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

[Synoptic-L] Story dualiities

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Emmanuel Fritsch wrote (concerning Brian Wilson s homepage) -- ... Emmanuel, It seems to me that you are suggesting that in the triple tradition there should
    Message 1 of 13 , Oct 9, 2001
      Emmanuel Fritsch wrote (concerning Brian Wilson's homepage) --
      >
      >If I well understand his position, story duality in synoptic are due to
      >the greek translation that Matthiew, Mark, and Luke independently
      >modified. If this theory is right, there is absolutely no reason
      >that all stories have disapeared from triple tradition : If Luke works
      >without having heard about Matthew and Mark, there is no mean for him
      >to cancel all story dualities that other have kept. So some story
      >duality should remain in the triple tradition.
      >I would be glad if you may evaluate this idea : if Brian is right, then
      >we should find a significant ratio of dual stories that occur in the
      >triple tradition.
      >
      Emmanuel,
      It seems to me that you are suggesting that in the triple
      tradition there "should" be instances of two narratives forming a story
      duality in Matthew that are parallel to two narratives forming a story
      duality in Mark that are parallel to two narratives also forming a story
      duality in Luke. In other words, your argument is that if the Logia
      Translation Hypothesis is true, it is an unlikely coincidence that in
      the triple tradition there is no instance of the same two narratives in
      each synoptic gospel forming three parallel story dualities.

      In fact there are only two instances of a set of six narratives in the
      triple tradition that could have produced such a coincidence. These are
      (1) the Baptism of Jesus and the Transfiguration. and (2) the Entry into
      Jerusalem and the Preparation for the Passover. There are indeed five
      instances of story dualities in Mark, but in only the two instances I
      have just indicated are these narratives paralleled in both Matthew and
      in Luke. In the other instances of a story duality in Mark, either
      Matthew or Luke has omitted at least one of the narratives found in
      Mark. The coincidence to which you refer is therefore merely that in the
      only two possible instances of a set of six narratives in the triple
      tradition that might have produced three parallel story dualities, both
      happen to form story dualities in both Mark and in Luke, but not in
      Matthew.

      On the LTH, of course, this is easily explained as the result of Matthew
      having more severely edited the wording of at least one of the dua-
      stories of the story dualities concerned, whereas Mark and Luke have
      remained sufficiently faithful to the wording of the Greek Logia to
      retain the story duality that was present in the Greek Logia. On the
      LTH, for instance, Matthew has clearly abbreviated the Preparation for
      the Passover, as indicated by the significant agreements in wording of
      Mark and Luke against Matthew.
      >
      >Whatever the other theory you consider, the ratio of dual story should
      >be very low (multi stage theory) or equal to zero (for direct
      >dependencies theories), since for this theories, story duality are due
      >to progressive merging of tradition along the redaction process.
      >
      >First question : is this test proposition valid or not ?
      >
      It seems to me that you are making wild speculative generalizations
      about "multi-stage hypotheses" (Boismard?) and "direct dependency
      hypotheses" such as the 2DH, GH and FH. In my view, this is just not the
      way to solve the synoptic problem, but is simply confusion. To my mind,
      the synoptic problem is to put forward a hypothesis of the documentary
      relation between the synoptic gospels, and to show that this hypothesis
      fits well the data actually observed in the synoptic gospels. I think
      the short answer to your question, therefore, is that the test
      proposition you suggest is not valid.

      The fact is that story dualities are observed in the synoptic gospels
      and that each synoptic gospel contains instances of a story duality that
      has at least one dua-story that does not occur in a story duality in the
      other synoptic gospels. This phenomenon is fitted well by the Logia
      Translation Hypothesis, but not by the 2DH, GH or FH.
      >
      >Second question : does the ratio of story duality in triple
      >tradition fit the Logia translation theory ?
      >
      I assume you are referring to the Logia Translation Hypothesis. I think
      you are describing here what I have already considered above - instances
      of a story duality in Matthew that is parallel to a story duality in
      Mark, and that is also parallel to a story duality in Luke. You seem to
      be saying that if the LTH is true then there must be such triple
      tradition parallel story dualities, and that these story dualities must
      be a significant proportion of all observed story dualities. As I have
      shown above, this is just not the case. There is no such necessity if
      the LTH is assumed.
      >
      >PS : according Brian's home page, the Greek Logia contained both
      >genealogies of Jesus (Mt 1 and Lk 3). Do we have any kind of old
      >documents, either greek or jew or belonging to another old or modern
      >civilisation, that present such a double genealogy, with such
      >differencies and oppositions ?
      >
      According to the LTH, the apostle Matthew composed the Logia in Aramaic
      using not only his own eye-witness observations but also the testimony
      of Jesus, of the other disciples, of the relatives of Jesus (see Acts
      1.13-14), and of others who could witness to what Jesus said and did,
      and what happened to him, and Matthew also used, to a lesser extent,
      reports from others of what John the Baptist did and said, and what
      happened to him. The Aramaic Logia were not composed to form a
      continuous book. The LOGIA were many things, not one consistent account.
      The individual LOGIA were not supposed to be coherent or consistent with
      each other. If the apostle Matthew received a table of descent of Jesus
      from one witness and a proper genealogy of Jesus from another, there is
      no reason at all why he should not have included both in his Aramaic
      Logia. He may, in any case, have considered that they could be
      harmonized.

      I would suggest that the fact that there may have been nothing quite
      like the Aramaic Logia of Matthew as described in the tradition of the
      Elder preserved by Papias preserved in turn by Eusebius, is neither here
      not there. In many respects there was no-one quite like Jesus, I would
      suggest. Why should not an extremely original personality have resulted
      in an extremely original type of document recording a very mixed bag
      indeed of traditions concerning him? I would suggest that in many
      respects each synoptic gospel is a very mixed bag of all sorts of
      traditions concerning Jesus, and to a lesser extent John the Baptist,
      and that this reflects the very mixed contents of the Aramaic Logia that
      were translated to form the Greek Logia that were independently used by
      each synoptist to form his continuous book of Jesus tradition, that is,
      his gospel.

      Best wishes,
      BRIAN WILSON

      >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://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@...
    • Emmanuel Fritsch
      Thank you, Brian, for your answer. I have another question about your Finland paper. You wrote : # It is utterly unlikely that all three synoptists #
      Message 2 of 13 , Oct 9, 2001
        Thank you, Brian, for your answer. I have another
        question about your Finland paper. You wrote :

        # It is utterly unlikely that all three synoptists
        # independently created the story duality pattern.

        I would like to know the elements on which you base
        your evaluation. Did you answer these questions :

        * Are there any story duality in Act ?
        * Are there no story duality in John or in other christian document ?
        * Are there no story duality in old pagan or jewish documents ?

        Now, I come back to your previous answer :

        > Emmanuel Fritsch wrote (concerning Brian Wilson's homepage) --
        > >[...]
        > >I would be glad if you may evaluate this idea : if Brian is right, then
        > >we should find a significant ratio of dual stories that occur in the
        > >triple tradition.
        > >
        > Brian answered :
        > It seems to me that you are suggesting that in the triple
        > tradition there "should" be instances of two narratives forming a story
        > duality in Matthew that are parallel to two narratives forming a story
        > duality in Mark that are parallel to two narratives also forming a story
        > duality in Luke. [...]

        Just to be more precise : the story duality, according your
        definition, is consituted with a simple story, and a second
        story that merges the first one with another simple story.

        The interesting phenomenon is the second story, the merged one.
        You show it in your finland paper, enlighting the heterogeneity
        (discrepencies, etc.) present in some merged stories.

        If your hypothesis is right, then the rate of merged stories
        in the triple tradition should be significant. We do not need
        both stories of the story duality in the three synoptic, but
        only the merged story, three times, in all synoptic.

        Did you count the number of merged stories present in
        the triple tradition ?


        > The fact is that story dualities are observed in the synoptic gospels
        > and that each synoptic gospel contains instances of a story duality that
        > has at least one dua-story that does not occur in a story duality in the
        > other synoptic gospels. This phenomenon is fitted well by the Logia
        > Translation Hypothesis, but not by the 2DH, GH or FH.

        I am sorry : if there is a lack of merged stories in triple
        tradition, then your hypothesis of independence (Mt-Lk-Mk)
        is obviously false.


        > >Second question : does the ratio of story duality in triple
        > >tradition fit the Logia translation theory ?
        > >
        > I assume you are referring to the Logia Translation Hypothesis. I think
        > you are describing here what I have already considered above - instances
        > of a story duality in Matthew that is parallel to a story duality in
        > Mark, and that is also parallel to a story duality in Luke. You seem to
        > be saying that if the LTH is true then there must be such triple
        > tradition parallel story dualities, and that these story dualities must
        > be a significant proportion of all observed story dualities. As I have
        > shown above, this is just not the case. There is no such necessity if
        > the LTH is assumed.

        Has Matthew deleted all the merged stories ? No. Had he
        a reason to delete specifically the merged stories that
        remain in Mark and Luke ? If the three worked independently,
        the answer is definitly no.

        So I think you should agree that if your logia translation
        hypothesis is right, we must find a significant rate of
        merged stories in the triple tradition, and this looks as
        a valid test for your theory.

        If not, please let me know what is wrong in my demonstration.

        a+
        manu


        a+
        manu

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Brian E. Wilson
        Emmanuel Fritsch wrote -- ... Emmanuel, Thanks for setting out your comments on my homepage. The definition of story duality is set out clearly and explicitly
        Message 3 of 13 , Oct 12, 2001
          Emmanuel Fritsch wrote --
          >
          >Thank you, Brian, for your answer. I have another question about your
          >Finland paper. You wrote :
          >
          >It is utterly unlikely that all three synoptists independently created
          >the story duality pattern. I would like to know the elements on which
          >you base your evaluation.
          >
          Emmanuel,
          Thanks for setting out your comments on my homepage. The
          definition of story duality is set out clearly and explicitly on the
          first page of the Finland talk. Section A begins --
          >
          >"A story duality may be defined as the occurrence of two stories
          >(narratives or parables) in the synoptic gospels such that (i) one
          >story has at least ten word roots the same and in the same order as the
          >other story ,and (ii) when these similar words, together with the
          >sentences in which they are set, are omitted from one story this *does
          >not* make more consistent sense than the story as a whole, but when the
          >words with the sentences in which they are set are omitted from the
          >other story, the remainder *does* make more consistent sense than the
          >story as a whole."
          >
          It should be noted that the definition describes an observed phenomenon.
          Story dualities are observed whether or not any synoptic documentary
          hypothesis is put forward. There are over two dozen of them. Even
          supposing the Logia Translation Hypothesis is not what happened, story
          dualities exist.

          It should also be noted that a story duality is a very odd phenomenon
          indeed. This is why it is very unlikely that more than one mind would
          have set out to create story dualities. In particular, the most
          distinctive feature of the peculiar relationship between the two stories
          is that a more coherent meaning is *not* produced within one story, but
          *is* produced within the other story, when the words with word roots the
          same and in the same order in both stories are omitted from each story.
          There are pairs of stories in the synoptic gospels which are *not* story
          dualities because these conditions are not satisfied.

          For instance, the Feeding of the Five Thousand and the Feeding of the
          Four Thousand form a story duality in Mark according to the definition
          of "story duality". When the words with word roots the same, and in the
          same order, are omitted from the 5000, the result is that no words with
          "more coherent meaning" are produced (in fact, the story of the 5000 is
          in tatters when the words with word roots the same are omitted), but
          when they are omitted from the 4000, the result includes wording that is
          more coherent in meaning that then 4000 as a whole -- a story of a
          feeding with little fish (but not bread). This is set out with columns
          in Greek in the Finland talk, of course. On the other hand, the 5000 and
          the 4000 both occur in Matthew where they do *not* form a story duality.
          It is important to grasp this. The stories in Matthew may be such that
          the 4000 appears to be a merger of the 5000 with another story to form
          the 4000, but this ***does not*** make the two stories in Matthew a
          story duality in Matthew. A story duality is much more complex than
          that. For when the wording with word roots in Matthew is omitted from
          the 4000 in Matthew, it is found that the 4000 in Matthew does not
          contain wording that is more coherent in meaning than the 4000 as a
          whole. In Mark there is a separate feeding with little fish, whereas in
          Matthew there is not. (On the LTH, this is because Mark has remained
          reasonably faithful to the wording of the Greek Logia, whereas Matthew
          has more heavily edited the wording of the two stories and so has
          "destroyed" the story duality that was present in the Greek Logia.)
          >
          >Are there any story duality in Act ?
          >Are there no story duality in John or in other christian document ?
          >Are there no story duality in old pagan or jewish documents ?
          >
          Scholars have had some time to find story dualities outside the synoptic
          gospels, but to my knowledge no-one has done so to date. I have found
          none in Acts or the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John contains the
          Feeding of the Five Thousand, for instance, but not the Feeding of the
          Four Thousand, even though the 5000 and the 4000 form a story duality in
          Mark. The crucial point is that in a story duality the "less coherent
          meaning" and the "more coherent meaning" criteria are met, and to my
          knowledge instances of a story duality that meet these "less coherent"
          and "more coherent" requirements are not found outside the synoptic
          gospels.
          >
          >Now, I come back to your previous answer :
          >
          >I would be glad if you may evaluate this idea : if Brian is right,
          >then we should find a significant ratio of dual stories that occur
          >in the triple tradition.
          >
          >Brian answered :
          >>
          >>It seems to me that you are suggesting that in the triple tradition
          >>there "should" be instances of two narratives forming a story duality
          >>in Matthew that are parallel to two narratives forming a story
          >>duality in Mark that are parallel to two narratives also forming a
          >>story duality in Luke.
          >
          >Just to be more precise : the story duality, according your definition,
          >is consituted with a simple story, and a second story that merges the
          >first one with another simple story.
          >

          I am afraid you have lost sight of the all-important "less coherent" and
          "more coherent" requirements here. As I have explained above, a story
          duality is **not** merely two stories such that "there is a simple
          story, and a second story that merges the first one with another simple
          story." The 5000 and the 4000 do **not** form a story duality in
          Matthew, even though they might appear to be "a simple story, and a
          second story that merges the first one with another simple story" in
          Matthew.
          >
          >The interesting phenomenon is the second story, the merged one. You
          >show it in your finland paper, enlighting the heterogeneity
          >(discrepencies, etc.) present in some merged stories.
          >
          >If your hypothesis is right, then the rate of merged stories in the
          >triple tradition should be significant.
          >
          Surely in my previous posting I answered this point which you had raised
          in your previous posting. I reproduce extracts from my answer here --
          >
          >It seems to me that you are suggesting that in the triple tradition
          >there "should" be instances of two narratives forming a story duality
          >in Matthew that are parallel to two narratives forming a story
          >duality in Mark that are parallel to two narratives also forming a
          >story duality in Luke...
          >In fact there are only two instances of a set of six narratives in the
          triple tradition that could have produced such a coincidence...
          >The coincidence to which you refer is therefore merely that in the
          >only two possible instances of a set of six narratives in the triple
          >tradition that might have produced three parallel story dualities, both
          >happen to form story dualities in both Mark and in Luke, but not in
          >Matthew.
          >On the LTH, of course, this is easily explained as the result of
          >Matthew having more severely edited the wording of at least one of the
          >dua-stories of the story dualities concerned, whereas Mark and Luke
          >have remained sufficiently faithful to the wording of the Greek Logia
          >to retain the story duality that was present in the Greek Logia.
          >

          You also wrote --
          >
          >I am sorry : if there is a lack of merged stories in triple tradition,
          >then your hypothesis of independence (Mt-Lk-Mk) is obviously false.
          >
          This seems to me to be yet another (more rhetorical) repetition of your
          argument in your previous posting which I answered in my previous
          posting and which I have again dealt with above. It is not in the least
          surprising that there is no instance in the triple tradition of a set of
          six narratives forming three pairs of parallel stories such that each
          pair is a story duality. After all, on the LTH each synoptist was free
          to reject any part of the Greek Logia, and was equally free to edit the
          wording of any piece of material he selected from the Greek Logia. The
          observed distribution of dua-stories in the synoptic gospels is not at
          all improbable on the LTH. So the LTH is not shown to be false.

          You also wrote --
          >
          >Has Matthew deleted all the merged stories ? No.
          >
          True. And neither has Mark. And neither has Luke. On the LTH Matthew
          could well have chosen to do so. He was free either to include or to
          omit. The same applies to Mark, and also to Luke.
          >
          >Had he a reason to delete specifically the merged stories that
          >remain in Mark and Luke ?
          >
          If you are referring to stories in the triple tradition, then by
          definition of "triple tradition" Matthew could not possibly have omitted
          what you misleadingly describe as the "merged stories" that remain in
          Mark and Luke. For if the stories are triple tradition, then necessarily
          they are in Matthew. Matthew included the stories to which you refer
          from the Greek Logia, but he edited their wording so that although the
          stories also occur in Mark and Luke in which they do form story
          dualities (because Mark and Luke have remained relatively faithful to
          the wording of the Greek Logia), they do not form story dualities in
          Matthew. There are a number of instances in the synoptic gospels of a
          pair of stories in one synoptic gospel that do not form a story duality
          but which are parallel to a pair of stories in another synoptic gospel
          where they do form a synoptic gospel. You seem not to realize that a
          story that is part of a story duality in one synoptic gospel can be
          parallel to a story that is not part of a story duality in another
          synoptic gospel. For instance, the Entry into Jerusalem in Mark is part
          of a story duality in Mark, but the parallel story in Matthew is not
          part of a story duality in Matthew. Similarly, the Call of Simon and
          Andrew is part of a story duality in Matthew, and also in Mark, but not
          in Luke.

          I think the remainder of your comments are all in similar vein to those
          I have dealt with above. They all repeat the same probability argument
          that in my previous posting, and also above, I have shown is not valid.

          Nonetheless, I am grateful that you have taken time and trouble to read
          my Finland talk on my homepage, and have attempted a critique. I learn a
          lot from such criticism.

          Best wishes,
          BRIAN WILSON

          >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://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@...
        • Ken Olson
          ... synoptic ... found ... the ... duality in ... coherent ... coherent ... Brian, OK, I m going to take another crack at this. What follows is an essay I
          Message 4 of 13 , Oct 12, 2001
            At 4:21 AM on October 12, Brian Wilson wrote:

            > Scholars have had some time to find story dualities outside the
            synoptic
            > gospels, but to my knowledge no-one has done so to date. I have
            found
            > none in Acts or the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John contains the
            > Feeding of the Five Thousand, for instance, but not the Feeding of
            the
            > Four Thousand, even though the 5000 and the 4000 form a story
            duality in
            > Mark. The crucial point is that in a story duality the "less
            coherent
            > meaning" and the "more coherent meaning" criteria are met, and to my
            > knowledge instances of a story duality that meet these "less
            coherent"
            > and "more coherent" requirements are not found outside the synoptic
            > gospels.

            Brian,

            OK, I'm going to take another crack at this. What follows is an essay
            I started some months ago, but time constraints forced me to abandon.
            The last few paragraphs I added today. It's still a bit rough.

            Brian Wilson's paper "Duality in the Synoptic Gospels" sets out to
            define story duality, use story dualities to rule out the Two
            Document, Griesbach, and Farrer Hypotheses, and presents a hypothesis
            which accounts for story dualities, which Wilson calls "The Greek
            Notes Hypothesis."

            According to Wilson, "A story duality may be defined as the occurrence
            of two stories (narratives or parables) in the synoptic gospels such
            that (i) one story has at least ten word roots the same and in the
            same order as in the other story, and (ii) when these similar words,
            together with the sentences in which they are set, are omitted from
            one story, this does not make more consistent sense than the story as
            a whole, but when the words with the sentences in which they are set
            are omitted from the other story, the remainder does make more
            consistent sense than the story as a whole."

            Wilson proceeds to examine the synoptic gospels and finds 24 examples
            of story dualities in them.

            Wilson then argues that the three most commonly held synoptic
            hypotheses are ruled out by the pattern of story dualities. Each of
            the three hypotheses would have to argue that more than one of the
            evangelists had created story dualities. Wilson's contention is that,
            "The pattern of story duality is very distinctive, however. It is
            utterly unlikely that all three synoptists independently originated
            the pattern of story dualities." He reiterates this point: "And
            again, it is most improbable that more than one writer independently
            originated the distinctive pattern of story dualities."

            Wilson then presents his theory that "A writer with a somewhat
            repetitious style was writing out a set of pieces of Jesus tradition
            in Greek. Sometimes he came across a story which he felt could be
            improved in the light of a story he had already recorded. So he
            deliberately added to one story parts of a story he had previously
            written out." In this way, Wilson concludes "story dualities were the
            invention of the writer of Greek Notes."

            I do not accept Wilson's conclusion that it is unlikely that all three
            synoptists could have created story dualities. The use of material
            taken from one story and used in another is extremely common both in
            the gospels and in Jewish literature from around the same time.
            Michael Goulder, in arguing that many of Luke's differences from the
            other synoptics are due to Luke's own creativity, provides several
            examples of writers who embroider the source they are following with
            material from other sources. Goulder's examples include Chronicles,
            the Targum of Jonathan, the Testament of Reuben, and the Liber
            Antiquitatam Biblicarum (LNP, 123-28).

            Goulder argues: "Enough evidence has been given that in the centuries
            about the time of Luke the Jewish tradition felt impelled: (1) to
            elaborate the stories in scripture, for doctrinal or edifying
            purposes, and (2) to use a technique of association for this end.
            Thought association often, though not always, took up some particular
            thread from the passage under expansion, and followed it to an allied
            biblical story "(LNP, 127).

            Wilson's paper does not consider the phenomenon of material borrowed
            from other stories as a whole. Instead, Wilson proposes a very narrow
            definition and then enumerates the number of cases that fit it. He
            finds 24 cases where such borrowing meets his definition of story
            dualities, but does not examine the rather larger number of cases in
            the synoptics where such borrowing falls short of meeting his
            definition. But given that the synoptists frequently employ the
            widespread practice of borrowing material from other stories to
            embroider the stories they are writing, it is likely that such
            borrowing will at least occasionally result in stories that do fit
            Wilson's definition of story dualities.

            If I am correct about this, it should be possible to find examples of
            story dualities outside of the synoptic gospels in other writers who
            use this technique of borrowing material from other stories to expand
            their narratives. I believe I have found an example of a story
            duality in the story of Josiah's death in 2 Chronicles 35.20-27. The
            main source the Chronicler is following 2 Kings 23.28-30:

            >>Now the rest of the acts of Josiah, and all that he did, are they
            not written in the Book of Annals of the kings of Judah? In his days
            Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the king of Assyria to the river
            Euphrates. King Josiah went to meet him, but when Pharaoh Neco met
            him at Megiddo, he killed him. His servants carried him dead in a
            chariot from Megiddo, brought him to Jerusalem, and buried him in his
            own tomb. The people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah,
            anointed him, and made him king in place of his father<< (NRSV).

            The story in Kings posed a theological problem for the Chronicler.
            According to Sara Japhet, "Within the framework of the Chronicler's
            historical philosophy, the untimely death of Josiah must be conceived
            as punishment and be preceded by some sin. Moreover it must be a
            willful sin, committed after an express warning has been delivered"
            (I&II Chron., 1042). The Chronicler's version of the same story
            reads:

            >>After all this, when Josiah had set the temple in order, King Neco
            of Egypt went up to fight at Carchemish on the Euphrates, and Josiah
            went out against him. But Neco sent envoys to him, saying, "What have
            I to do with you, king of Judah? I am not coming against you today,
            but against the house with which I am at war; and God has commanded me
            to hurry. Cease opposing God, who is with me, so that he will not
            destroy you." But Josiah would not turn away from him, but disguised
            himself in order to fight with him. He did not listen to the words of
            Neco from the mouth of God, but joined battle in the plain of Megiddo.
            The archers shot king Josiah; and the king said to his servants, "Take
            me away, for I am badly wounded." So his servants took him out of the
            chariot and carried him in his second chariot and brought him to
            Jerusalem. There he died, and was buried in the tombs of his
            ancestors. . . Now the rest of the acts of Josiah and his faithful
            deeds in accordance with what is written in the law of the LORD, and
            his acts, first and last, are written in the Book of the Kings of
            Israel and Judah.<<

            Where did the Chronicler get his additional material concerning
            Josiah's disobedience to God and his disguising himself to go into
            battle? According to Japhet, the Chronicler borrowed the material
            from the account of Ahab's death in 1 Kings 22:29-38, either directly
            or by way of the parallel account the Chronicler had already written
            in 2 Chron. 18 (I&II Chron., 1043-44). In the account in Kings, Ahab
            is warned of his coming destruction by the prophet Micaiah (22.13-28).
            The account of Ahab's death in Kings reads:

            >>So the king of Israel and King Jehoshaphat of Judah went up to
            Ramoth-gilead. The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "I will
            disguise myself and go into battle, but you wear your robes." So the
            king of Israel disguised himself and went into battle. Now the king
            of Aram had commanded the thirty-two captains of his chariots, "Fight
            with no one small or great, but only with the king of Israel." When
            the captains of the chariots saw Jehoshaphat, they said, "It is surely
            the king of Israel." So they turned to fight against him; and
            Jehoshaphat cried out. When the captains of the chariots saw that it
            was not the king of Israel, they turned back from pursuing him. But a
            certain man drew his bow and unknowingly struck the king of Israel
            between the scale armor and the breastplate; so he said to the driver
            of his chariot, "Turn around, and carry me out of the battle, for I am
            wounded." The battle grew hot that day, and the king was propped up
            in his chariot facing the Arameans, until at evening he died; the
            blood from the wound had flowed into the bottom of the chariot. Then
            about sunset a shout went through the army, "Every man to his city,
            and every man to his country!" So the king died, and was brought to
            Samaria; they buried the king in Samaria.<<

            Japhet lists the following elements as common to the story of Ahab's
            death in Kings and the story of Josiah's death in Chronicles: "(a) the
            change of clothes; (b) the wounding of the king in battle; (c) by
            shooters; (d) his dying of this injury; (f) the role of the 'carriage'
            in the story". She also notes that "the motive of 'disguise', which
            is essential to the story of Ahab's last war, is completely out of
            context in the case of Josiah." She concludes that the Chronicler
            borrowed this material from Kings (I&II Chron., 1043).

            It seems to me that Japhet is suggesting the Chronicler used a
            procedure very similar to the one Wilson hypothesizes for the writer
            of Greek Notes ("Sometimes he came across a story which he felt could
            be improved in the light of a story he had already recorded. So he
            deliberately added to one story parts of a story he had previously
            written out.") While I tend to accept Japhet's source-critical
            judgment here, we should also examine the issue of whether a story
            duality exists independently of that judgment.

            I am not competent to examine the Hebrew text. In appears to me,
            however, that an analysis of the Septuagint versions of these stories
            shows that they fit Wilson's definition of a story duality:

            (i) one story has at least ten word roots the same and in the same
            order as in the other story

            [In Kings: EISHLQEIN, TON POLEMON, TOXON, BASILEA, EIPE, AUTOU,
            EXAGAGE ME, hOTI, TOU hARMATOJ, KAI APEQANEN. In Chronicles: HLQE,
            TOU POLEMHSAI, TOXOTAI, BASILEA, EIPEN, AUTOU, EXAGAGETE ME, hOTI, TOU
            hARMATOJ, KAI APEQANE.]

            (ii) when these similar words, together with the sentences in which
            they are set, are omitted from one story, this does not make more
            consistent sense than the story as a whole, but when the words with
            the sentences in which they are set are omitted from the other story,
            the remainder does make more consistent sense than the story as a
            whole.

            [As noted earlier, Japhet contends: "the motive of 'disguise', which
            is essential to the story of Ahab's last war, is completely out of
            context in the case of Josiah." Thus, according to Japhet, at least
            some of the parallel material shared by 1 Kings 22:29-38 and 2
            Chronicles 35.20-27 is essential to the Ahab story in Kings and out of
            context in the Josiah story in Chronicles. Further, I think that
            removing the material paralleled in the Ahab story from Chronicles
            brings us fairly close to the story of Josiah's death as told in
            Kings.]

            The story of Josiah's death in 2 Chronicles 35.20-27 appears to
            contain a story duality, and I think it likely that there are other
            examples. More than one writer created story dualities. This means
            that story dualities are not the distinctive product of a single mind.
            Given the ability of Jewish and Hellenistic writers to embroider one
            story with parts of another, I do not think it particularly
            far-fetched to believe that each of the synoptists could have created
            story dualities.

            References:
            Michael Goulder, _Luke: A New Paradigm_ (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
            Press, 1989. Reprinted 1994).
            Sarah Japhet, _I and II Chronicles: A Commentary_ (Louisville,
            Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993).

            Best Wishes,

            Ken

            Kenneth A. Olson
            Graduate Teaching Assistant
            Department of History
            2115 Francis Scott Key Hall
            University of Maryland
            College Park, MD 20742
            kaolson@...

            I am too much of a skeptic to deny the possibility of anything - T.H.
            Huxley


            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Brian E. Wilson
            Ken Olson wrote -- ... Ken, If you had found two stories that form a story duality here in the Greek of the LXX, then you would be showing how the
            Message 5 of 13 , Oct 14, 2001
              Ken Olson wrote --
              >
              >According to Wilson, "A story duality may be defined as the occurrence
              >of two stories (narratives or parables) in the synoptic gospels such
              >that (i) one story has at least ten word roots the same and in the
              >same order as in the other story, and (ii) when these similar words,
              >together with the sentences in which they are set, are omitted from
              >one story, this does not make more consistent sense than the story as
              >a whole, but when the words with the sentences in which they are set
              >are omitted from the other story, the remainder does make more
              >consistent sense than the story as a whole."
              >
              >.....[SNIP]....
              >
              >I believe I have found an example of a story duality in the story of
              >Josiah's death in 2 Chronicles 35.20-27. The main source the
              >Chronicler is following 2 Kings 23.28-30:
              >

              Ken,
              If you had found two stories that form a story duality here in the
              Greek of the LXX, then you would be showing how the explicitly-stated
              conditions of a story duality are met.

              Would you please give the exact references in the LXX for the two
              stories that you consider form a story duality in the LXX? (Are they the
              references I have quoted above? I am not clear on this. It seems to me
              you may be referring to more than two stories. Please be clear that a
              story duality consists of two stories, no more and no less. Which two
              stories are you saying form a story duality?)

              Would you please confirm that the words with word-roots the same and in
              the same order are found in exactly these two stories? (I have tried
              relating the lists of words in Greek you give to the two passages with
              references quoted above in the LXX, and made no clear sense of what you
              have written.)

              Would you please show that condition (ii) of what forms a story duality
              is met? When the word-roots the same and in the same order are omitted,
              is it true that in one story the remainder does **not** contain material
              that makes more consistent sense than the story as a whole? And would
              you please also show that in the other story the remainder, after
              omitting the word-roots in common and in the same order, **does**
              contain material that makes more consistent sense that the story as a
              whole?

              If you look at the Finland talk on my homepage you will see that in
              every instance of a story duality I set out, I carefully give the
              references for the two stories, list in Greek the word-roots the same
              and in the same order, show that in one story omitting the word-roots
              the same and in the same order does not give a remainder that includes
              material that makes more coherent sense than the story as a whole, and
              that in the other story omitting the word-roots the same and in the same
              order does contain material that makes more consistent sense than the
              story as a whole.

              I would stress again that a story duality is an observed phenomenon.
              There are some two dozen stories dualities observable in the synoptic
              gospels. They were there before anyone ever thought of positing any
              hypothesis of the documentary relationship between the synoptic gospels.
              They are data, not synoptic documentary hypothesis. I would be very
              interested if you could show that this phenomenon of story dualities is
              also observed in the LXX.

              Best wishes,
              BRIAN WILSON

              >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://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
              Brian, As I can t read your Story Duality paper with my current software, perhaps you would explain how you overcome the following ambiguities which appear to
              Message 6 of 13 , Oct 15, 2001
                Brian,
                As I can't read your Story Duality paper with my current software,
                perhaps you would explain how you overcome the following ambiguities
                which appear to be inherent in your definitions.

                (a) How do you determine exactly where a story starts and where it ends?
                As a specific instance, it is not entirely clear to me whether Mark 6:45
                belongs to the Feeding of the 5000 (so Hooker) or not (so most
                translations). If it does belong, then its EUQUS will presumably
                parallel that in 8:10.
                (b) Sentences were not explicit in the original text, so whose
                definition of NT Greek sentences do you use?
                (c) In theory there may be ambiguities in selecting parallel word roots.
                For instance:
                Story_A sentence_1 ..... crowd ..... sentence_2 ..... eats .....
                sentence_3 ..... eats ..... sentence_4 ..... satisfied ..... Story_B
                sentence_1 ..... crowd ..... sentence_2 ..... eats ..... sentence_3
                ..... satisfied ..... Which "eats" in story_A is parallel to the "eats"
                in story_B ? In other words, what algorithm do you use to select the
                parallel word roots?

                It would also be useful if you would write out (in either English or
                Greek) the sentence subset of one of the Markan feedings which is
                unmatched in the other feeding and also makes more sense than the story
                as a whole. This would facilitate an assessment of where the latter
                judgement sits on the scale from dubious through subjective to obvious.

                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@...
              • Brian E. Wilson
                Ron Price wrote -- ... Ron, The ambiguity is slight and is not, in fact, critical, in that determining whether two stories form a story duality is not
                Message 7 of 13 , Oct 17, 2001
                  Ron Price wrote --
                  >
                  >Brian,
                  >As I can't read your Story Duality paper with my current software,
                  >perhaps you would explain how you overcome the following ambiguities
                  >which appear to be inherent in your definitions.
                  >
                  >(a) How do you determine exactly where a story starts and where it
                  >ends? As a specific instance, it is not entirely clear to me whether
                  >Mark 6:45 belongs to the Feeding of the 5000 (so Hooker) or not (so
                  >most translations). If it does belong, then its EUQUS will presumably
                  >parallel that in 8:10.

                  Ron,
                  The ambiguity is slight and is not, in fact, critical, in that
                  determining whether two stories form a story duality is not dependent on
                  this. The same ambiguity can occur with introductions to parables, of
                  course.
                  >
                  >(b) Sentences were not explicit in the original text, so whose
                  >definition of NT Greek sentences do you use?
                  >
                  Again, this is not critical in practice, as is clear when you see the
                  columns of Greek and English together.
                  >
                  >(c) In theory there may be ambiguities in selecting parallel word
                  roots.
                  >For instance:
                  >Story_A sentence_1 ..... crowd ..... sentence_2 ..... eats .....
                  >sentence_3 ..... eats ..... sentence_4 ..... satisfied ..... Story_B
                  >sentence_1 ..... crowd ..... sentence_2 ..... eats ..... sentence_3
                  >..... satisfied ..... Which "eats" in story_A is parallel to the "eats"
                  >in story_B ? In other words, what algorithm do you use to select the
                  >parallel word roots?
                  >
                  Yes. But again, in practice this is not critical. Any "path" through the
                  similarities will do. The criterion is simply to ensure that the two
                  stories have sufficient word-roots the same and in the same order to
                  make it unlikely that the observed similarities are the result of mere
                  coincidence. If you wish, you can choose the path that seems to be the
                  least likely to be the result of mere coincidence, of course. It does
                  not make a significant difference in practice.
                  >
                  >It would also be useful if you would write out (in either English or
                  >Greek) the sentence subset of one of the Markan feedings which is
                  >unmatched in the other feeding and also makes more sense than the story
                  >as a whole. This would facilitate an assessment of where the latter
                  >judgement sits on the scale from dubious through subjective to obvious.
                  >
                  Yes. Such an English representation is set out in full in the Finland
                  talk available on my homepage. If you would like to e-mail me directly
                  and let me know your full postal address, I would be pleased to mail you
                  a spare copy of the hand-out booklets I used in Finland. These are a
                  print-out of the talk on my homepage. You really need to see the
                  columns of Greek and English together, showing similarities in the same
                  colour, and so on.

                  Best wishes,
                  BRIAN WILSON

                  >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://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
                  ... Brian, I now see that you do include Mark 6:45 in your listing of the Feeding of the 5000. If it were not included, then 8:10b would be part of the
                  Message 8 of 13 , Oct 20, 2001
                    I wrote:

                    >>(a) How do you determine exactly where a story starts and where it
                    >>ends? As a specific instance, it is not entirely clear to me whether
                    >>Mark 6:45 belongs to the Feeding of the 5000 (so Hooker) or not (so
                    >>most translations). If it does belong, then its EUQUS will presumably
                    >>parallel that in 8:10.

                    Brian Wilson replied:

                    > The ambiguity is slight and is not, in fact, critical, in that
                    >determining whether two stories form a story duality is not dependent on
                    >this.

                    Brian,
                    I now see that you do include Mark 6:45 in your listing of the Feeding
                    of the 5000. If it were not included, then 8:10b would be part of the
                    "shortened version which makes more sense..." I concede that in this
                    case at least the ambiguity in the story boundary does not cause a
                    problem, for the sense is not impaired if 8:10b is added.

                    >>(b) Sentences were not explicit in the original text, so whose
                    >>definition of NT Greek sentences do you use?

                    >Again, this is not critical in practice, as is clear when you see the
                    >columns of Greek and English together.

                    But here I must disagree. If we use the best Greek text (NTG27), then
                    verses 8:1-3 are all one sentence, as in the RSV. Thus because of the
                    parallels with Mark 6 (MAQHT..., TI FAGWSIN) verses 8:1a,c,3 cannot be
                    part of the "shortened version which makes more sense...". This would
                    surely ruin your case because 8:7 plus 8:10a does not make much sense.

                    >>(c) In theory there may be ambiguities in selecting parallel word
                    >roots.
                    >>For instance:
                    >>Story_A sentence_1 ..... crowd ..... sentence_2 ..... eats .....
                    >>sentence_3 ..... eats ..... sentence_4 ..... satisfied ..... Story_B
                    >>sentence_1 ..... crowd ..... sentence_2 ..... eats ..... sentence_3
                    >>..... satisfied ..... Which "eats" in story_A is parallel to the "eats"
                    >>in story_B ? In other words, what algorithm do you use to select the
                    >>parallel word roots?

                    >Yes. But again, in practice this is not critical. Any "path" through the
                    >similarities will do.

                    No, it won't do, because it defines the 'sentences' to be omitted. The
                    Feedings example has a case of the problem which I mentioned above. In
                    6:41-42 there are 2 KAIs between the PARATIQWSIN and the EFAGON, whereas
                    in 8:6-8 there are 5 KAIs between these words. If any of the KAIs in 8:7
                    are included in the pairing, then according to your rules, 8:7 (which is
                    one sentence) must be omitted from the "shortened version which makes
                    more sense...". But 8:3 plus 8:10a makes no sense without 8:7.

                    One final point. Your translation appears to be following the RSV. But
                    in 8:7 you translate the third KAI (RSV "also") as "even". Of course in
                    the Feeding of the 4000, the "also" refers quite naturally to fish *as
                    well as* loaves. I am not convinced that softening the meaning to "even"
                    removes the anomaly caused by the removal of the section about the
                    loaves. In other words, the "even" in your translation of 8:7 does not
                    make sense to me.

                    Thus I contend that your rules are ambiguous, and that even with the
                    'best' selection of KAIs from 8:6-8, the extraction from the Feeding of
                    the 4000 does *not* make more sense than Mark's account using the rules
                    you defined.

                    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@...
                  • Brian E. Wilson
                    Ron Price wrote -- ... Ron, Before dealing with the details you raise, I think it might help if I make some general points relevant to how I see the 5000 and
                    Message 9 of 13 , Oct 22, 2001
                      Ron Price wrote --
                      >
                      >Brian,
                      > I now see that you do include Mark 6:45 in your listing of the
                      >Feeding of the 5000. If it were not included, then 8:10b would be part
                      >of the "shortened version which makes more sense..." I concede that in
                      >this case at least the ambiguity in the story boundary does not cause a
                      >problem, for the sense is not impaired if 8:10b is added.
                      >
                      Ron,
                      Before dealing with the details you raise, I think it might help if
                      I make some general points relevant to how I see the 5000 and 4000 in
                      Mark form a story duality.

                      (1) The word "sentences" in the definition in the wording of the Finland
                      talk is intended to indicate merely the adjoining associated wording of
                      the words with word-roots the same and in the same order. In other
                      formulations of the wording of the definition I have not used the word
                      "sentence" at this point because it is perhaps confusing since it may
                      suggest something "grammatical" that is not intended. It is in fact very
                      difficult to express these definitions in succinct English (and the talk
                      at Finland had to be compressed into 21 minutes). The essential idea in
                      the criterion being considered is that if the words with word-roots the
                      same and in the same order are removed, then the remaining wording
                      includes wording that can be shown to make more consistent sense than
                      the story as a whole. In other words, the definition is not intended to
                      define exactly which words must be included, but to set limits to the
                      wording within which the wording with more coherent wording can be
                      observed. It would be possible for slightly different versions of the
                      wording with more coherent sense to be produced, but any version that
                      fits the definition would show that the criterion concerned is met.

                      (2) It is important to note that "making more coherent sense" is
                      relative, not absolute. It is not required that the wording obtained
                      must be completely coherent sense, but only that it makes more coherent
                      sense than the story as a whole within which it is set.

                      (3) It is very clear that, in the 5000 and 4000 in Mark, there are more
                      than 10 word-roots the same and in the same order, and that the 5000 is
                      in tatters if these are omitted from it.

                      (4) Checking from my file of columns of Greek from which I obtained the
                      two columns of English for the 4000, in my Greek file the word KAI at
                      the beginning of Mk 8.7 is in red, and should have been shown in red in
                      the previous column of English. The relevant part of this material in
                      the column of black and red wording should have ended -- "and having
                      given thanks he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before
                      the people. And they set them before them AND". The relevant part of the
                      material in the column of blue wording should therefore have begun --
                      "THEY had a few small fish. And having blessed them..." Sorry about this
                      transcription error. (There are other transcription errors in the talk.)

                      To answer particular points you raise --
                      >
                      >>>(b) Sentences were not explicit in the original text, so whose
                      >>>definition of NT Greek sentences do you use?
                      >
                      >>Again, this is not critical in practice, as is clear when you see the
                      >>columns of Greek and English together.
                      >
                      >But here I must disagree. If we use the best Greek text (NTG27), then
                      >verses 8:1-3 are all one sentence, as in the RSV. Thus because of the
                      >parallels with Mark 6 (MAQHT..., TI FAGWSIN) verses 8:1a,c,3 cannot be
                      >part of the "shortened version which makes more sense...". This would
                      >surely ruin your case because 8:7 plus 8:10a does not make much sense.
                      >
                      I think the general point I have made about the word "sentence" meaning
                      merely "associated adjoining wording" applies here. If you look back at
                      the previous instances of story dualities set out in the Finland talk,
                      it is clear that "sentence" is not understood in a grammatical sense.
                      For instance, in the previous instance, the word "other" in the Wedding
                      Feast (Mt 22.1-10) stands by itself in the column of red and black
                      wording.
                      >
                      >>>(c) In theory there may be ambiguities in selecting parallel word
                      >>>roots. For instance:
                      >>>>Story_A sentence_1 ..... crowd ..... sentence_2 ..... eats .....
                      >>>sentence_3 ..... eats ..... sentence_4 ..... satisfied ..... Story_B
                      >>>sentence_1 ..... crowd ..... sentence_2 ..... eats ..... sentence_3
                      >>>..... satisfied ..... Which "eats" in story_A is parallel to the
                      >>>"eats" in story_B ? In other words, what algorithm do you use to
                      >>>select the parallel word roots?
                      >
                      >>Yes. But again, in practice this is not critical. Any "path" through
                      >>the similarities will do.
                      >
                      >No, it won't do, because it defines the 'sentences' to be omitted. The
                      >Feedings example has a case of the problem which I mentioned above. In
                      >6:41-42 there are 2 KAIs between the PARATIQWSIN and the EFAGON,
                      >whereas in 8:6-8 there are 5 KAIs between these words. If any of the
                      >KAIs in 8:7 are included in the pairing, then according to your rules,
                      >8:7 (which is one sentence) must be omitted from the "shortened version
                      >which makes more sense...". But 8:3 plus 8:10a makes no sense without
                      >8:7.
                      >
                      Again, "sentences" is not intended to be grammatical but to mean merely
                      "adjoining associated wording".
                      >
                      >One final point. Your translation appears to be following the RSV. But
                      >in 8:7 you translate the third KAI (RSV "also") as "even". Of course in
                      >the Feeding of the 4000, the "also" refers quite naturally to fish *as
                      >well as* loaves. I am not convinced that softening the meaning to
                      >"even" removes the anomaly caused by the removal of the section about
                      >the loaves. In other words, the "even" in your translation of 8:7 does
                      >not make sense to me.
                      >
                      The RSV translates Mk 8.1-10 as one story. In the "remainder" that is
                      formed by omitting the words with word-roots the same and in the same
                      order together with their adjoining associated wording, Mk 8.7 (without
                      the initial KAI) reads -

                      "They had a few small fish. And having blessed them, he commanded that
                      KAI these should be set before them."

                      We have no need to follow the RSV in order to translate the word "KAI"
                      in this context. In the column of blue wording, the most natural
                      translation is "even", at this point. The fact that "KAI" can be
                      translated as "even" here is surely support for the material having
                      originally been in a different context.

                      However, if you are not happy with this translation, the word KAI
                      concerned can be treated as a word with word-root the same and in the
                      same order, by matching it with the word KAI at the beginning of Mk
                      6.42. The consequence would be to divide the material as follows --

                      (IN BLUE IN RIGHT-HAND COLUMNS OF ENGLISH) "They had a few small fish.
                      And having blessed them he commanded that"

                      (IN RED IN LEFT-HAND COLUMN OF ENGLISH) "and"

                      (IN BLUE RIGHT-HAND COLUMN OF ENGLISH) "these should be set before
                      them."

                      (IN RED IN LEFT-HAND COLUMN OF ENGLISH ) "They ate and were
                      satisfied..."

                      In this way the word "KAI" is removed from the middle of Mk 8.7 in the
                      right-hand column, so that the material being considered in the right-
                      hand column reads consecutively --

                      "They had a few small fish. And having blessed them he commanded
                      that...these should be set before them."

                      I think anyone reading through the wording in blue will see that it is
                      definitely material forming one feeding with little fish that makes
                      more coherent sense than the story as a whole which is two feedings. One
                      feeding story is found within only remnants of another feeding story. In
                      the 4000 as it stands in Mk 8.1-10 (though not in the parallel in
                      Matthew), there are two accounts of people being fed, two prayers, two
                      commands, two distributions of food. The 4000 is clearly "composite" in
                      some sense. I think the two stories, the 5000 and the 4000, do satisfy
                      the criteria of a story duality, and that the 4000 is the composite dua-
                      story.

                      I think it is worth pointing out here that in the two columns of English
                      of the 4000, in the left-hand column the wording in red, also found in
                      the 5000, does not make coherent sense, and neither does the black and
                      red wording of the column as a whole. It is characteristic of story
                      dualities that the composite dua-story appears to be a *selection* of
                      wording from the simple dua-story combined *awkwardly* with what appears
                      to be an *edited* version of another story. It should be noted that such
                      appearances do not define a story duality, but are rather the sort of
                      account that the LTH would give of their occurrence. Story dualities can
                      be observed in the synoptic gospels irrespective of any attempt at
                      accounting for their occurrence.

                      Best wishes,
                      BRIAN WILSON

                      >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://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
                      ... associated adjoining wording Brian, This definition is imprecise, giving you rather a lot of latitude in choosing which words to include and which to
                      Message 10 of 13 , Oct 23, 2001
                        Brian Wilson wrote:

                        > ...the word "sentence" [in the Finland talk] mean[s] merely
                        "associated adjoining wording"

                        Brian,
                        This definition is imprecise, giving you rather a lot of latitude in
                        choosing which words to include and which to omit. It indicates that
                        your earlier statement:

                        >I would stress again that a story duality is an observed phenomenon.
                        >There are some two dozen stories dualities observable in the synoptic
                        >gospels. They were there before anyone ever thought of positing any
                        >hypothesis of the documentary relationship between the synoptic gospels.

                        is just not true, for part of what you present is your own
                        interpretation of what constitutes
                        the "associated adjoining wording". It is therefore not simply "an
                        observed phenomenon".

                        In the Parable of the Pounds the "associated adjoining wording" in Lk
                        19:13, in addition to "his ten" and "ten pounds each", includes a whole
                        extra clause: "and he said to them, 'Trade with these till I come'".
                        This has to be included because otherwise it would be in the remainder,
                        which would then *not* make a meaningful story. In the Parable of the
                        Tares in Mt 13:30, the "associated adjoining wording" is only one word
                        ("until"). With such varied interpretation of the rules it will be
                        possible to detect a 'consistent story' in many cases where a more rigid
                        set of rules would not.

                        Yet even with all this latitude, your story extracts do not always,
                        in my opinion, make more sense than the original gospel stories.
                        Your reconstruction of the Feeding of the 4000 presents an incomplete
                        story ending with Mk 8:7,10a. What happened? Did the disciples obey the
                        command to set a few fish before the crowd of 4000? If they did, weren't
                        most of the crowd left hungry? Did Jesus send the crowd away because
                        they complained? No, Brian, it's not as good as Mark's account. Whatever
                        Mark's faults, the inability to tell a good story was not one of them.
                        Similarly in the call of Levi, your reconstruction leaves a bare
                        statement about Jesus seeing Levi sitting at the tax office. Shorn of
                        the call of Levi, the statement is pointless. In any case Mk 2:13-14 and
                        2:15-17 are two distinct stories put together by 'Mark' because they are
                        about tax collectors. i.e. Mk 2:13-17 is not one story but two. So it's
                        not at all surprising that 2:15-17 is a consistent story - that's the
                        way 'Mark' wrote it.

                        In the Woman with the Ointment, the fact that there are two matching
                        DEs and two matching KAIs in Mk 14:9 and Lk 7:48-49 is conveniently
                        ignored.

                        In the Wedding Feast, "again" and "other" in 22:4 are omitted from the
                        extract with no justification in the rules - but simply to make sense of
                        the result. If it is argued that these two words belong to "he sent his
                        servants" in verse 3, then for consistency one should say that as a
                        minimum the whole clause "Again he sent other servants" also belongs.

                        There is a further inconsistency in that certain words (shown in green
                        in your listings) are used in the extract even though under your rules
                        we would expect them to be omitted. So you do not even keep to your own
                        loosely defined rules.

                        The idea of making deductions about synoptic hypotheses based on such
                        an ill-defined and subjective phenomenon is extremely dubious.

                        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@...
                      • Brian E. Wilson
                        Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Ron Price replied -- ... Ron, If your argument were valid here, then the triple tradition in the synoptic gospels is not an observed
                        Message 11 of 13 , Oct 27, 2001
                          Brian Wilson wrote --
                          >
                          >The word "sentences" in the definition in the wording of the Finland
                          >talk is intended to indicate merely the adjoining associated wording of
                          >the words with word-roots the same and in the same order. In other
                          >formulations of the wording of the definition I have not used the word
                          >"sentence" at this point because it is perhaps confusing since it may
                          >suggest something "grammatical" that is not intended. It is in fact
                          >very difficult to express these definitions in succinct English (and
                          >the talk at Finland had to be compressed into 21 minutes). The
                          >essential idea in the criterion being considered is that if the words
                          >with word-roots the same and in the same order are removed, then the
                          >remaining wording includes wording that can be shown to make more
                          >consistent sense than the story as a whole. In other words, the
                          >definition is not intended to define exactly which words must be
                          >included, but to set limits to the wording within which the wording
                          >with more coherent wording can be observed. It would be possible for
                          >slightly different versions of the wording with more coherent sense to
                          >be produced, but any version that fits the definition would show that
                          >the criterion concerned is met.
                          >

                          Ron Price replied --
                          >
                          >This definition is imprecise, giving you rather a lot of latitude in
                          >choosing which words to include and which to omit. It indicates that
                          >your earlier statement:
                          >
                          >>I would stress again that a story duality is an observed phenomenon.
                          >>There are some two dozen stories dualities observable in the synoptic
                          >>gospels. They were there before anyone ever thought of positing any
                          >>hypothesis of the documentary relationship between the synoptic
                          >>gospels.
                          >
                          >is just not true, for part of what you present is your own
                          >interpretation of what constitutes the "associated adjoining wording".
                          >It is therefore not simply "an observed phenomenon".
                          >
                          Ron,
                          If your argument were valid here, then the triple tradition in the
                          synoptic gospels is not an observed phenomenon (and study of the
                          synoptic problem would grid to a halt!). For exactly what is to be
                          included in the triple tradition is determined to some extent by the
                          interpretation of scholar concerned. The definition of story duality
                          sets definite limits to the wording within which the wording with more
                          coherent wording can be observed. These limits are not subjective.
                          >
                          >In the Parable of the Pounds the "associated adjoining wording" in Lk
                          >19:13, in addition to "his ten" and "ten pounds each", includes a whole
                          >extra clause: "and he said to them, 'Trade with these till I come'".
                          >This has to be included because otherwise it would be in the remainder,
                          >which would then *not* make a meaningful story.
                          >
                          Yes. This is fine. We are looking for material within the Parable of the
                          Pounds that makes more consistent sense than the parable as a whole. The
                          essential point is that the word-roots the same and in the same order
                          should not be included in this. When the "black and red" wording is
                          omitted from the Parable of the Pounds, as John Nolland observes, and as
                          quoted in the talk --
                          >
                          >"The narrative that emerges, if we extract and fit together those
                          >parts of the parable that deal with royal rule, is in its own right a
                          >more of less complete and coherent narrative.~ (J. Nolland, "Word
                          >Biblical Commentary Volume 35C - Luke 18:35-24-24:53" -- Dallas, 1993 -
                          >- page 910.)
                          >
                          Note that Nolland even obligingly uses the term "coherent" to describe
                          the remainder here. Note also that he is implying that the remainder is
                          more coherent than the parable as a whole, but not that the remainder
                          makes totally coherent sense.
                          >
                          >In the Parable of the Tares in Mt 13:30, the "associated adjoining
                          >wording" is only one word ("until"). With such varied interpretation of
                          >the rules it will be possible to detect a 'consistent story' in many
                          >cases where a more rigid set of rules would not.
                          >
                          There is no rule that the associated adjoining wording must be of any
                          particular length. In some instances there may be a single word only in
                          red in the column showing the wording with word-roots the same and in
                          the same wording in both narratives, with no associated adjoining
                          wording at all. You seem to want a set of rules that ties down the exact
                          wording of what must have been in the "remainder" (the blue wording).
                          The essential idea of the criterion being considered is that if **any**
                          ten or more word-roots the same and in the same order are observed, and
                          if these and **any** adjoining associated wording is removed, then it is
                          **possible** to observe a remainder that makes more consistent sense
                          than the story as a whole. As I said above, it is clearly possible for
                          slightly different versions of the wording with more coherent sense to
                          be produced, but **any** version that fits the definition would show
                          that the criterion concerned is met.
                          >
                          >Yet even with all this latitude, your story extracts do not always,
                          >in my opinion, make more sense than the original gospel stories.
                          >
                          As the notes in my talk show, I think in every case I have found
                          comments by other scholars supporting the idea that there is an
                          awkwardness in the story concerned such that if the awkwardness is
                          removed the story makes more coherent sense. In other words, the
                          judgement that the remainder makes more coherent sense is not merely
                          mine.
                          >
                          >Your reconstruction of the Feeding of the 4000 presents an incomplete
                          >story ending with Mk 8:7,10a. What happened? Did the disciples obey the
                          >command to set a few fish before the crowd of 4000? If they did,
                          >weren't most of the crowd left hungry? Did Jesus send the crowd away
                          >because they complained? No, Brian, it's not as good as Mark's account.
                          >Whatever Mark's faults, the inability to tell a good story was not one
                          >of them.
                          >
                          Your rhetorical questions support my explanation of the creation of
                          story dualities by the writer of the Greek Logia. In my view, it was
                          precisely because a story was "weak" in his view that he decided to
                          expand it using material from a story he had already used. It was
                          precisely because the story was not "a good one" that he sought to
                          improve it by expanding it with wording taken from the 5000. Also, you
                          seem to be wanting the "remainder" to form a completely coherent story.
                          This is not required by the definition. As explained in the text of the
                          talk, the remainder makes more consistent sense that the 4000 as a whole
                          in which it is set. The story as it stands in Mark does contain
                          awkwardnesses, and these are not present in the remainder set out in
                          blue wording.
                          >
                          >Similarly in the call of Levi, your reconstruction leaves a bare
                          >statement about Jesus seeing Levi sitting at the tax office. Shorn of
                          >the call of Levi, the statement is pointless. In any case Mk 2:13-14
                          >and 2:15-17 are two distinct stories put together by 'Mark' because
                          >they are about tax collectors. i.e. Mk 2:13-17 is not one story but
                          >two. So it's not at all surprising that 2:15-17 is a consistent story -
                          >that's the way 'Mark' wrote it.
                          >
                          The story of Jesus and Levi in Mark is represented as one narrative in
                          all the synopses I know. According to Huck/Throckmorton, the "Call of
                          Levi" covers Mk 2.13-17 and parallels. The idea that Mark was a good
                          story-teller is speculation. How do we know that any story in Mark was
                          formed by him? On the LTH, the great majority of the wording of Mark was
                          lifted from the Greek Logia. It could well be that Mark was hopeless at
                          writing stories, and much appreciated the opportunity to use the fine
                          examples of stories he found before him in his documentary source. The
                          narrative in Mk 2.13-17 is one composite story which was not necessarily
                          formed by Mark.
                          >
                          >In the Woman with the Ointment, the fact that there are two matching
                          >DEs and two matching KAIs in Mk 14:9 and Lk 7:48-49 is conveniently
                          >ignored.
                          >
                          Big deal! They are exactly the sort of words that could well be omitted
                          from any selection of word-roots the same and in the same order. There
                          is no rule that any such words must be included.
                          >
                          >The idea of making deductions about synoptic hypotheses based on such
                          >an ill-defined and subjective phenomenon is extremely dubious.
                          >
                          The definition is well-defined, as shown above. Your idea of "making
                          deductions" seems to echo the idea of Emmanuel Fritsch, that it is
                          possible to deduce a synoptic hypothesis from observed synoptic
                          phenomena such as story dualities. I hope I would not be so foolish as
                          to attempt to deduce any synoptic hypothesis from the observed synoptic
                          phenomena for which it accounts, since I do not think it very sensible
                          to attempt to do the impossible. The LTH is a hypothesis to be checked
                          against the data, not a theorem that can be deduced logically step by
                          step from the data. No synoptic documentary hypothesis can be deduced
                          from the observed data for which it accounts.

                          Best wishes,
                          BRIAN WILSON

                          >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://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
                          ... Brian, There is a difference between the triple tradition and your story dualities . A precise definition of the former is not usually required as part
                          Message 12 of 13 , Oct 28, 2001
                            I wrote:

                            >> ..... part of what you present is your own
                            >>interpretation of what constitutes the "associated adjoining wording".
                            >>It is therefore not simply "an observed phenomenon".

                            Brian Wilson replied:

                            > If your argument were valid here, then the triple tradition in the
                            >synoptic gospels is not an observed phenomenon (and study of the
                            >synoptic problem would grid to a halt!). For exactly what is to be
                            >included in the triple tradition is determined to some extent by the
                            >interpretation of scholar concerned.

                            Brian,
                            There is a difference between the "triple tradition" and your "story
                            dualities". A precise definition of the former is not usually required
                            as part of any argument which refers to it. This is not the case with
                            regard to 'story dualities', each of which needs to be set out in detail
                            in order to be sure that it qualifies. If a precise definition of
                            "triple tradition" were ever required for some particular purpose,
                            doubtless scholars could agree on such a definition.

                            >The essential idea of the criterion being considered is that if **any**
                            >ten or more word-roots the same and in the same order are observed, and
                            >if these and **any** adjoining associated wording is removed, then it is
                            >**possible** to observe a remainder that makes more consistent sense
                            >than the story as a whole.

                            Ah, now this is not the plain meaning of the original definition, but
                            quite a distinct refinement of the original.

                            >The story [of the Feeding of the 4000] as it stands in Mark does contain
                            >awkwardnesses, and these are not present in the remainder set out in
                            >blue wording.

                            But this is not the whole test. Your claim was that the remainder
                            makes more sense than the original story. In order to assess this you
                            must compare the awkwardnesses of the original story with the
                            awkwardnesses of the remainder, which involves assessing any
                            awkwardnesses introduced during your editing procedure.

                            >> ..... Mk 2:13-17 is not one story but
                            >>two. So it's not at all surprising that 2:15-17 is a consistent story -
                            >>that's the way 'Mark' wrote it.

                            >The story of Jesus and Levi in Mark is represented as one narrative in
                            >all the synopses I know.

                            Synopses often put related stories (e.g. Mustard and Yeast) together
                            for convenience. We cannot rely on the divisions of synopses to identify
                            story boundaries. Even Hooker puts 2:13-17 together as one section for
                            convenience in her commentary, but she describes it as "two brief
                            stories ..... (vv.13-14) and ..... (vv.15-17)".

                            > The idea that Mark was a good story-teller is speculation.
                            > How do we know that any story in Mark was formed by him?

                            For the purposes of this discussion, let's say that he relates many
                            good stories. Where he got them from is not relevant here.

                            >The definition is well-defined, as shown above.

                            Not yet. For you still haven't given a satisfactory explanation of the
                            words in green.

                            > Your idea of "making deductions" .....

                            Actually it's your idea, for in your notes on "Duality in the Synoptic
                            Gospels" you argue that the Greek Notes Hypothesis is better able to
                            account for the pattern of story dualities. You are therefore trying to
                            deduce from your observations that one synoptic hypothesis is better
                            than certain others.
                            Of course there's nothing wrong with this in principle, *if* story
                            dualities are sufficiently objectively defined.

                            You also wrote:

                            >Your rhetorical questions support my explanation of the creation of
                            >story dualities by the writer of the Greek Logia. In my view, it was
                            >precisely because a story was "weak" in his view that he decided to
                            >expand it using material from a story he had already used. It was
                            >precisely because the story was not "a good one" that he sought to
                            >improve it by expanding it with wording taken from the 5000.

                            But in this case I much prefer the explanation that Mark duplicated the
                            story so as to represent the (spiritual) feeding both of Jews (12
                            baskets, c.f. 12 tribes of Israel) and of Gentiles (7 baskets, c.f. 70
                            "others" in Luke 10:1 - well 70 baskets would have been *really*
                            ridiculous!). Most narrators when they improve a story will quietly drop
                            the original if they can.

                            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@...
                          • Brian E. Wilson
                            Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Ron Price replied -- ... Ron, Yes. The original is in very compressed English, and the refinement of the original wording brings out
                            Message 13 of 13 , Oct 29, 2001
                              Brian Wilson wrote --
                              >
                              >The essential idea of the criterion being considered is that if **any**
                              >ten or more word-roots the same and in the same order are observed, and
                              >if these and **any** adjoining associated wording is removed, then it
                              >is **possible** to observe a remainder that makes more consistent sense
                              >than the story as a whole.
                              >
                              Ron Price replied --
                              >
                              >Ah, now this is not the plain meaning of the original definition, but
                              >quite a distinct refinement of the original.
                              >
                              Ron,
                              Yes. The original is in very compressed English, and the refinement
                              of the original wording brings out what was originally intended in the
                              original wording. The meaning of the original definition was not
                              altogether "plain", therefore. I suppose I should be strongly aware of
                              this, since I have been using the definition to try and spot story
                              dualities for years. Moreover the procedure followed in the Finland talk
                              is clearly in line with the intended meaning.

                              Brian Wilson also wrote --
                              >
                              >The definition is well-defined, as shown above.
                              >
                              To which Ron Price replied --
                              >
                              >Not yet. For you still haven't given a satisfactory explanation of the
                              >words in green.
                              >
                              The words in green could have been shown in blue. They are not needed to
                              meet the criteria of the definition of a story duality. They draw
                              attention to striking instances of the same word-root in the same
                              position that is not used as one of the ten or more word-roots the same
                              and in the same order required by the definition. From the point of view
                              of the LTH, they may well have been words which prompted the writer of
                              the Greek Logia to turn back to a previous story in which this was a key
                              word. For instance, "woman" in the "Woman with the Ointment" may well
                              have prompted the writer of the Greek Logia to turn back to the story of
                              the "woman" of the Anointing at Bethany. Similarly "he saw" in the Call
                              of Levi could well have prompted the writer of the Greek Logia to look
                              back at the story in which Jesus "saw" Simon and Andrew working as
                              fishermen. (The green wording "[a king]" in the Wedding Feast is a
                              transcription error. It should be without brackets and in blue. The
                              Greek is literally "a man (a king)" and the error arose from my own
                              translation into English containing these brackets. The word "king" is
                              not in the corresponding simple dua-story -- the Wicked Tenants.) On
                              reflection, it would perhaps have been better if I had simply put the
                              words "woman" and "he saw" in blue, and made the point about these being
                              "key" words in the Notes.

                              I wonder, Ron, whether you have tried looking for story dualities
                              yourself? You seem to suggest that the definition with which I have been
                              working is slack in some way. But if so, it would surely be easy to find
                              pairs of narratives that meet the criteria of the definition. I began
                              with the one example observed by Vincent Taylor -- "The Gospel according
                              to St. Mark" (London, 1957) pages 368-370 -- wondering whether this was
                              the only instance of such a story duality in the synoptic gospels. I
                              looked for further examples of what he had spotted. It has been a slow
                              process finding other instances, and I have found about twenty-nine to
                              date. I think if you tried looking for them, you would see that they
                              certainly exist, and that the definition works.

                              If you do find any further examples of story dualities, or if anyone
                              else does, I would be very glad to be told. I would, of course, ascribe
                              the credit for this to the discoverer.

                              Best wishes,
                              BRIAN WILSON

                              >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://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@...
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.