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

[Synoptic-L] the shape, wording, and extent of the GN

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... Brian, It would seem to me, given the above, that you MUST have some definite idea of what was in (at least a portion of) the Greek notes. For the
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 8, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      "Brian E. Wilson" wrote:

      > Ron Price wrote -
      > >
      > >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.
      >

      Brian,

      It would seem to me, given the above, that you MUST have some definite idea
      of what was in (at least a portion of) the Greek notes. For the assertion
      that all the instances in Mark of Aramaic phrases accompanied by Greek
      translations are reproductions by Mark of his source implies that you know
      what this source looked like and what it contained. Indeed, so do all your
      claims about what is or is not redactional in the evangelists. Otherwise,
      how can you make such claims?

      So I call once again for you to state definitely what was and what was not
      in the GN, or at least what the section of it that Mark here was only
      copying looked like..

      Yours,

      Jeffrey
      --
      Jeffrey B. Gibson
      7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
      Chicago, Illinois 60626
      e-mail jgibson000@...
    • Brian E. Wilson
      Jeffrey Gibson wrote - ... Jeffrey, The Greek Notes Hypothesis posits that a rather repetitious writer wrote out a set of Greek Notes of Jesus tradition,
      Message 2 of 2 , Dec 10, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Jeffrey Gibson wrote -
        >
        >I call once again for you to state definitely what was and what was
        >not in the GN
        >
        Jeffrey,
        The Greek Notes Hypothesis posits that a rather repetitious
        writer wrote out a set of Greek Notes of Jesus tradition, sometimes re-
        using part of one story he had already recorded to make more effective
        another story. The pieces of Jesus tradition could be described as
        "notes" or "short reports", the collection as a whole not possessing a
        clear outline. Each synoptist independently used the Greek Notes,
        editing the material he selected, to try and produce a book which could
        be read as a continuous account of Jesus - a gospel. On this view, the
        synoptic gospels are therefore three separate edited selections of
        material from the same set of notes in Greek.

        Assuming the GNH to be true and applying it to the synoptic gospels, it
        can be inferred that, roughly, the GN contained -

        (1) the contents of Mark in their order in Mark,
        (2) all non-Markan Luke mostly in its order in Luke and in its Lukan
        positions (relative to the triple tradition pericopes in the same order
        in all three synoptic gospels),
        (3) all special Matthew some of this being in its positions in Matthew
        (relative to the triple tradition pericopes in the same order in all
        three synoptic gospels), but the rest having various possible locations,
        (4) some material which is irrecoverable to us (since coincidentally it
        was omitted independently by all three synoptists).

        Note please that "roughly" is a crucial word above. There are minor
        exceptions. For instance, where (exceptionally) Matthew and Luke agree
        against Mark in the arrangement of triple tradition pericopes, the
        arrangement in Matthew and Luke, not in Mark, is taken to be the
        arrangement in the GN.

        Note also please that the above description of the contents of the GN is
        not part of the GNH. It is the result of assuming the GNH to be true and
        applying it to the contents of the synoptic gospels.

        Please bear in mind too that, according to the GNH, the GN was not a
        book but a set of notes for teaching Jesus tradition.

        On 20 September 1999 in reply to a posting from yourself, Jeffrey, I
        gave a tentative reconstruction of the contents (not the wording) of the
        Greek Notes as far as just after the earlier Sermon (mostly retained
        within the Sermon in Matthew). I append this tentative reconstruction
        here -

        "..............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........................"

        Hope this helps.

        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.