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

[Synoptic-L] Incontrovertible evidence?

Expand Messages
  • John Lupia
    I fail to see how my posting in Synoptic-L archive Number 6425 is appropriately addressed in Ted Weeden s response in archive number 6433. You are begging the
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 6, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I fail to see how my posting in Synoptic-L archive Number 6425 is
      appropriately addressed in Ted Weeden's response in archive number 6433.
      You are begging the question since you have been directly asked to kindly
      show what it is you claim to be incontrovertible evidence of Matthean and
      Lucan dependence on Mark by two list members. In each case you have
      attempted, though highly unsuccessfully, to turn the tables around on both
      of us. Apparently at least two of us do not honestly see this
      incontrovertible proof in your very lengthy argument. I will ask you once
      again the same questions posed in Synoptic-L archive Number 6425, but
      pellucidly so there is no misunderstanding. First, could you be so kind as
      to clarify what incontrovertible proof you claim for Marcan priority or
      Matthean and Lucan dependence on Mark? Second, could you be so kind as to
      explain how 1000 minor agreements between Matthew and Mark that
      incontrovertibly demonstrate they were written when no Marcan Gospel existed
      have another explanation consistent with your incontrovertible evidence for
      Marcan priority.

      Cordially in Christ,
      John
      <><


      John N. Lupia
      501 North Avenue B-1
      Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
      JLupia2@...
      <>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><>
      "during this important time, as the eve of the new millennium approaches . .
      . unity among all Christians of the various confessions will increase until
      they reach full communion." John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 16





      _______________________________________________________
      Send a cool gift with your E-Card
      http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/



      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Mark Goodacre
      ... I am curious to know what it is about the Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark that for you calls Marcan Priority into question. I am
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 6, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        On 6 Jul 2001, at 0:36, John Lupia wrote (corrected version):

        > Second, could you be so kind as to explain
        > how 1000 minor agreements between Matthew and Luke that
        > incontrovertibly demonstrate they were written when no Marcan Gospel
        > existed have another explanation consistent with your incontrovertible
        > evidence for Marcan priority.

        I am curious to know what it is about the Minor Agreements
        between Matthew and Luke against Mark that for you calls Marcan
        Priority into question. I am aware that adherents of the Griesbach
        hypothesis take this view, but as I understand their position on the
        Minor Agreements, it is directed against the Two-Source Theory
        and its key assumption that Matthew and Luke redacted Mark
        independently of one another. Is that the way you are using the
        argument? If so, how would you react to someone like Michael
        Goulder who would strongly maintain Marcan Priority but who also
        believes that the Minor Agreements call into question the
        independence of Matthew and Luke?

        Thanks
        Mark
        -----------------------------
        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
        Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
        University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
        Birmingham B15 2TT
        United Kingdom

        http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
        Homepage
        http://NTGateway.com
        The New Testament Gateway

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Ted Weeden
        ... as ... existed ... for ... John, My answer here will probably not satisfy you. To answer your question, I would have to examine each of the 1000 minor
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 7, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          John Lupia, Friday, July 06, 2001:

          > I fail to see how my posting in Synoptic-L archive Number 6425 is
          > appropriately addressed in Ted Weeden's response in archive number 6433.
          > You are begging the question since you have been directly asked to kindly
          > show what it is you claim to be incontrovertible evidence of Matthean and
          > Lucan dependence on Mark by two list members. In each case you have
          > attempted, though highly unsuccessfully, to turn the tables around on both
          > of us. Apparently at least two of us do not honestly see this
          > incontrovertible proof in your very lengthy argument. I will ask you once
          > again the same questions posed in Synoptic-L archive Number 6425, but
          > pellucidly so there is no misunderstanding. First, could you be so kind
          as
          > to clarify what incontrovertible proof you claim for Marcan priority or
          > Matthean and Lucan dependence on Mark? Second, could you be so kind as to
          > explain how 1000 minor agreements between Matthew and Mark that
          > incontrovertibly demonstrate they were written when no Marcan Gospel
          existed
          > have another explanation consistent with your incontrovertible evidence
          for
          > Marcan priority.

          John,

          My answer here will probably not satisfy you. To answer your question, I
          would have to examine each of the 1000 minor agreements of Matthew and Luke
          against Mark. That I just do not have the time to do so at this point. I
          think many of these MA have been accounte by others as stylistic or as a
          result, for those who hold to Lukan dependency on Mark and Matthew, of Luke
          choosing to follow Matthew rather than Mark at certain points. I am not
          yet persuaded by the latter. My essay was intended to move from the realm
          of linquistic to the realm of characterization, specifically with respect to
          the portrayal of the disciples in each of the Synoptics. My analysis of
          those respective portrayals leads me to the compelling conclusion that
          Matthew and Luke sought at almost every point to correct Mark's debasing and
          defrocking of the disciples and to restore them to their apostolic status.
          I may have been overzealous in choosing to use the word "incontroverible" to
          indicate my judgment with respect to this. I think the evidence,
          nevertheless, is inescapably compelling for drawing the conclusion I have
          drawn with respect to my analysis of the portrayal of the disciples. In
          this regard and with respect to minor agreements, one of the 1000 MA--- the
          Matthean and Lukan agreement that the women left the empty-tomb to deliver
          the mesage to the disciples as mandated, contrary to Mark's ending --- can
          be accounted for as an ecclesiological correction of Mark's denigration of
          the disciples. That is a start on the 1000.

          My primary interest, however, is not to stake out a position on the issues
          of Synoptic priority or necessarily dependency, though I do hold to Markan
          priority and Matthean and Lukan dependence on Mark. My interest is
          understanding the Gospel of Mark. Synoptic priority and interrelationships
          of the canonical Gospels are important in contributing to how one finally
          interprets Mark. However, with respect to the various portrayals of the
          disciples, if either Matthew or Luke (as you contend) were shown to be prior
          to Mark and that Mark was dependent upon both or either one of them, then my
          case for Mark's systematic vendetta against the disciples would have a
          compelling boost. If such were the case, then the fact that, for example,
          Mark fails to provide the disciples a resurrection appearance, as do Matthew
          and Luke, as well as ends his Gospel with sealed lips of silence (as I have
          just noted) rather than evangelistic proclamation and missional mandate,
          would leave the inescapable conclusion, in my judgment, that Mark" purpose
          in his profiling of the disciples was to intentionally "defrock" the
          "Twelve."

          Yours,

          Ted





          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Steve Black
          ... It is interesting to note that Nierynck himself does not think the MA s a fatal flaw in Markan Priority, which he defends at several places! -- Peace Steve
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 7, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            >Ted reponding to John...
            >
            >My answer here will probably not satisfy you. To answer your question, I
            >would have to examine each of the 1000 minor agreements of Matthew and Luke
            >against Mark. That I just do not have the time to do so at this point. I
            >think many of these MA have been accounte by others as stylistic or as a
            >result, for those who hold to Lukan dependency on Mark and Matthew, of Luke
            >choosing to follow Matthew rather than Mark at certain points.

            It is interesting to note that Nierynck himself does not think the
            MA's a fatal flaw in Markan Priority, which he defends at several
            places!
            --
            Peace

            Steve Black
            Vancouver, BC


            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Mark Goodacre
            ... Indeed. It should be added that the Minor Agreements do not pose any problems for the theory of Marcan Priority per se; what they (allegedly) call into
            Message 5 of 8 , Jul 7, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              On 7 Jul 2001, at 9:49, Steve Black wrote:

              > >Ted reponding to John...
              > >
              > >My answer here will probably not satisfy you. To answer your
              > >question, I would have to examine each of the 1000 minor agreements
              > >of Matthew and Luke against Mark. That I just do not have the time
              > >to do so at this point. I think many of these MA have been accounte
              > >by others as stylistic or as a result, for those who hold to Lukan
              > >dependency on Mark and Matthew, of Luke choosing to follow Matthew
              > >rather than Mark at certain points.
              >
              > It is interesting to note that Neirynck himself does not think the
              > MA's a fatal flaw in Markan Priority, which he defends at several
              > places!

              Indeed. It should be added that the Minor Agreements do not pose
              any problems for the theory of Marcan Priority per se; what they
              (allegedly) call into question is Matthew and Luke's *independent*
              use of Mark. Thus Zeba Cook rightly talks, following Kloppenborg
              Verbin, about the MAs in relationship to the *2DH*.

              Proponents of the Griesbach Hypothesis allege that the Minor
              Agreements emerge from places where Mark makes minor
              amendments to the agreed witness of his sources Matthew and
              Luke. Thus, if I understand this theory correctly, the Minor
              Agreements have an essentially *primitive* character -- they are
              places where Mark leaves in tact the combined witness of his
              sources in triple tradition material. This contrasts with the 2DH,
              Farrer & Deutero-Marcus, on all of which the Minor Agreements
              have an essentially *secondary* character -- they are places where
              Matthew and Luke (or Deutero-Marcus) alter the wording of their
              more primitive source. This is one reason why my gut feeling is
              against the Griesbachian explanation of the Minor Agreements --
              even the more trivial ones (KAI vs. DE, aorist vs. historic present,
              "after three days" vs. "on the third day") look to me more likely to
              be secondary than primitive. But, as I say, it's only a gut reaction --
              it might be that there is a good explanation for this.

              Finally, a note on numbers. The "1000" figure is not, as far as I am
              aware, one that Neirynck himself uses. Goulder on one occasion
              talks about 750, on another of 1000. The most liberal count is
              Richard Vinson's of 2,354, _The Significance of the Minor
              Agreements as An Argument Against the Two-Document
              Hypothesis_ (Duke University PhD thesis, 1984), p. 420, n.5.

              Mark
              -----------------------------
              Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
              Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
              University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
              Birmingham B15 2TT
              United Kingdom

              http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
              Homepage
              http://NTGateway.com
              The New Testament Gateway

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Stephen C. Carlson
              ... As Sanders & Davies point out, those scholars who posit a Deutero- Mark are impressed by the primitiveness of MAs, preferring to attribute them to a
              Message 6 of 8 , Jul 8, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                At 12:17 AM 7/8/01 +0100, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                >Proponents of the Griesbach Hypothesis allege that the Minor
                >Agreements emerge from places where Mark makes minor
                >amendments to the agreed witness of his sources Matthew and
                >Luke. Thus, if I understand this theory correctly, the Minor
                >Agreements have an essentially *primitive* character -- they are
                >places where Mark leaves in tact the combined witness of his
                >sources in triple tradition material. This contrasts with the 2DH,
                >Farrer & Deutero-Marcus, on all of which the Minor Agreements
                >have an essentially *secondary* character -- they are places where
                >Matthew and Luke (or Deutero-Marcus) alter the wording of their
                >more primitive source. This is one reason why my gut feeling is
                >against the Griesbachian explanation of the Minor Agreements --
                >even the more trivial ones (KAI vs. DE, aorist vs. historic present,
                >"after three days" vs. "on the third day") look to me more likely to
                >be secondary than primitive. But, as I say, it's only a gut reaction --
                > it might be that there is a good explanation for this.

                As Sanders & Davies point out, those scholars who posit a Deutero-
                Mark are impressed by the primitiveness of MAs, preferring to
                attribute them to a recension of Mark rather than Matthew and
                Luke independent creation. On the other hand, there are those
                who posit a Proto-Mark, arguing from the primitiveness of (some
                of) the MAs. Koester springs to mind, but I don't think he
                views the primitiveness as sufficient for his proto-Mark idea,
                which really cannot stand apart from Secret Mark. Thus, it
                seems that there probably is plenty in the MAs to see whatever
                one wants to see.

                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@...
              • Mark Goodacre
                ... I suppose they are more primitive than Matthew / Luke for adherents of Deutero-Marcus, but in common with both the 2ST & with Farrer, the MAs are on this
                Message 7 of 8 , Jul 8, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 8 Jul 2001, at 19:03, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                  > As Sanders & Davies point out, those scholars who posit a Deutero-
                  > Mark are impressed by the primitiveness of MAs, preferring to
                  > attribute them to a recension of Mark rather than Matthew and Luke
                  > independent creation.

                  I suppose they are more primitive than Matthew / Luke for
                  adherents of Deutero-Marcus, but in common with both the 2ST &
                  with Farrer, the MAs are on this theory secondary to (our) Mark.
                  What stands out to me about Griesbach is that it joins Proto-Mark
                  theories in seeing the MAs as more primitive than (our) Mark. My
                  gut-feeling is against that given the nature of many of them, e.g.
                  Mark's alleged subtitution of "after three days" for "on the third
                  day". Judgements about greater primitivity do tend to be rather
                  subjective, though, so one would have to work hard to do
                  something serious with this kind of point.

                  > On the other hand, there are those who posit a
                  > Proto-Mark, arguing from the primitiveness of (some of) the MAs.
                  > Koester springs to mind, but I don't think he views the primitiveness
                  > as sufficient for his proto-Mark idea, which really cannot stand apart
                  > from Secret Mark. Thus, it seems that there probably is plenty in the
                  > MAs to see whatever one wants to see.

                  The difficulty with the Koester case, as I understand it, is that it is
                  based only on a small handful of MAs and it makes alot of Mark
                  4.10-12 and par. It doesn't deal with the vast majority of MAs. I
                  agree with your last sentence to some extent but think that there
                  are lots of clear patterns, e.g. there are MAs over DE as opposed
                  to KAI and rarely the opposite (Paralytic one such example); lack
                  of historic present; greater reverence to Jesus, etc. One of the
                  values of Neirynck's book are the sections that group together
                  some of the trends.

                  Best wishes
                  Mark
                  -----------------------------
                  Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                  Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                  University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                  Birmingham B15 2TT
                  United Kingdom

                  http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                  Homepage
                  http://NTGateway.com
                  The New Testament Gateway

                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Stephen C. Carlson
                  ... I m sorry. I meant primitiveness of Mark with respect to the MAs. Kind of changes the meaning does it not? Thus, Deutero- Markus represents an
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jul 8, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 01:23 AM 7/9/01 +0100, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                    >On 8 Jul 2001, at 19:03, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                    >> As Sanders & Davies point out, those scholars who posit a Deutero-
                    >> Mark are impressed by the primitiveness of MAs, preferring to
                    >> attribute them to a recension of Mark rather than Matthew and Luke
                    >> independent creation.
                    >
                    >I suppose they are more primitive than Matthew / Luke for
                    >adherents of Deutero-Marcus, but in common with both the 2ST &
                    >with Farrer, the MAs are on this theory secondary to (our) Mark.

                    I'm sorry. I meant "primitiveness of Mark with respect to the
                    MAs." Kind of changes the meaning does it not? Thus, Deutero-
                    Markus represents an improved Mark before Matthew and Luke got
                    to it.

                    >What stands out to me about Griesbach is that it joins Proto-Mark
                    >theories in seeing the MAs as more primitive than (our) Mark. My
                    >gut-feeling is against that given the nature of many of them, e.g.
                    >Mark's alleged subtitution of "after three days" for "on the third
                    >day". Judgements about greater primitivity do tend to be rather
                    >subjective, though, so one would have to work hard to do
                    >something serious with this kind of point.

                    To the extent one can characterize the bulk of the MAs as
                    secondary to Mark, as Hawkins has effectively done over a
                    hundred years ago, yes, then I would say that the Griesbach
                    position and proto-Mark (Hawkins' target), as well as any
                    proto-gospel hypothesis that posits independent redaction
                    by all three, would be at a serious disadvantage.

                    There's also another problem with the Griesbach approach. It
                    must posit a literarily sophisticated Mark to carefully weave
                    together Matthew and Luke, careful to keep every word they
                    have in common EXCEPT FOR the sophisticated DE's rendered
                    by rougher KAI's, sophicated aorists by rougher historical
                    presents, good Greek terms by Latinisms, etc. It is hard
                    to obtain a coherent profile of the person who would do
                    such a thing: literary genius or hack?

                    >> On the other hand, there are those who posit a
                    >> Proto-Mark, arguing from the primitiveness of (some of) the MAs.
                    >> Koester springs to mind, but I don't think he views the primitiveness
                    >> as sufficient for his proto-Mark idea, which really cannot stand apart
                    >> from Secret Mark. Thus, it seems that there probably is plenty in the
                    >> MAs to see whatever one wants to see.
                    >
                    >The difficulty with the Koester case, as I understand it, is that it is
                    >based only on a small handful of MAs and it makes alot of Mark
                    >4.10-12 and par. It doesn't deal with the vast majority of MAs. I
                    >agree with your last sentence to some extent but think that there
                    >are lots of clear patterns, e.g. there are MAs over DE as opposed
                    >to KAI and rarely the opposite (Paralytic one such example); lack
                    >of historic present; greater reverence to Jesus, etc. One of the
                    >values of Neirynck's book are the sections that group together
                    >some of the trends.

                    I'd suppose that Koester would have to use the standard appeals
                    the 2DH uses for the secondary looking MAs. More interesting is,
                    how would Goulder or you respond to the primitiveness of Koester's
                    MAs. Are Koester's examples less or more of problem for the FH
                    then for the 2DH? I suppose not. It seems a bit easier to believe
                    that Luke would copy an apparently more primitive bit of Matthew
                    than for Luke to independently recreate a reading that is both
                    more primitive than Mark and coincidentally identical to Matthew's
                    being more primitive than Mark, which does not happen often to
                    begin with.

                    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@...
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.