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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Arguments for my hypothesis

Expand Messages
  • dgentil@sears.com
    Hyeon Woo Shin, Thank you again, Here are some more comments. On #2 - Mk = Lk/Mt would be by far the more common result on my hypothesis. Matthew and Luke as
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 4, 2000
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hyeon Woo Shin,

      Thank you again,
      Here are some more comments.
      On #2 -
      Mk => Lk/Mt would be by far the more common result on my hypothesis.
      Matthew and Luke as final documents are both later than final Mark.
      In fact, final Matthew directly uses final Mark. However, some, have
      commented that in a few cases Lk/Mt seems to preserve the original better.

      Also, if Mk => Lk/Mt is the far more common of the two. (As I believe is
      true).
      Then on a hypothesis with only a proto-Mark, since Mark represents the
      original,
      most agreements must be due to Lk, and Mt both making identical changes a
      large
      number of times. This agreement of redaction, is more simply explained by a
      single
      redactor, than by two redactors with the same style.

      On the question of a non-Greek Gos-A:
      I hold the non-Greek aspect as tentative.
      If it were non-Greek, however, here is how Mark and Luke could agree:
      If they are both using the first translation (Gos-B), they would agree.
      They would agree against Matthew here, if final Matthew made redactions.

      They could also agree if they both Mark and Luke did not like the
      translation in Gos-B
      and went back to Gos-A for a more literal translation. Two literal
      translators, it seems
      would often come up with the same words. If they did not come up with the
      same
      Greek words, we would probably see 3 different wordings in all 3 documents,
      that all say
      about the same thing. (Or just possibly Luke by himself against Mark/Mt)
      This certainly happens too. So, I think Mark-Luke agreement
      is consistent with a non-Greek Gos-A.

      On John: I think you misunderstood me here. I hold the John is independent
      of the synoptics.
      I think that John and the synoptics have a common ancestor in oral
      tradition.
      John may have also received some late redaction, but that was not part of
      what my point
      was about. I was saying that an independent John, would be more like Gos-A,
      than it was like
      any other document in my hypothesis.

      If John was dependant, - in that case it neither helps nor hurts my
      hypothesis.

      On Thomas: I find the evidence for the independence of Thomas rather
      convincing.
      Stephen Patterson's "The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus" was convincing for me.
      Also, he used a 2SH, and I noted that with a more complex hypothesis, some
      of his arguments
      could also be enhanced. Thus my theory and Thomas independence, seem to be
      mutually reinforcing.

      There is also the possibility that parts are dependent, and parts
      independent. So let's look just at Thomas 44.

      On the assumption that Thomas used the synoptics, we would need to suppose
      that Thomas
      used at least 2 of the 3 here, plus added his own redaction, just to make
      this one short sentence. That
      sort of word by word conflation, is unlikely. A common Q/Mark/Thomas source
      is more likely here.
      (This was in my post a few days back)
      I don't have Patterson's book available at the moment, or I'd get his
      comments here.

      On Mark doublet statistics:
      I'll make a separate post.
      Thank you very much for the data, it's very useful.
      Does Tuckett name the passages?
      I'm particularly curious about how many times Luke/Mark have the same
      order.

      Thanks again,

      Dave Gentile
    • Hyeon Woo Shin
      Dave Gentile, Thank you for your kind response. Here I have my comments and answers: 1. Deutero-Mk needs to be supposed only when there are significant minor
      Message 2 of 5 , Oct 4, 2000
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Dave Gentile,

        Thank you for your kind response.

        Here I have my comments and answers:

        1. Deutero-Mk needs to be supposed only when there are "significant"
        minor agreements which cannot be explained by the common style of Mt and
        Lk.

        2. Now you have revised your hypothesis "Gos-A + proto-Matt. => Luke"
        into "Gos-A + Gos-B + proto-Matt. => Luke" to explain the literal
        agreements between Mk and Lk. (Thus, this hypothesis is almost the same
        as "Mk + Q => Lk"!) This hypothesis cannot be rejected a apriori, but I
        prefer Lk's direct use of Mk because Lk sometimes uses typically Marcan
        expression which is dissimilar to his own style (ex. kai elegen autois
        in Lk 6:5).

        3. Tuckett, of course, provides the passages in his book (The Revival of
        the GH, p.194). For the list of dual expressions in Mk, see F. Neirynck,
        Duality in Mark, Leuven, 1988. If duality is Mk's style as F. Neirynck
        shows, your first hypothesis (Gos-A + Gos-B => Mk) would not be needed.

        4. You wrote: "I'm particularly curious about how many times Luke/Mark
        have the same order." According to C. M. Tuckett, among 80 pericopes in
        Mk, only 4 percopes are dissimilar to Lk in order and only 6 pericopes
        are dissimilar to Mt in order (C.M. Tuckett, 'Arguments from Order,' in
        Synoptic Studies, ed. C.M. Tuckett, JSNTSup 7, 1984, p.204).

        Thanks a lot!

        Hyeon Woo Shin

        (Tomorrow I'll go to Germany, but I'll be back soon next week.)

        --
        Wamelplein 192
        1106 DT Amsterdam

        shin0000@...
        http://my.dreamwiz.com/qhj99
      • dgentil@sears.com
        Hyeon Woo Shin, On #1 minor agreements - I think we could go back and forth for awhile. The total number of them seems significant . And again a common
        Message 3 of 5 , Oct 4, 2000
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Hyeon Woo Shin,

          On #1 minor agreements - I think we could go back and forth for awhile.
          The total number of them seems "significant".
          And again a common style, seems to imply a single author.
          That a common style produced these agreements seems much less likely than a
          single author that both copied.
          This would seem to be a commonly argued point however, that we are unlikely
          to resolve at this moment.
          So, perhaps I can point to the other points of support for my hypothesis,
          to augment my case here.
          Also, I still need to post the analysis of the statistics you sent.

          On #2 you wrote:
          ===========
          2. Now you have revised your hypothesis "Gos-A + proto-Matt. => Luke"
          into "Gos-A + Gos-B + proto-Matt. => Luke" to explain the literal
          agreements between Mk and Lk. (Thus, this hypothesis is almost the same
          as "Mk + Q => Lk"!) This hypothesis cannot be rejected a apriori, but I
          prefer Lk's direct use of Mk because Lk sometimes uses typically Marcan
          expression which is dissimilar to his own style (ex. kai elegen autois
          in Lk 6:5).
          ==========

          What I meant was that Luke could have the text of Gos-B through proto-Matt,
          and Mark could have it directly.
          Thus Mark and Luke would agree. Proto-Mt is mostly an expansion of Gos-B,
          with a few minor redactions.
          So I am still maintaining Gos-A + Proto-Mt => Luke. I don't think Luke had
          Gos-B directly.

          Luke 6:5 would need to be explained 1 of 2 ways:
          1) Mark and Luke both take this from Gos-A.
          2) Gos-B has this, but Matthew redacts it away.
          Now since kai => de for the most part in proto-Mt, we have to speculate
          that on possibility #2
          proto-Mt, simply missed this particular kai. (It seems somebody missed it,
          on almost any hypothesis)
          On possibility #1- if Gos-A was non-Greek, we could speculate that Luke has
          no specific preference for de, he just normally
          has it, because that's what his proto-Mt source has. If Gos-A is Greek,
          then of course Gos-A had kai.

          #3 - thanks again for the info - analysis of the statistics still to
          follow.

          On #4 - I'm familiar with the overall order changes. What I was expressing
          interest in was this:
          I'm wondering if in the cases where Matthew has one half, and Luke and Mark
          have both halves,
          does Luke transpose the order of the doubles often.

          Thanks again,
          Dave Gentile
        • rguzmanr@puc.cl
          Message 4 of 5 , Oct 4, 2000
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            dgentil@... writes:

            >
            > Hyeon Woo Shin,
            >
            > On #1 minor agreements - I think we could go back and forth for awhile.
            > The total number of them seems "significant".
            > And again a common style, seems to imply a single author.
            > That a common style produced these agreements seems much less likely than a
            > single author that both copied.
            > This would seem to be a commonly argued point however, that we are unlikely
            > to resolve at this moment.
            > So, perhaps I can point to the other points of support for my hypothesis,
            > to augment my case here.
            > Also, I still need to post the analysis of the statistics you sent.
            >
            > On #2 you wrote:
            > ===========
            > 2. Now you have revised your hypothesis "Gos-A + proto-Matt. => Luke"
            > into "Gos-A + Gos-B + proto-Matt. => Luke" to explain the literal
            > agreements between Mk and Lk. (Thus, this hypothesis is almost the same
            > as "Mk + Q => Lk"!) This hypothesis cannot be rejected a apriori, but I
            > prefer Lk's direct use of Mk because Lk sometimes uses typically Marcan
            > expression which is dissimilar to his own style (ex. kai elegen autois
            > in Lk 6:5).
            > ==========
            >
            > What I meant was that Luke could have the text of Gos-B through proto-Matt,
            > and Mark could have it directly.
            > Thus Mark and Luke would agree. Proto-Mt is mostly an expansion of Gos-B,
            > with a few minor redactions.
            > So I am still maintaining Gos-A + Proto-Mt => Luke. I don't think Luke had
            > Gos-B directly.
            >
            > Luke 6:5 would need to be explained 1 of 2 ways:
            > 1) Mark and Luke both take this from Gos-A.
            > 2) Gos-B has this, but Matthew redacts it away.
            > Now since kai => de for the most part in proto-Mt, we have to speculate
            > that on possibility #2
            > proto-Mt, simply missed this particular kai. (It seems somebody missed it,
            > on almost any hypothesis)
            > On possibility #1- if Gos-A was non-Greek, we could speculate that Luke has
            > no specific preference for de, he just normally
            > has it, because that's what his proto-Mt source has. If Gos-A is Greek,
            > then of course Gos-A had kai.
            >
            > #3 - thanks again for the info - analysis of the statistics still to
            > follow.
            >
            > On #4 - I'm familiar with the overall order changes. What I was expressing
            > interest in was this:
            > I'm wondering if in the cases where Matthew has one half, and Luke and Mark
            > have both halves,
            > does Luke transpose the order of the doubles often.
            >
            > Thanks again,
            > Dave Gentile
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.