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

[Synoptic-L] Luke's Anointing of Jesus

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Yuri Kuchinsky wrote -- ... Yuri, Even supposing that your analysis is valid, and that at least part of Luke s Anointing of Jesus was from an early and
    Message 1 of 12 , Aug 9, 2000
      Yuri Kuchinsky wrote --
      >
      >If it is accepted that Lk preserves --
      >the earliest canonical version of the Anointing
      >the earliest location of the Anointing episode in the story of Jesus
      >the earliest uninterpolated narrative sequence where (the source of) Mk
      >14:1-2 was originally joined to 14:10
      >then this will already be significant enough in and of itself.
      >
      Yuri,
      Even supposing that your analysis is valid, and that at least part
      of Luke's Anointing of Jesus was from an early and primitive source, why
      should not Luke have written his gospel after the other synoptists had
      written theirs? Luke may have used the earlier source precisely because
      he could see that Mark and Matthew had not done so.

      In fact this view is expounded in K. Paffenroth "The Story of Jesus
      according to L" (Sheffield, 1997). Paffenroth holds the Two Document
      Hypothesis. He considers that Luke used a source for his special
      material -- the source "L". This was early - "perhaps before 50 CE"
      (page 155). This source contained Luke's version of the Anointing (page
      160). Luke included the story in his gospel because he could see that
      neither Mark nor Matthew had used this more original and primitive
      version of the Anointing. For Paffenroth, therefore, the fact that the
      Anointing in Luke may be very early and primitive is totally consistent
      with Luke have written last, after Mark and Matthew.

      Best wishes,
      BRIAN WILSON

      E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk
      Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
      > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
      > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
      _
    • Yuri Kuchinsky
      ... Brian, The question of the relative dating of the final edition of Lk vs the final editions of Mk and Mt is less interesting to me than what was the source
      Message 2 of 12 , Aug 10, 2000
        ----------
        > From: Brian E. Wilson <brian@...>
        > To: Synoptic-L@...
        > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Luke's Anointing of Jesus
        > Date: Thursday, August 10, 2000 2:23 AM
        >
        > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote --
        > >
        > >If it is accepted that Lk preserves --
        > >the earliest canonical version of the Anointing
        > >the earliest location of the Anointing episode in the story of Jesus
        > >the earliest uninterpolated narrative sequence where (the source of) Mk
        > >14:1-2 was originally joined to 14:10
        > >then this will already be significant enough in and of itself.
        > >
        > Yuri,
        > Even supposing that your analysis is valid, and that at least part
        > of Luke's Anointing of Jesus was from an early and primitive source, why
        > should not Luke have written his gospel after the other synoptists had
        > written theirs?

        Brian,

        The question of the relative dating of the final edition of Lk vs the final
        editions of Mk and Mt is less interesting to me than what was the source of
        Lk, whether this source X was also the source of Mk and Mt, and whether
        this possibly common source was preserved better by Lk.

        > Luke may have used the earlier source precisely because
        > he could see that Mark and Matthew had not done so.
        >
        > In fact this view is expounded in K. Paffenroth "The Story of Jesus
        > according to L" (Sheffield, 1997). Paffenroth holds the Two Document
        > Hypothesis. He considers that Luke used a source for his special
        > material -- the source "L". This was early - "perhaps before 50 CE"
        > (page 155). This source contained Luke's version of the Anointing (page
        > 160). Luke included the story in his gospel because he could see that
        > neither Mark nor Matthew had used this more original and primitive
        > version of the Anointing. For Paffenroth, therefore, the fact that the
        > Anointing in Luke may be very early and primitive is totally consistent
        > with Luke have written last, after Mark and Matthew.

        But now the question seems to arise whether Paffenroth's theory can really
        be considered sensu stricto as a "Two Document Hypothesis". If he accepts
        that, in addition to Mk and Q (and which edition of Mk?), Lk also used a
        substantial very primitive non-sayings source (what I call source X), a
        source that had also been used by Mk previously, then it should rather be
        described as a "Three Document Hypothesis"?

        In any case, the nature and the extent of this mysterious hypothetical
        source X should be clarified further.

        Regards,

        Yuri.

        Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

        Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated

        The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
        equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
      • Yuri Kuchinsky
        ... be ... dependence? ... What later material would that be, Larry? As to early materials in Lk, here are some of the notable ones, besides the recently
        Message 3 of 12 , Aug 13, 2000
          ----------
          > From: L. J. Swain <x99swain@...>
          > To: yuku@...
          > Cc: Synoptic-L@...; Brian E. Wilson <brian@...>
          > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke's Anointing of Jesus
          > Date: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 5:02 PM
          >
          > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
          >
          > > Why a gospel that consistently preserves a lot of early material should
          be
          > > declared as "obviously later" by every major theory of synoptic
          dependence?
          > > This is a question that should be addressed. Perhaps the assumption of
          > > Lukan lateness needs to be re-examined.

          > Could it possibly be that it also preserves later material which helps
          > suggest a later terminus ad quem?

          What "later material" would that be, Larry?

          As to early materials in Lk, here are some of the notable ones, besides the
          recently analyzed Anointing scene,

          - The sayings materials of Lk are seen as more primitive than those of Mt
          by all 2ST adherents, which are the overwhelming majority of biblical
          scholars today.

          - There's substantial evidence that the passion narrative of Lk, starting
          with Lk 22, preserves a lot of primitive material and sequences better than
          Mk and Mt.

          - Lukan Great Omission. Many scholars believe this preserves the primitive
          sequence of Lk's source (which was probably also the source of Mk/Mt).
          Thus, the materials in Mk/Mt where the triple tradition becomes the double
          tradition after Lk 9:17 would have been inserted later.

          - Brian Wilson's "An example of Matthaean fatigue with respect to Luke: The
          Question of John the Baptist Mt 11.2-6 // Lk 7.18-23" can also be added
          here.

          Speaking about Brian's "Greek Notes Hypothesis", how would the Anointing in
          the four canonicals be explained under the GNH? Here's a nice test for
          Brian's hypothesis, so perhaps he would like to address this issue for us?

          > > My current thinking on this general subject is that I would date all 4
          > > gospels _in their present form_ rather later than most commentators.
          Also,
          > > I incline to the view that a common source X underlies all 4 canonicals
          > > (this source X may be described either as proto-Mk, or perhaps as
          > > proto-Lk). It may well be that _in its present form_ Lk is the oldest
          of
          > > the 4 canonicals, because, relatively speaking, it preserves the source
          X
          > > better than others.

          > And you have an explanation of the source "X" I presume, or simply taking
          > shots in the dark?--

          As I said, Spitta was the one who first proposed this theory.

          Friedrich Spitta, "Ein Lb. Jesu aus den drei ersten Evv. Dt. Übers. der
          synopt. Grundschr. in ihrer Überl. Durch das Lukasev."; Leipzig 1912.

          And speaking about "taking shots in the dark", considering how little
          consensus exists in the Synoptic field even about the most basic issues,
          just about everybody here may be taking shots in the dark.

          Yours,

          Yuri.

          Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

          Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated

          The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
          equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
        • Tim Reynolds
          ... On the auditory piracy model, Luke s attendance at the catechetical readings was interrupted for some reason -- because he had the flew or something ,
          Message 4 of 12 , Aug 13, 2000
            Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

            > - Lukan Great Omission. Many scholars believe this preserves the primitive
            > sequence of Lk's source (which was probably also the source of Mk/Mt).
            > Thus, the materials in Mk/Mt where the triple tradition becomes the double
            > tradition after Lk 9:17 would have been inserted later.

            On the "auditory piracy" model, Luke's attendance at the catechetical readings
            was interrupted for some reason -- "because he had the flew or something",
            Koester put it. The equivalent material in Mk would then represent a day's
            reading or a small multiple thereof, useful information.

            tim
          • Brian E. Wilson
            Yuri Kuchinsky wrote -- ... I set out in full in Greek (using Sgreek font) The Anointing at Bethany - Mk 14.3-9, and The Woman with the Ointment - Lk
            Message 5 of 12 , Aug 14, 2000
              Yuri Kuchinsky wrote --
              >
              >Speaking about Brian's "Greek Notes Hypothesis", how would the
              >Anointing in the four canonicals be explained under the GNH? Here's a
              >nice test for Brian's hypothesis, so perhaps he would like to address
              >this issue for us?
              >
              I set out in full in Greek (using Sgreek font) "The Anointing at
              Bethany" - Mk 14.3-9, and "The Woman with the Ointment" - Lk 7.36-47, in
              the hand-out of the talk I gave in Finland which can be accessed via my
              home-page at --

              http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk

              (and can hopefully be printed out on either American size paper or A4 !)

              According to the GNH, both "The Anointing at Bethany" - Mk 14.3-9
              (paralleled in Mt 26.6-13) and "The Woman with the Ointment" (Lk
              7.36-50) were in the Greek Notes. The two stories form one of the 24
              instances I observe of "story dualities". (4 of these are appended to
              the Finland talk, since they were discovered subsequent to the hand-outs
              being printed).

              A story duality may be defined as the occurrence in the synoptic gospels
              of two stories ("dua-stories") -- either narratives or parables -- such
              that (i) one story has at least ten Greek word roots the same and in the
              same order as the other story, and (ii) when these similar words (the
              overlap), together with the phrases in which they are set, are omitted
              from one story, this does not make more consistent sense than the story
              as a whole, but when the similar words with the phrases in which they
              are set are omitted from the other story, the remainder does make more
              consistent sense than the story as a whole. The more consistent story
              formed in the remainder in this way may be called the remainder story.
              In a story duality, therefore, one dua-story does not make more
              consistent sense when the overlap wording and surrounding phrases are
              omitted from it, but the other dua-story does make more consistent sense
              without the overlap wording and surrounding phrases. The two dua-stories
              may be in different synoptic gospels, or they may be in the same
              synoptic gospel. Either way, whether "horizontally" across the columns
              of a synopsis, or "vertically" within the column of the individual
              synoptic gospel, they form a story duality. The pattern is
              "bidirectional".

              The GNH explains the entire pattern of 47 stories forming 24 story
              dualities (one of the stories is used in two story dualities). In each
              case, the compiler of the Greek Notes took wording from a story he had
              already written out (the first dua-story), and used this wording to
              expand another story (in fact the remainder story) he wanted to use (so
              forming the second dua-story). On the GNH, it is because the second
              story was produced by interrupting what had been a coherent story with
              wording from a quite different story, that the second dua-story is not
              coherent.

              According to the GNH, in the "The Anointing at Bethany" - Mk 14.3-9
              (paralleled in Mt 26.6-13) and "The Woman with the Ointment" (Lk
              7.36-50), the wording in common and in the same order between these
              stories indicates the presence of wording from the Anointing at Bethany
              being used by the compiler of the Greek Notes to expand a story of a
              Woman with Ointment. The un-expanded version of this story is given in
              Greek in blue font on page 2 of the Finland talk, and in English in blue
              font on page 3. The ways in which the un-expanded version lacks the
              incoherence of the second dua-story as a whole are given in the talk in
              the left-hand column. It may be said briefly here that conflicts in the
              second dua-story between "love resulting in forgiveness" and
              "forgiveness resulting in love", and between "premeditated bringing of
              the ointment" and "apparently spontaneous tears", are not present in the
              remainder story, once the word-roots the same and in the same order and
              the phrase in which they are set are removed. That is, the remainder
              story is devoid of the conflicts present in the second dua-story as a
              whole.

              Mark (and Matthew) omitted "The Woman with the Ointment" but used "The
              Anointing at Bethany" from the Greek Notes, whereas Luke omitted the
              "Woman with Ointment" and used "The Anointing at Bethany" from the Greek
              Notes. Neither Mark nor Luke edited the wording of their material
              sufficiently to mask the way in which the two stories had come to form a
              story duality. Matthew, on the other hand, edited "The Anointing at
              Bethany" more heavily than Mark, with the consequence that the Matthean
              story does not form a story duality with the Lukan story.

              The GNH is a solution to the Synoptic Problem, and does not affirm a
              relationship between material in the synoptic gospels and the Gospel of
              John. The Anointing in John is not a test of the GNH, therefore, but is
              possibly a test of the Logia Translation Hypothesis (which is stated on
              my home-page). Suffice it to say here that I have found no indications
              that John has any of the repetitions of wording found in any of the 24
              story dualities in the synoptic gospels. For instance, although the
              feeding of the five thousand in Mark has wording the same and in the
              same order in the feeding of the four thousand in Mark, and forms a
              story duality in Mark, the repetition of the same word roots in the same
              order in the four thousand is not found in John, but only a story of the
              feeding of the five thousand. On this basis, it would seem probable that
              John used neither the Greek Notes nor any synoptic gospel, but either a
              translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic Logia into Greek (other than the Greek
              Notes) or that he used the Hebrew/Aramaic Logia themselves, doing his
              own translating into Greek as he went along. On this view, John read
              both the "Anointing in Bethany" and the original un-expanded version of
              "The Woman with the Ointment" in the Hebrew/Aramaic Logia, or a Greek
              translation other than the Greek Notes, and combined parts of these two
              stories, with snippets from other stories concerning Mary and Martha,
              and Lazarus, to form part of his eclectic narrative Jn 12.1-8.

              Best wishes,
              BRIAN WILSON

              E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

              Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
              > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
              > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
              _
            • Yuri Kuchinsky
              ... Brian, Please explain why did the author of your Greek Notes have two versions of this story in the GN. ... So are you saying that Lk version is based on
              Message 6 of 12 , Aug 16, 2000
                ----------
                > From: Brian E. Wilson <brian@...>
                > To: Synoptic-L@...
                > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Luke's Anointing of Jesus
                > Date: Monday, August 14, 2000 3:01 PM

                > According to the GNH, both "The Anointing at Bethany" - Mk 14.3-9
                > (paralleled in Mt 26.6-13) and "The Woman with the Ointment" (Lk
                > 7.36-50) were in the Greek Notes.

                Brian,

                Please explain why did the author of your Greek Notes have two versions of
                this story in the GN.

                ...

                > According to the GNH, in the "The Anointing at Bethany" - Mk 14.3-9
                > (paralleled in Mt 26.6-13) and "The Woman with the Ointment" (Lk
                > 7.36-50), the wording in common and in the same order between these
                > stories indicates the presence of wording from the Anointing at Bethany
                > being used by the compiler of the Greek Notes to expand a story of a
                > Woman with Ointment.

                So are you saying that Lk version is based on Mk's? What are your reasons
                for saying so?

                Regards,

                Yuri.

                Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated

                The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
              • Brian E. Wilson
                Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Yuri Kuchinsky wrote -- ... Yuri, They are not two versions of the same story. They are one story from the source material used by
                Message 7 of 12 , Aug 17, 2000
                  Brian Wilson wrote --
                  >
                  >According to the GNH, both "The Anointing at Bethany" - Mk 14.3-9
                  >(paralleled in Mt 26.6-13) and "The Woman with the Ointment" (Lk
                  >7.36-50) were in the Greek Notes.
                  >
                  Yuri Kuchinsky wrote --
                  >
                  >Please explain why did the author of your Greek Notes have two versions
                  >of this story in the GN.
                  >
                  Yuri,
                  They are not two versions of the same story. They are one story
                  from the source material used by the compiler of the Greek Notes, and a
                  second quite different story from the same source material which the
                  compiler chose to expand by using parts of the first story. They are a
                  "story duality" as defined in my last posting, and in my Finland talk
                  (on my homepage) entitled "Duality in the Synoptic Gospels".

                  The first story is "The Anointing at Bethany" - Mk 14.3-9, which Mark
                  took from the Greek Notes. Matthew independently took the same story
                  from the Greek Notes but edited the wording more heavily than Mark to
                  produce the parallel in Mt 26.6-13.

                  The second story was the following. It is set out in full in Greek in
                  the blue wording on page two of my Finland talk - "Duality in the
                  Synoptic Gospels" -- shown on my home-page. It also set out in English
                  in blue wording on the third page of the talk. I give the English
                  version here --

                  "And behold, (a woman) of the city who was a sinner when she learned
                  that he was at table in the Pharisee's house...standing behind him at
                  his feet, weeping, began to wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them
                  with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet...Now when the Pharisee
                  who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, 'If this man were a
                  prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is
                  touching him, for she is a sinner.' And Jesus answering said to him,
                  'Simon, I have something to say to you.' And he answered, 'What is it,
                  Teacher?'...And turning toward the woman he said to Simon, 'Do you see
                  this woman? I entered your house, you gave me no water for my feet, but
                  she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You
                  gave me no kiss, but from the time I cam in she has not ceased to kiss
                  my feet. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven,
                  for she loved much...And he said to her, 'Your sins are forgiven.' Then
                  those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, 'Who is
                  this, who even forgives sins?' And he said to the woman, 'Your faith has
                  saved you; go in peace.'"

                  Please notice that the second story has no mention of anointing, no
                  mention of alabaster flask, no mention of ointment, no mention of Jesus'
                  head, no mention of love being the result of having already been
                  forgiven, no mention of a sum of money of hundreds of denarii, and so
                  on. Please see the other details and further comments on pages 2 and 3
                  of the Finland talk entitled "Duality in the Synoptic Gospels".
                  >
                  >So are you saying that Lk's version is based on Mk's?
                  >
                  Your question could be taken to mean that the Gospel of Luke is a
                  documentary descendant of the Gospel of Mark. Basic to the understanding
                  of the Greek Notes Hypothesis is that no synoptic gospel is the
                  documentary descendant of any other synoptic gospel. From this
                  viewpoint, no part of Luke is based on any part of Mark. I think we need
                  to put the question in "neutral" terms -- terms which do not suggest
                  any particular documentary relationship between any synoptic gospels.
                  The question might be more appropriately phrased --

                  What is the origin of the similarities of wording between "The Anointing
                  at Bethany" (found in Mk 14.3-9) and "The Woman with the Ointment"
                  (found in Lk 7.36-50)?

                  The answer is given in the Finland talk (section C on page 10), in my
                  previous posting on this List, and above.

                  The basic principle of what I say above applies to all 24 story
                  dualities observed. The key idea is that the duality in these pairs of
                  stories is in each case the result of the compiler of the Greek Notes
                  deliberately re-using some wording from one story to expand another
                  story. The compiler of the Greek Notes was "repetitious". As I indicate
                  in Section D of the Finland talk, many other types of duality in the
                  synoptic gospels may also stem from the compiler of the Greek Notes
                  being a repetitious writer. For instance each of the thirty categories
                  of duality described and listed by Frans Neirynck in his "Duality in
                  Mark", (examples of these types of duality also being found in non-
                  Markan Matthew and non-Markan Luke but not investigated by Neirynck, as
                  far as I know), may be indications of a repetitive style of writing of
                  the compiler of the Greek Notes. One of these categories of duality
                  (number 30 in Neirynck's list) is "doublets". According to the Greek
                  Notes Hypothesis, many of the doublets in the synoptic gospels are also
                  the result of the repetitiousness of the compiler of the Greek Notes.

                  Best wishes,
                  E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

                  Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                  > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                  > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                  _
                • Yuri Kuchinsky
                  Brian, From your August 17 reply (http://www.egroups.com/message/synoptic-l/4627) it seems like you re offering the following hypothesis in 6 parts to explain
                  Message 8 of 12 , Aug 21, 2000
                    Brian,

                    From your August 17 reply (http://www.egroups.com/message/synoptic-l/4627)
                    it seems like you're offering the following hypothesis in 6 parts to
                    explain the anointing stories in the Synoptics.

                    1. There was a story in the source material used by the compiler of the
                    Greek Notes.
                    2. There was another story in the source material used by the compiler of
                    the Greek Notes.
                    3. The compiler expanded the second story by using parts of the first
                    story.
                    4. The second story was the following:

                    "And behold, (a woman) of the city who was a sinner when she learned
                    that he was at table in the Pharisee's house...standing behind him at
                    his feet, weeping, began to wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them
                    with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet...Now when the Pharisee
                    who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, 'If this man were a
                    prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is
                    touching him, for she is a sinner.' And Jesus answering said to him,
                    'Simon, I have something to say to you.' And he answered, 'What is it,
                    Teacher?'...And turning toward the woman he said to Simon, 'Do you see
                    this woman? I entered your house, you gave me no water for my feet, but
                    she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You
                    gave me no kiss, but from the time I cam in she has not ceased to kiss
                    my feet. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven,
                    for she loved much...And he said to her, 'Your sins are forgiven.' Then
                    those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, 'Who is
                    this, who even forgives sins?' And he said to the woman, 'Your faith has
                    saved you; go in peace.'"

                    5. The first GN story became "The Anointing at Bethany" - Mk 14.3-9.
                    6. The second GN story, presumably after its rather mysterious expansion,
                    became "The Anointing in Lk 7".

                    But the problem is that so far you've offered here not a scintilla of
                    support for the first 4 parts of your hypothesis, which indeed seem
                    extremely cumbersome.

                    Your referrals to your webpage are not really a valid argument. I asked
                    you some simple questions, and I expected a simple explanation.

                    Surely, you do not expect everybody just to accept your theory without
                    proof. It doesn't seem so very economical, to say the least, and neither
                    is it so self-evident that the scholarly community can be expected to
                    accept it by acclamation.

                    Now, to make my position clear, I actually do accept that the authors of
                    both
                    Mk and Lk used a common documentary source. But the way in which I see
                    this common source is very different indeed from they way you see it. In
                    my view, this source was a relatively short and uncomplicated
                    Jewish-Christian gospel, and it contained the Anointing in the shape very
                    close to the way we now see it in Lk. And the Markan version would have
                    been produced much later.

                    So, in my view, your theory tends to raise many more questions than it
                    actually purports to answer.

                    Regards,

                    Yuri.

                    Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                    Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated

                    The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                    equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                  • Brian E. Wilson
                    Brian Wilson wrote (17 Aug) -- ... Yuri Kuchinsky replied -- ... Yuri, My August 17 reply made it very clear that the hypothesis I was offering was the Greek
                    Message 9 of 12 , Aug 22, 2000
                      Brian Wilson wrote (17 Aug) --
                      >
                      >What is the origin of the similarities of wording between "The
                      >Anointing at Bethany" (found in Mk 14.3-9) and "The Woman with the
                      >Ointment" (found in Lk 7.36-50)? The answer is given in the Finland
                      >talk (section C on page 10), in my previous posting on this List, and
                      >above. The basic principle of what I say above applies to all 24 story
                      >dualities observed. The key idea is that the duality in these pairs of
                      >stories is in each case the result of the compiler of the Greek Notes
                      >deliberately re-using some wording from one story to expand another
                      >story. The compiler of the Greek Notes was "repetitious".
                      >
                      Yuri Kuchinsky replied --
                      >
                      >From your August 17 reply it seems like you're offering the following
                      >hypothesis in 6 parts to explain the anointing stories in the
                      >Synoptics.
                      >1. There was a story in the source material used by the compiler of the
                      >Greek Notes.
                      >2. There was another story in the source material used by the compiler
                      >of the Greek Notes.
                      >3. The compiler expanded the second story by using parts of the first
                      >story.
                      >4. The second story was the following:
                      >"And behold, (a woman) of the city ... [snip] ... go in peace."
                      >5. The first GN story became "The Anointing at Bethany" - Mk 14.3-9.
                      >6. The second GN story, presumably after its rather mysterious
                      >expansion, became "The Anointing in Lk 7".
                      >
                      Yuri,
                      My August 17 reply made it very clear that the hypothesis I was
                      offering was the Greek Notes Hypothesis, as shown above. This hypothesis
                      is a solution to the Synoptic Problem. It can be applied to the synoptic
                      gospels. What you have reproduced above is my application of the Greek
                      Notes Hypothesis to one story duality which is only one of 24 instances
                      of this observed synoptic phenomenon. The Greek Notes Hypothesis applies
                      in a similar way to all 24 observed instances.

                      The evidence for the Greek Notes Hypothesis includes all the observed
                      instances of synoptic parallelism (for example the similarities and
                      differences between the synoptic gospels in the triple tradition), all
                      the observed instances of synoptic bi-directionality (for example the
                      occurrence of story dualities, and of doublets) and all the observed
                      instances of synoptic format (for example the occurrence of cipher
                      numbers in the papyri of the synoptic gospels in Greek).

                      The problem with your writing on this topic is that it seems not to
                      refer to any solution to the Synoptic Problem. I have yet to understand
                      that you have any clear solution to the Synoptic Problem to offer.

                      There is an infinite number of ways of explaining the similarities and
                      differences between the "Anointing at Bethany" in Mk 14.3-9 and "Luke's
                      Anointing of Jesus" in Lk 7.36-50. Such theories are easy to produce.
                      The harder job is to find just one synoptic hypothesis of the
                      relationship between the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which is
                      consistent with all observed synoptic phenomena (including the
                      similarities and differences between the "Anointing at Bethany" and
                      "Luke's Anointing of Jesus"), and so solve the Synoptic Problem.

                      Best wishes,
                      BRIAN WILSON

                      E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

                      Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                      > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                      > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                      _
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.