Ken Olson wrote --
>By setting such a narrow definition of story duality at the beginning
>of your paper, don't you skew the results a bit? Your paper considers
>only those cases of borrowing that match your narrow definition. You
>don't examine the larger number of cases of borrowing that fall short
>of meeting your definition.
The paper had to be given in about twenty minutes, so the arguments were
restricted in scope. In fact there are instances of pairs of stories in
one synoptic gospel which "fall short" of forming a dua-story but which
are parallel to a corresponding pair in another synoptic gospel. For
instance, the 5,000 and the 4,000 do not form a story duality in
Matthew, but they do in Mark. On my hypothesis Matthew has edited more
radically the wording of the source material also used by Mark who
edited its wording only slightly.
There are other instances of this kind. For instance the Baptism of
Jesus and the Transfiguration form a story duality in Matthew whereas
the parallels in Luke do not. Again, the Entry into Jerusalem and the
Preparation for the Passover form a story duality in Luke but do not do
so in the parallel stories in Matthew. These "cases of borrowing that
fall short of meeting [my] definition" in fact are evidence in support
of my hypothesis. For these instances point to one synoptist having
retained sufficient of the wording of a story duality from the Greek
Notes to produce a story duality in his gospel, but the other having
edited the wording significantly so that his edited versions of the same
stories do not form a story duality in his gospel.
Of course, every instance of a doublet is something which falls short of
being a story duality. If we define "doublet" objectively, it is
possible to pick out doublets which are unique to a synoptic gospel. It
is then possible to compare the order of the earlier (in position in the
gospel concerned) components of these doublets unique to a synoptic
gospel with the relative order of the corresponding later components. In
the case of each synoptic gospel, the relative orders are significantly
similar. This is another synoptic bidirectional phenomenon which can be
shown to be a difficulty for the 2DH, GH and FH, but to be no difficulty
for the GNH. There are other synoptic bidirectional phenomena also.
>I have taken another look at the story of Josiah's death in 2
>Chronicles 35.20-27 and I think it does match your definition of a
>story duality, other than the fact it's not in the synoptic gospels.
I will take another look myself.
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@...