
              in both favoured written sources, Mark and sQ.
              There are two parallels which remain problematic, and will have to be
              put down as exceptions to the norm:
              (1) Luke 12:7 = 21:18 (the hairs on your head are numbered/will not
              perish)
              (2) Luke 6:6-9 = 14:1-3 (the man with the withered arm/the man with
              dropsy)

              Brian added:
              << ..... if, as the 3SH affirms,
              the overlap between Q and Mark is to be explained by dependence on oral
              tradition in Greek. >>

              Brian,
              I'd be interested to know where this information comes from. Surely
              the oral tradition could have been in Aramaic, especially as we know for
              certain that Au_Mark knew at least **some** Aramaic (Mark 5:41 etc.).

              Ron Price

              Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

              e-mail: ron.price@...

              Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
            • Brian E. Wilson
              Ron Price wrote - ... Ron, Nonetheless, they are all instances of duplication which Au_Luke allowed in his gospel. I think it is a hard task to try and show
              Message 6 of 6 , Dec 8, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                Ron Price wrote -
                >
                >Six of these cases result, I believe, from the overlap of the written
                >sources Mark and sQ. Many others involve repeated phrases and clauses
                >which do not make sense in isolation.
                >
                Ron,
                Nonetheless, they are all instances of duplication which Au_Luke
                allowed in his gospel. I think it is a hard task to try and show that
                Au_Luke disliked duplication. I would again suggest that Luke actually
                welcomed duplication even though his gospel does not include some
                duplications found in Mark or Matthew. I think Luke was for duplication,
                not against it, on balance.
                >
                >O.K., so you force me to be more precise. Rather than say that Au_Luke
                >didn't like duplication as such, I will say that (s)he did not like
                >duplicating pericopae, and normally only did so when a pericope
                >appeared in both favoured written sources, Mark and sQ.
                >
                The point is that we actually do observe a lot of duplication (of
                various sizes of pieces of material) in Luke, but virtually no clear
                triplets of pieces of material of similar sizes to those found
                duplicated. If the 3SH describes what happened, then, since Mark and Q
                overlapped, and both feed into Matthew, and since Q, Mark and Matthew
                (containing duplication) all feed into Luke, is it not rather surprising
                that there are so few clear triplets in Luke? Luke should contain
                plentiful clear triplets if the 3SH is what happened. Where are they?
                >
                >we know for certain that Au_Mark knew at least **some** Aramaic (Mark
                >5:41 etc.).
                >
                All the instances of an Aramaic phrase accompanied by its Greek
                translation in the Gospel of Mark may have been taken by Au_Mark from
                his documentary source material. On the Greek Notes Hypothesis, this is
                probably what happened. It seems to me that the occurrence of Aramaic
                expressions in Mark therefore does not imply that we know that Au_Mark
                knew any Aramaic.

                More generally, I would suggest that from the Gospel of Mark alone we
                know nothing of what Au_Mark knew, because Au-Mark does not tell us
                which wording he supplied as redaction, and which wording in his Gospel
                is tradition which he reproduced from his source material.

                Best wishes,
                BRIAN WILSON

                E-MAIL : brian@... HOMEPAGE
                SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
                10 York Close, Godmanchester, www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE18 8EB, UK
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.