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

Re: [Synoptic-L] arguments for Q not having been lost

Expand Messages
  • Zeba Crook
    Whether or not Mr. Jackson is completely accurate in the scenario he draws here, Rev. Wilson s conclusion that since (some of) Paul s letters survived, and
    Message 1 of 24 , Nov 8, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Whether or not Mr. Jackson is completely accurate in the scenario he draws
      here, Rev. Wilson's conclusion that since (some of) Paul's letters survived,
      and since Q must have been more important than Paul's letters, therefore Q
      cannot have existed in the first place is a logical non sequitur. Even if we
      grant the premise that Q would have been more important (see below), there is
      still no *logical* reason to conclude that if Q did not survive, it cannot have
      existed.

      But on this idea that Q would have been much more important than Paul's
      letter: by what standard and to whom would Paul's letters have been more or
      less important? The more logical reasoning would appear to work like this:
      1) Paul's own churches would have been just as likely to preserve his letters
      as those in a Palestinian/Galilean setting would have been to preserve the
      gospels.
      2) We have some *but not all* of Paul's letters, despite the authority and
      respect they held among his churches. Likewise, we should not be surprised to
      find that we have some *but not all* of the early Christian gospels.

      There might be reasons to doubt that Q existed, but that it no longer exists is
      not one of them.

      Zeb

      --
      Zeba Antonin Crook, PhD (Cand)
      University of St. Michael's College
      81 St. Mary Street
      Toronto, Ontario
      M4Y 1R5


      Jeffrey Glen Jackson wrote:

      > > Here, then, is another argument that it is improbable that Q existed. If
      > > Q existed, it is much less likely to have been lost than any of the
      > > letters of Paul. Yet some letters of Paul have survived. It is therefore
      > > improbable that Q was lost. Since we do not have Q, it follows that it
      > > is improbable that Q ever existed.
      >
      > First, it is likely only a fraction of Paul's letters have survived, and
      > some of
      > those survivals may themselves be composites. Second, Luke himself states:
      >
      > Lk 1:1 Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things
      > that have been fulfilled among us, 1:2 like the accounts passed on to
      > us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from
      > the beginning. [www.netbible.com]
      >
      > None of those other accounts have survived because they, unlike Paul's
      > letters,
      > were supplanted and subsumed by Lk and Mt, Mk being the only exception
      > and that just barely. Unless you want to argue that Luke's reference in
      > 1:1-2
      > is fictional, we have multiple counter examples to your Pauline analogy,
      > rendering it most unconvincing.





      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Brian E. Wilson
      Jack Kilmon wrote -- ... I was writing about the Greek document Q posited by the Two Document Hypothesis. If that hypothesis is true, then Q must have
      Message 2 of 24 , Nov 9, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Jack Kilmon wrote --
        >
        >Q would have begun as an Aramaic document written and maintained by the
        >Nazarene/Ebionite community as heirs of the original group that
        >surrounded Jesus...a group later to be determined, ironically, as
        >"heretics" by Hellenistic Christians. Their writings, like the Gospel
        >of the Hebrews/Nazarenes would not have survived the bonfires of the
        >Hellenistic "stewards" of the early Hellenistic church.
        >

        I was writing about the Greek document Q posited by the Two Document
        Hypothesis. If that hypothesis is true, then Q must have survived the
        early Hellenistic bonfires in order to be used by both Matthew (written
        around 75? CE according to many advocates of the 2DH) and by Luke
        (written around 85? CE according to the same advocates).

        My argument was to show that it is improbable that such a Greek Q ever
        existed. The argument is a kind of "reductio ad absurdum". It is as
        follows --

        (1) From a synopsis it is clear that the synoptic gospels agree more
        closely in the wording of the teaching of Jesus than in the wording of
        narrative material concerning him. It seems that the teaching ascribed
        to Jesus was held in especially high regard, therefore.

        (2) Assuming for the sake of argument that Q existed, it follows that Q
        consisted almost entirely of teaching ascribed to Jesus, as advocates of
        the Two Document Hypothesis would agree.

        (3) Only a minority of the material in each synoptic gospel is teaching
        ascribed to Jesus.

        (4) Therefore, if we assume (for the sake of the argument that follows)
        that Q existed, Q would have been held in even higher regard than the
        synoptic gospels.

        (5) It follows that if Q existed, it is less probable that Q would have
        been lost than that the synoptic gospels would have been lost.

        (6) But the synoptic gospels have not been lost.

        (7) Therefore it is improbable that Q was lost.

        (8) But we do not have Q.

        (9) So if it is improbable that Q was lost, and if Q has not survived,
        it is improbable that Q was ever written.

        This argument does not prove that Q never existed. I would suggest,
        however, that it does show that it is improbable that Q ever existed.

        The main thrust of the argument is to try and show that if Q existed
        then it is improbable that it was lost. From this it follows that since
        we do not have Q, if Q probably was not lost, then Q probably never
        existed.

        There may be other arguments showing that if Q existed then it is
        improbable that it was lost, and therefore improbable that it existed.

        Can anyone think of any?

        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".
        _

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Wieland Willker
        ... I think that there must be some significant difference between Mk and Q, because Mk (the other source of Mt and Lk) made it into the canon, but not Q. Why
        Message 3 of 24 , Nov 9, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          > There may be other arguments showing that if Q existed then it is
          > improbable that it was lost, and therefore improbable that it existed.

          I think that there must be some significant difference between Mk and Q, because Mk (the
          other source of Mt and Lk) made it into the canon, but not Q. Why not? It seems that
          content (sayings) is not the factor, eventually authority?

          Best wishes
          Wieland
          <><
          ------------------------
          Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
          mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
          http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/





          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Brian E. Wilson
          Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Wieland Willker replied -- ... The fact that Q is not in the canon could be the result either of Q having existed and having been
          Message 4 of 24 , Nov 9, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Brian Wilson wrote --
            >
            >There may be other arguments showing that if Q existed then it is
            >improbable that it was lost, and therefore improbable that it existed.
            >
            Wieland Willker replied --
            >
            >I think that there must be some significant difference between Mk and
            >Q, because Mk (the other source of Mt and Lk) made it into the canon,
            >but not Q. Why not?
            >

            The fact that Q is not in the canon could be the result either of Q
            having existed and having been lost, or of Q never having existed and
            not having been lost.

            So Q not being in the canon is no argument for or against Q having
            existed.

            Either Q was lost, or Q was not lost. If Q was lost, it must have
            existed before it was lost. If Q was not lost, it did not exist, for
            otherwise we would have Q now, whereas in fact we do not have Q now.

            I have put forward one argument showing that it is improbable that Q was
            lost. I was hoping you would think of another argument to show that is
            improbable that Q was lost. For if it is improbable that Q was lost, it
            is improbable that it ever existed, since it has not survived.

            Can anyone think of any argument to show it is improbable that Q was
            lost?

            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".
            _

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Jeffrey Glen Jackson
            ... I think the usual dates put Mt and Lk in the other order. You raise a good point although I would put a different spin on it, namely that Mt and Lk were
            Message 5 of 24 , Nov 9, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              > Hypothesis. If that hypothesis is true, then Q must have survived the
              > early Hellenistic bonfires in order to be used by both Matthew (written
              > around 75? CE according to many advocates of the 2DH) and by Luke
              > (written around 85? CE according to the same advocates).

              I think the usual dates put Mt and Lk in the other order. You raise a good
              point although I would put a different spin on it, namely that Mt and Lk
              were written much earlier. Personally, I think they were written in the
              early to mid 60's AD. I think it would not be surprising for a pre-70 AD
              document to be lost, especially if contained in full (or nearly so) in two
              other gospels that rapidly gained popularity. Of course the question then
              arises of why Mark survived. It nearly didn't. I'm one of those who would
              argue that Mark originally had a different ending after Mk 16:8, one
              probably preserved at least in part in Mt. 28:9-10 (the sequence being the
              young man tells them to go tell the disciples that Jesus has been raised and
              will meet with them in Galilee, the woman are too frightened to do so, Jesus
              appears to them and repeats the request, they do so). The loss of the
              ending would suggest that Mk survived the pre-70 AD era in only a single
              damaged manuscript. Q was not so lucky (nor was Special Matthew or any of
              the written sources that Luke mentions).

              ><> Jeffrey Glen Jackson, son of Albert, son of George, son of <><
              ><> Henry, son of Miles, son of Randolph, son of Ephraim, son of <><
              ><> Thomas, son of John, son of Thomas, .... sonne of Jack. <><
              mailto:jeff@... http://www.jeff-jackson.com
              Satan jeered, "You're dead meat Jesus, I'm gonna bust you up tonight."
              Jesus said, "Go ahead, make my day." -- Carman, "The Champion"




              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • David Gentile
              Here s a very speculative thought that occurred to me. In John, Jesus raises the boy. (And possibly related to the widow at Nain story in Luke) In Mark the boy
              Message 6 of 24 , Nov 9, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                Here's a very speculative thought that occurred to me.
                In John, Jesus raises the boy. (And possibly related to the widow at Nain
                story in Luke)
                In Mark the boy runs when Jesus is arrested, and then is at the tomb.
                Secret Mark has Jesus tell the boy a secret.
                In has been speculated that cannon Mark is a redaction of secret Mark.
                So I wonder what other role the boy may have had in secret Mark if this is
                correct.
                I notice that the women run scared from the tomb after seeing just a boy.
                Why is he scary?
                They enter the tomb and see the boy sitting on the right.
                On the right of what?
                My very speculative thought here is, could secret Mark have had the boy
                raise Jesus, using a secret Jesus had taught him?
                No real evidence, just a thought.

                --------------------------------------------
                Dave Gentile
                Riverside, Illinois
                Tel: 847-286-3624

                GentDave@...
                DGENTIL@...

                --------------------------------------------
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Jeffrey Glen Jackson <jeff@...>
                To: <Synoptic-L@...>
                Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 6:51 PM
                Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] arguments for Q not having been lost


                > > Hypothesis. If that hypothesis is true, then Q must have survived the
                > > early Hellenistic bonfires in order to be used by both Matthew (written
                > > around 75? CE according to many advocates of the 2DH) and by Luke
                > > (written around 85? CE according to the same advocates).
                >
                > I think the usual dates put Mt and Lk in the other order. You raise a
                good
                > point although I would put a different spin on it, namely that Mt and Lk
                > were written much earlier. Personally, I think they were written in the
                > early to mid 60's AD. I think it would not be surprising for a pre-70 AD
                > document to be lost, especially if contained in full (or nearly so) in two
                > other gospels that rapidly gained popularity. Of course the question then
                > arises of why Mark survived. It nearly didn't. I'm one of those who
                would
                > argue that Mark originally had a different ending after Mk 16:8, one
                > probably preserved at least in part in Mt. 28:9-10 (the sequence being the
                > young man tells them to go tell the disciples that Jesus has been raised
                and
                > will meet with them in Galilee, the woman are too frightened to do so,
                Jesus
                > appears to them and repeats the request, they do so). The loss of the
                > ending would suggest that Mk survived the pre-70 AD era in only a single
                > damaged manuscript. Q was not so lucky (nor was Special Matthew or any of
                > the written sources that Luke mentions).
                >
                > ><> Jeffrey Glen Jackson, son of Albert, son of George, son of <><
                > ><> Henry, son of Miles, son of Randolph, son of Ephraim, son of <><
                > ><> Thomas, son of John, son of Thomas, .... sonne of Jack. <><
                > mailto:jeff@... http://www.jeff-jackson.com
                > Satan jeered, "You're dead meat Jesus, I'm gonna bust you up tonight."
                > Jesus said, "Go ahead, make my day." -- Carman, "The Champion"
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                >


                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                ... What is so important about pre-70 AD in the loss of Q? Supposedly, Q circulated outside of Judea and thus would not be so affected by the destruction of
                Message 7 of 24 , Nov 9, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 07:51 PM 11/9/00 -0500, Jeffrey Glen Jackson wrote:
                  >Personally, I think they were written in the
                  >early to mid 60's AD. I think it would not be surprising for a pre-70 AD
                  >document to be lost, especially if contained in full (or nearly so) in two
                  >other gospels that rapidly gained popularity.

                  What is so important about "pre-70 AD" in the loss of Q? Supposedly,
                  Q circulated outside of Judea and thus would not be so affected by the
                  destruction of Jerusalem in that year.

                  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

                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Wieland Willker
                  ... Although I don t believe this for a second I must say that this is one of the most creative ideas I have heard recently. Very good. Congratulations! (clap,
                  Message 8 of 24 , Nov 10, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > My very speculative thought here is, could secret Mark have had the boy
                    > raise Jesus, using a secret Jesus had taught him?
                    > No real evidence, just a thought.

                    Although I don't believe this for a second I must say that this is one of the most
                    creative ideas I have heard recently. Very good.

                    Congratulations! (clap, clap...)

                    Best wishes
                    Wieland
                    <><
                    ---------------
                    Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                    mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
                    http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie




                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • RSBrenchley@aol.com
                    Dave Gentile writes:
                    Message 9 of 24 , Nov 10, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dave Gentile writes:
                      <<In Mark the boy runs when Jesus is arrested, and then is at the tomb.
                      Secret Mark has Jesus tell the boy a secret.
                      In has been speculated that cannon Mark is a redaction of secret Mark.
                      So I wonder what other role the boy may have had in secret Mark if this is
                      correct.
                      I notice that the women run scared from the tomb after seeing just a boy.
                      Why is he scary?
                      They enter the tomb and see the boy sitting on the right.
                      On the right of what?
                      My very speculative thought here is, could secret Mark have had the boy
                      raise Jesus, using a secret Jesus had taught him?>>

                      I'm a long way from being convinced that the neaniskos sitting in the tomb in
                      16 is the same as the one in 14:51. The latter sounds like the sort of thing
                      that could go back to an original eyewitness (it's hard to see anyone
                      inventing a detail like that) while the figure in 16:5-7 sounds like an angel.

                      Regards,

                      Robert Brenchley

                      RSBrenchley@...

                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Brian E. Wilson
                      Jeffrey Jackson wrote -- ... The letters of Paul were all pre-70 AD since Paul himself was pre-70 AD. They were spread far and wide and at least some have
                      Message 10 of 24 , Nov 10, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Jeffrey Jackson wrote --
                        >
                        >I think it would not be surprising for a pre-70 AD document to be lost
                        >
                        The letters of Paul were all pre-70 AD since Paul himself was pre-70 AD.
                        They were spread far and wide and at least some have survived. Paul
                        himself knew Jesus tradition and considered it of great importance. If Q
                        existed, it would surely have been considered far more important than
                        Paul's letters, and would have been spread far and wide also. Yet we do
                        not have Q.

                        Here, then, is another argument that it is improbable that Q existed. If
                        Q existed, it is much less likely to have been lost than any of the
                        letters of Paul. Yet some letters of Paul have survived. It is therefore
                        improbable that Q was lost. Since we do not have Q, it follows that it
                        is improbable that Q ever existed.

                        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".
                        _

                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • Ron Price
                        ... Wieland, I think the Three Source Hypothesis has the most rational explanation of this, as of most other synoptic problems. (1) The sayings source was
                        Message 11 of 24 , Nov 10, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Wieland Willker wrote:

                          >I think that there must be some significant difference between Mk and Q,
                          >because Mk (the
                          >other source of Mt and Lk) made it into the canon, but not Q. Why not?

                          Wieland,
                          I think the Three Source Hypothesis has the most rational explanation
                          of this, as of most other synoptic problems.
                          (1) The sayings source was produced in Jerusalem, so after the Fall of
                          Jerusalem in 70 CE there was no community to support it. The very
                          opposite is the case with Mark, published originally in the capital city
                          of the Roman Empire.
                          (2) The sayings source was written in Aramaic and never translated into
                          Greek (as can reasonably be deduced from Papias), whereas the gospels
                          were all written in Greek. As the centuries passed and Christianity
                          spread, an ever smaller proportion of Christians were familiar with, or
                          interested in, Aramaic.

                          Ron Price

                          Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                          e-mail: ron.price@...

                          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm


                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        • Jeffrey Glen Jackson
                          ... First, it is likely only a fraction of Paul s letters have survived, and some of those survivals may themselves be composites. Second, Luke himself
                          Message 12 of 24 , Nov 10, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > Here, then, is another argument that it is improbable that Q existed. If
                            > Q existed, it is much less likely to have been lost than any of the
                            > letters of Paul. Yet some letters of Paul have survived. It is therefore
                            > improbable that Q was lost. Since we do not have Q, it follows that it
                            > is improbable that Q ever existed.

                            First, it is likely only a fraction of Paul's letters have survived, and
                            some of
                            those survivals may themselves be composites. Second, Luke himself states:

                            Lk 1:1 Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things
                            that have been fulfilled among us, 1:2 like the accounts passed on to
                            us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from
                            the beginning. [www.netbible.com]

                            None of those other accounts have survived because they, unlike Paul's
                            letters,
                            were supplanted and subsumed by Lk and Mt, Mk being the only exception
                            and that just barely. Unless you want to argue that Luke's reference in
                            1:1-2
                            is fictional, we have multiple counter examples to your Pauline analogy,
                            rendering it most unconvincing.


                            ><> Jeffrey Glen Jackson, son of Albert, son of George, son of <><
                            ><> Henry, son of Miles, son of Randolph, son of Ephraim, son of <><
                            ><> Thomas, son of John, son of Thomas, .... sonne of Jack. <><
                            mailto:jeff@... http://www.jeff-jackson.com
                            Satan jeered, "You're dead meat Jesus, I'm gonna bust you up tonight."
                            Jesus said, "Go ahead, make my day." -- Carman, "The Champion"



                            >

                            >
                            > 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".
                            > _
                            >
                            > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...


                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          • Jack Kilmon
                            ... From: To: Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 1:03 AM Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] arguments for Q not having been
                            Message 13 of 24 , Nov 10, 2000
                            • 0 Attachment
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: <RSBrenchley@...>
                              To: <synoptic-l@...>
                              Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 1:03 AM
                              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] arguments for Q not having been lost


                              > Dave Gentile writes:
                              > <<In Mark the boy runs when Jesus is arrested, and then is at the tomb.
                              > Secret Mark has Jesus tell the boy a secret.
                              > In has been speculated that cannon Mark is a redaction of secret Mark.
                              > So I wonder what other role the boy may have had in secret Mark if this is
                              > correct.
                              > I notice that the women run scared from the tomb after seeing just a boy.
                              > Why is he scary?
                              > They enter the tomb and see the boy sitting on the right.
                              > On the right of what?
                              > My very speculative thought here is, could secret Mark have had the boy
                              > raise Jesus, using a secret Jesus had taught him?>>
                              >
                              > I'm a long way from being convinced that the neaniskos sitting in the tomb
                              in
                              > 16 is the same as the one in 14:51. The latter sounds like the sort of
                              thing
                              > that could go back to an original eyewitness (it's hard to see anyone
                              > inventing a detail like that) while the figure in 16:5-7 sounds like an
                              angel.

                              The figure in 16 becomes an angel in Matthew's redaction of Mark some
                              15-20 years later. I would think that Mark, with his stylistic "brackets"
                              would have used angel in this pericope to bracket the angels ministering
                              to the novitiate Christ in 1:13 if indeed he meant it to refer to an angel.

                              I don't think it is far-fetched to speculate on who this white-robed young
                              man might be...fun anyway. Weren't Essenes clothed in white?

                              Jack

                              -----
                              ______________________________________________

                              taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

                              Jack Kilmon
                              North Hollywood, Ca.
                              jkilmon@...

                              http://www.historian.net

                              sharing a meal for free.
                              http://www.thehungersite.com/




                              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                            • Brian E. Wilson
                              Ron Price wrote -- ... This seems to imply that the sayings material in the double tradition in Greek in Mt and Lk is the result of Matthew and Luke
                              Message 14 of 24 , Nov 10, 2000
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Ron Price wrote --
                                >
                                > The sayings source was written in Aramaic and never translated into
                                >Greek (as can reasonably be deduced from Papias), whereas the gospels
                                >were all written in Greek.
                                >
                                This seems to imply that the sayings material in the double tradition in
                                Greek in Mt and Lk is the result of Matthew and Luke independently
                                translating the same Aramaic source. I would suggest that the
                                similarities of wording between the double tradition sayings material in
                                Greek in Mt and the parallels in Lk are far too close to be the
                                consequence of two independent translations from Aramaic.

                                Independent translators do not produce similarities of wording which are
                                as strong as those found between, for instance, Mt 7.3-5 and Lk 6.41-42,
                                or Mt 12.41-45 and Lk 11.32-31, 24-26. Here the Greek wording in Matthew
                                is virtually word-for-word the same as the wording in Luke. In such
                                passages as these, either Greek Mt used Greek Lk, or Greek Lk used Greek
                                Mt, or Greek Mt and Greek Lk had a common Greek ancestor.

                                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".
                                _

                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                              • Maluflen@aol.com
                                In a message dated 11/10/2000 11:33:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, jkilmon@historian.net writes:
                                Message 15 of 24 , Nov 10, 2000
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  In a message dated 11/10/2000 11:33:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                                  jkilmon@... writes:

                                  << The figure in 16 becomes an angel in Matthew's redaction of Mark some
                                  15-20 years later. >>

                                  Or vice versa, of course, if the relationship between the gospels is
                                  reversed. Luke speaks of "two men", who are thereafter referred to as
                                  "angels" in 24:23, which shows that while calling them "men" in 24:4, Luke
                                  was fully aware that they were understood from the tradition (as found in
                                  Matt) to have been "angels". The same would be true of the young man in Mark.
                                  But it is still important to ask the question why Mark refers to the angel as
                                  a "young man" in white. This is not insignificant (and probably constitutes a
                                  baptismal allusion) even though the figure is undoubtedly understood by
                                  Mark's reader to be a literary variant of the "angel at the tomb" of the
                                  tradition.

                                  << I would think that Mark, with his stylistic "brackets"
                                  would have used angel in this pericope to bracket the angels ministering
                                  to the novitiate Christ in 1:13 if indeed he meant it to refer to an angel.>>

                                  Doesn't necessarily follow, as long as he can make yardage out of the "young
                                  man" messenger of the resurrection. Of course such a literary bracket is at
                                  play in Matt, where we have not heard of the "angel of the Lord" (28:2) since
                                  Matt 2.

                                  How life and death in thee agree
                                  Thou hast a virgin womb and tomb
                                  A Joseph did betroth them both

                                  Who wants to write a second verse?

                                  << I don't think it is far-fetched to speculate on who this white-robed young
                                  man might be...fun anyway. Weren't Essenes clothed in white?>>

                                  It is never far-fetched to speculate, but some speculations are far-fetched.

                                  Leonard Maluf

                                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                • Brian E. Wilson
                                  Jack Kilmon wrote -- ... My argument depends on at least one of Paul s letters NOT having been lost. This thread is about documents NOT having been lost (as in
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Nov 10, 2000
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Jack Kilmon wrote --

                                    >But Brian, the epistolography we do have of Paul's is not complete and
                                    >some of them are not Paul's. Where are 3 and 4 Corinthians,
                                    >Laodiceans? Are 7 genuinely Pauline letters the sum total of his
                                    >correspondence over 30 years? The likelihood is that there are more
                                    >Pauline letters lost than extant.
                                    >
                                    My argument depends on at least one of Paul's letters NOT having been
                                    lost. This thread is about documents NOT having been lost (as in the
                                    title of the thread). Even if 99 per cent of Paul's letters were lost,
                                    if one was NOT lost (for instance the letter to the Romans or I
                                    Corinthians), then that is all my argument requires.
                                    >
                                    >Paul was totally unconcerned with the teachings or sayings of the
                                    >biographical/historical Jesus.
                                    >
                                    Paul uses and alludes to Jesus tradition also found in the synoptic
                                    gospels. See for instance David L. Dungan, "The Sayings of Jesus in the
                                    Churches of Paul" (Oxford, 1971). Paul was concerned to use Jesus
                                    tradition to back up his teaching, for instance on divorce, or whether
                                    an unmarried Christian woman should remain unmarried, or whether
                                    Christian teachers/preachers should accept payment for their ministry.
                                    But in any case, others valued Jesus tradition besides Paul, and the
                                    position of Paul on this is not crucial to the argument I put forward.

                                    Do you have an argument of your own to show that it is improbable that Q
                                    was lost? I would be very interested to hear of it, if so.

                                    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".
                                    _

                                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                  • Brian E. Wilson
                                    Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Zeba Crook replied -- ... As can be seen from what I wrote (repeated above), my argument did not aim to make the unscholarly
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Nov 10, 2000
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Brian Wilson wrote --
                                      >
                                      >Here, then, is another argument that it is improbable that Q existed.
                                      >If Q existed, it is much less likely to have been lost than any of the
                                      >letters of Paul. Yet some letters of Paul have survived. It is
                                      >therefore improbable that Q was lost. Since we do not have Q, it
                                      >follows that it is improbable that Q ever existed.
                                      >
                                      Zeba Crook replied --
                                      >
                                      >Rev Wilson's conclusion that since (some of) Paul's letters survived,
                                      >and since Q must have been more important than Paul's letters,
                                      >therefore Q cannot have existed in the first place is a logical non
                                      >sequitur. Even if we grant the premise that Q would have been more
                                      >important (see below), there is still no *logical* reason to conclude
                                      >that if Q did not survive, it cannot have existed.
                                      >

                                      As can be seen from what I wrote (repeated above), my argument did not
                                      aim to make the unscholarly conclusion that Q could not have existed,
                                      and it does not in fact draw this conclusion.

                                      In the first posting on this topic I wrote --
                                      >
                                      >This argument does not prove that Q never existed. I would suggest,
                                      >however, that it does show that it is improbable that Q ever existed.
                                      >
                                      My aim has consistently been to show not that Q could not have existed,
                                      but that it is improbable that Q existed.

                                      Zeba continued --
                                      >
                                      >There might be reasons to doubt that Q existed, but that it no longer
                                      >exists is not one of them.
                                      >

                                      Since Q no longer exists, either it never existed or it has been lost.
                                      Therefore, since Q no longer exists, if it has not been lost it never
                                      existed. That Q no longer exists therefore most certainly is a reason to
                                      doubt that Q ever existed *if also* Q was not lost.

                                      That is why the title of this thread is "arguments for Q not having been
                                      lost". Any argument that probably Q has not been lost is an argument
                                      that probably Q never existed (since otherwise we would have Q now,
                                      whereas in fact we do not have Q).

                                      In particular, if it is more probable that Q would not have been lost
                                      than that any letter of Paul would not have been lost, then it is
                                      probable that Q was not lost, and therefore improbable that Q ever
                                      existed (since we do not have Q now).

                                      I would be very interested to know whether anyone has any argument that
                                      it is improbable that Q was lost.

                                      Anyone?

                                      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".
                                      _

                                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                    • Jack Kilmon
                                      ... From: Brian E. Wilson To: Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 8:47 AM Subject: [Synoptic-L] arguments for Q
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Nov 10, 2000
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: "Brian E. Wilson" <brian@...>
                                        To: <Synoptic-L@...>
                                        Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 8:47 AM
                                        Subject: [Synoptic-L] arguments for Q not having been lost


                                        > Ron Price wrote --
                                        > >
                                        > > The sayings source was written in Aramaic and never translated into
                                        > >Greek (as can reasonably be deduced from Papias), whereas the gospels
                                        > >were all written in Greek.
                                        > >
                                        > This seems to imply that the sayings material in the double tradition in
                                        > Greek in Mt and Lk is the result of Matthew and Luke independently
                                        > translating the same Aramaic source. I would suggest that the
                                        > similarities of wording between the double tradition sayings material in
                                        > Greek in Mt and the parallels in Lk are far too close to be the
                                        > consequence of two independent translations from Aramaic.
                                        >
                                        > Independent translators do not produce similarities of wording which are
                                        > as strong as those found between, for instance, Mt 7.3-5 and Lk 6.41-42,
                                        > or Mt 12.41-45 and Lk 11.32-31, 24-26. Here the Greek wording in Matthew
                                        > is virtually word-for-word the same as the wording in Luke. In such
                                        > passages as these, either Greek Mt used Greek Lk, or Greek Lk used Greek
                                        > Mt, or Greek Mt and Greek Lk had a common Greek ancestor.

                                        Actually, I believe that Greek Matthew used a Greek translation of
                                        an Anthologia Aramaica and that Luke, competent in Aramaic, used
                                        the Semitic document and translated himself.

                                        Jack

                                        Jack Kilmon
                                        N. Hollywood, Ca.


                                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                      • Jeffrey Glen Jackson
                                        I m not sure how independent such translations would really be. Most of the people, esp. the Gentiles in the Diaspora churches would not have been Aramaic
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Nov 10, 2000
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I'm not sure how independent such translations would really be. Most
                                          of the people, esp. the Gentiles in the Diaspora churches would not have
                                          been Aramaic speakers. I could easily see there being an oral tradition
                                          of the Greek translations of the sayings with the Aramaic document being
                                          a normative control. Sort of a Greek Targum of an Aramaic Q.

                                          That could be another factor why Mark survived whereas Q and the
                                          other documents mentioned by Luke didn't. Perhaps they were largely
                                          Aramaic. This would further invalidate the analogy with Paul's letters.

                                          ><> Jeffrey Glen Jackson, son of Albert, son of George, son of <><
                                          ><> Henry, son of Miles, son of Randolph, son of Ephraim, son of <><
                                          ><> Thomas, son of John, son of Thomas, .... sonne of Jack. <><
                                          mailto:jeff@... http://www.jeff-jackson.com
                                          Satan jeered, "You're dead meat Jesus, I'm gonna bust you up tonight."
                                          Jesus said, "Go ahead, make my day." -- Carman, "The Champion"


                                          > I would suggest that the
                                          > similarities of wording between the double tradition sayings material in
                                          > Greek in Mt and the parallels in Lk are far too close to be the
                                          > consequence of two independent translations from Aramaic.
                                          >
                                          > Independent translators do not produce similarities of wording which are
                                          > as strong as those found between, for instance, Mt 7.3-5 and Lk 6.41-42,
                                          > or Mt 12.41-45 and Lk 11.32-31, 24-26. Here the Greek wording in Matthew
                                          > is virtually word-for-word the same as the wording in Luke.

                                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                        • Brian E. Wilson
                                          Jack Kilmon wrote -- ... I am not sure I understand exactly what you mean here. Please tell me otherwise if I misunderstand, but it seems to me you are saying
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Nov 10, 2000
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Jack Kilmon wrote --
                                            >
                                            >I believe that Greek Matthew used a Greek translation of an Anthologia
                                            >Aramaica and that Luke, competent in Aramaic, used the Semitic document
                                            >and translated himself.
                                            >
                                            I am not sure I understand exactly what you mean here. Please tell me
                                            otherwise if I misunderstand, but it seems to me you are saying --

                                            (1) Mt did not use Lk
                                            (2) Lk did not use Mt
                                            (3) Lk used an Anthologia Aramaica, translating into Greek for himself
                                            as he went along
                                            (4) Mt used a separate translation of the Anthologia Aramaica into
                                            Greek, this translation not being used by Lk.

                                            If so, then how do you account for the virtually word-for-word agreement
                                            in Greek between Matthew and Luke in parallels such as Mt 7.3-5 and Lk
                                            6.41-42, or Mt 12.41-45 and Lk 11.32-31, 24-26, and other similar close
                                            parallels in the double tradition?

                                            Surely independent translators do not produce virtually verbatim
                                            agreement in wording for whole passages of material like these? The
                                            agreements in Greek wording are much too close for this to have
                                            happened.

                                            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".
                                            _

                                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                          • RSBrenchley@aol.com
                                            Tim Reynolds writes:
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Nov 11, 2000
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Tim Reynolds writes:

                                              << It's hard to avoid considering the identification of the neaniskos of
                                              14.51 with
                                              the neaniskos of the first Secret Mark unit, each in his sindon.
                                              >>
                                              This is undeniable. Secret Mark could be a conflation of this with the
                                              raising of Lazarus, or alternatively the canonical version could be a
                                              contraction of Secret Mark. I make no pretence to expertise, and wouldn't
                                              like to hazard a guess as to which is more likely.

                                              Regards,

                                              Robert Brenchley

                                              RSBrenchley@...

                                              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                            • Jack Kilmon
                                              ... From: Brian E. Wilson To: Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 11:32 PM Subject: [Synoptic-L] arguments for
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Nov 11, 2000
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                ----- Original Message -----
                                                From: "Brian E. Wilson" <brian@...>
                                                To: <Synoptic-L@...>
                                                Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 11:32 PM
                                                Subject: [Synoptic-L] arguments for Q not having been lost


                                                > Jack Kilmon wrote --
                                                > >
                                                > >I believe that Greek Matthew used a Greek translation of an Anthologia
                                                > >Aramaica and that Luke, competent in Aramaic, used the Semitic document
                                                > >and translated himself.
                                                > >
                                                > I am not sure I understand exactly what you mean here. Please tell me
                                                > otherwise if I misunderstand, but it seems to me you are saying --
                                                >
                                                > (1) Mt did not use Lk
                                                > (2) Lk did not use Mt
                                                > (3) Lk used an Anthologia Aramaica, translating into Greek for himself
                                                > as he went along
                                                > (4) Mt used a separate translation of the Anthologia Aramaica into
                                                > Greek, this translation not being used by Lk.
                                                >
                                                > If so, then how do you account for the virtually word-for-word agreement
                                                > in Greek between Matthew and Luke in parallels such as Mt 7.3-5 and Lk
                                                > 6.41-42, or Mt 12.41-45 and Lk 11.32-31, 24-26, and other similar close
                                                > parallels in the double tradition?
                                                >
                                                > Surely independent translators do not produce virtually verbatim
                                                > agreement in wording for whole passages of material like these? The
                                                > agreements in Greek wording are much too close for this to have
                                                > happened.

                                                The Synoptic "problem" will always be such because of agreements that
                                                appear to stand in the way of each of the various hypotheses. but as I
                                                compare the two I do not see a
                                                verbatim agreement so precise that suggests one copied the other. In fact I
                                                see the Greek/Aramaic
                                                translational "tote/edayin" in the Matthean version and a syntactic variance
                                                between the two.

                                                Mt.7:3 ti de blepeis to karfos to en tw ofqalmw tou adelfou sou thn de en
                                                tw sw ofqalmw dokon ou katanoeis. 4. h pws ereis tw adelfw sou afes
                                                ekbalw
                                                Lk 6:41 ti de blepeis to karfos to en tw ofqalmw tou adelfou sou thn de
                                                dokon thn en tw idiw ofqalmw ou katanoeis. 42 h pws dunasai legein tw
                                                adelfw sou adelfe

                                                Mt to karfos apo tou ofqalmou sou kai idou h dokos en tw
                                                ofqalmou sou 5. kai tote diableyeis ekbalein to karfos ek tou ofqalmou sou
                                                Lk afes ekbalw to karfos to en tw ofqalmw sou awtos thn en tw
                                                ofqalmw sou dokon ou blepwn........

                                                GoT 26 is independent of Matthew and Luke yet if I were to translate the
                                                Coptic to Greek (which would probably be a retroversion), it
                                                would still begin ti de blepeis to karfos to en tw ofqalmw tou adelfou sou
                                                in the syntactically simpler beginning of the pericope.

                                                I could not find this text, other than a few words of Lk 6:41 in P45, in the
                                                earliest witnesses to Matthew and Luke although I think there is some
                                                variation
                                                in D and the later Uncials. My point is that some of the "agreements" we
                                                see may be the result of post-authorship harmonizations by copyists. My
                                                position is, as you say:

                                                >(1) Mt did not use Lk
                                                ...I don't find Lukan Aramaisms in Matthew and no "L" material

                                                > (2) Lk did not use Mt
                                                ...because Luke predates Matthew. Luke copyists, however, may have used
                                                Matthew in certain pericopes

                                                > (3) Lk used an Anthologia Aramaica, translating into Greek for himself
                                                > as he went along
                                                ...and in some cases, clarifying Aramaic idiom where Matthew did not, like
                                                the OFEILETAIS/xwbyn idiom in the LP.

                                                > (4) Mt used a separate translation of the Anthologia Aramaica into
                                                > Greek, this translation not being used by Lk.
                                                ...because I do not believe the Matthean author was competent in
                                                Aramaic...or Hebrew.

                                                But, of course, none of us *really* want to solve the "synoptic problem"
                                                because it would leave us nothing to talk about and
                                                Mark Goodacre would be transferred to the Athletic Department (do they play
                                                basketball at U Bham?).

                                                Jack

                                                Jack Kilmon
                                                North Hollywood, Ca.




                                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.