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

[Synoptic-L] Re: Accounting for the minor agreements

Expand Messages
  • David Gentile
    Hello again, ... RP: It depends which way we look at it. As I see it, you have two hypothetical documents. I have none, because I equate sQ with Papias TA
    Message 1 of 3 , Oct 31, 2001
      Hello again,


      DG:

      >I don't think "much" simpler would be fair.
      >I have one more source and one more connection
      >compared to your hypothesis.

      RP:
      It depends which way we look at it. As I see it, you
      have two
      hypothetical documents. I have none, because I equate sQ
      with Papias' TA
      LOGIA. A historically attested document is not
      hypothetical.

      DG:
      There are certainly records of "lost gospels", and physical evidence like
      the Eggerton fragment.
      Additionally its not clear that writers
      of the time would make a distinction between "the first gospel Mark wrote"
      and
      "Mark's revised gospel". They might simply call both "Mark's gospel"


      RP: Fitzmyer has presented evidence that Luke didn't like
      duplication. The
      argument here is that Luke saw some duplication in Mk
      6:45-8:26 (a
      second feeding, similar healings), and needing more space
      for other
      material, decided to omit the whole block. This
      explanation seems
      eminently reasonable to me.

      DG: Both are possible, so we'll just have to disagree about which is more
      probable.
      Why leave out the "inside/outside the cup" discussion? (Mk 7:18 / Mt 15:15)


      DG: > Where Matthew seems composite, you require Luke to
      drop the
      >Markian half.

      RP: Sometimes he drops it. Sometimes he doesn't and this
      produces a Lukan
      doublet.

      DG:
      But the point is he never chooses to keep the Markian half. In the Mark/Q
      overlap there
      is no major Mark/Luke agreement against Matthew. (I would explain the minor
      ones as
      alterations made by Matthew to features present in both sources.)

      DG:
      > On my hypothesis the
      >mark/Q overlap is not in "A" but Mark and "B" get it
      independently.

      RP:
      You've lost me here. By definition, the Mark/Q overlap
      is an overlap
      between material in Mark and at least one other document.
      The overlap is
      not *in* any one synoptic document.

      DG: I have:

      A=> Mk
      A => B
      A + B => Lk
      B + Mk => Mt

      When the source of the material is "A" we have the basic pattern.
      A => MK => Mt
      A => Lk
      Mark is the middle term

      When the source is "B" we have:
      B => Lk
      B => Mt
      We have the double tradition and the minor agreements.

      When the source is Mark:
      Mk => Mt
      We have agreement against Luke and unique Markian material.

      When "B" and Mark independently obtain a bit form a source other that "A"
      we get:
      s => B
      s => Mk
      B => Lk
      B + Mk => Mt

      This is the Mark/Q overlap pattern.

      DG:
      > There are section of text
      >where Mt/Lk, Mt/Mk, and triple agreement, finely
      intermesh. (Mt 22: 35-36 ,
      >Mt 12: 25-26)
      >Matthew seems to look like the source here. You would
      suggest Mk=>Mt=>Lk
      >here,
      >but Mt=> Mk, Mt=>Lk seems simpler.

      RP:
      I don't see why you think Matthew appears to be the
      source of Mark in
      these cases.

      DG: This has more to do with my view as a whole. Mark is adding details,
      Matthew is not
      removing them, in general.

      DG:
      >(Mt 12:29-30 , 12:31-32). Here you require Luke to be
      following Matthew, and
      >specifically
      >select the non-Markian half. Lk + Mk => Mt seems simpler.

      RP:
      But Luke is here not following Matthew
      straightforwardly. For after Lk
      11:23, Luke jumps to another part of Matthew for the
      Return of the
      Unclean Spirit, and later still jumps back again to deal
      with speaking
      against the Son of Man and the Holy Spirit. That Luke
      happens to miss
      out a verse of Matthew which he had derived from Mark is
      not too
      surprising during all this jumping from one place to
      another.

      DG:
      Again the point is he never chooses to keep the Markian half, instead of
      the Matthian one.

      DG:
      >4) Finally here are some statistics on Markian doublets I
      posted a while
      >back:

      RP:
      Markan doublets? There aren't many of these. Did you
      really mean
      doublets occurring in Mark?

      DG: Sorry. These refer to the instances in Mark that the GH points to as
      showing Mark composite.
      i.e. "When evening came, and the sun was setting"

      DG:

      >On my hypothesis it also suggests Mark, in the process of
      adding detail to
      >p-Mk/Lk,
      >is actually the originator of many of the doublets.

      RP:

      I don't understand this. Can you give me an example?

      DG: The general premise is that if Matthew and Luke are independent in
      their
      use of Mark they should behave as independent variables. The "predicted"
      is what we would expect from independent variables.

      The reason I suggest that Mark is the source of many of these (on my
      hypothesis)
      is that if they were in "A" then
      Luke would probably have both halves. Matthew being identical to Mark and
      Luke having one line suggest that Mark made the addition, as one
      possibility. In general I see
      Mark as adding details, so creating these would be a natural outcome.
      Rather that Mt/Lk having agreements of omission against
      Mark, it is Mark who has added to the original.

      DG:

      > ..... There are two possible paths of influence.
      >1) Mark(2) => Matthew(0) somehow causes => Luke(<2)
      >2) Mark(2) => Luke(2) somehow causes => Matthew(>0)
      >=======
      >All this certainly supports your hypothesis over the 2DH.
      >You would have to argue #1.
      >I would tend to argue #2 was closer to the general path,
      >however I can also argue as follows:

      RP:

      Why would you need two strings to your bow?

      DG: Luke has a certain probability of altering Mark. He may
      1) Keep both halves
      2) Keep one half
      3) Keep none.

      Now we ask, "Does what Matthew has, alter Luke's probable behavior?"
      It does. If Matthew keeps both, Luke's chances of keeping both increase.
      This supports both our ideas. But it also seems (on your hypothesis),
      that Matthew keeping none influences Luke to keep EITHER 1 or none.
      If Matthew having none only influenced Luke to keep none, that would
      be very understandable, but it also appears that Matthew having none
      makes Luke more likely to remove one half.
      Example:
      Mark(2) => Matthew(1) => Luke often decides to keep two, often only one.
      Mark(2) => Matthew(0) => Now Luke is less likely to keep two, but no less
      likely to keep 1.
      Note these are in Mark, so we would assume he is following Mark, in
      general.

      On your hypothesis, I see no reason for this to be the case.
      On my hypothesis I believe there is a complicated path that may cause this
      effect.

      Dave Gentile
      Riverside, Illinois



      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • David Gentile
      Steve Black wrote: ========== The fact that Mk would hardly have reached any special canonical status when it was copied would allow for what might be seen
      Message 2 of 3 , Oct 31, 2001
        Steve Black wrote:
        ==========
        The fact that Mk would hardly have reached any special canonical
        status when it was "copied" would allow for what might be
        seen as
        rather free level of "paraphrasing", including occasional
        attempts to
        improve the original, etc.

        This is not provable, of course, but is it unlikely? Does
        it
        adequately explain the various agreements? Is it less
        likely then a
        model that requires an Ur-Markus?
        ==========

        I personally feel that something like a DM is a necessity.
        But the first question that comes to mind, is:
        "Is it closer to Mark, or to Matthew?"

        You have:
        Mk => DM
        Q + DM => Lk
        Q + DM => Mt

        If Luke and Matthew both had access to both DM and Q, then we might begin
        to suspect
        that DM and Q are one document. (a proto-Matthew or Matthew).

        For example, where did the extra material in the temptation come from?
        Since it is not a saying, and since it is fixed in its position in Mark, we
        might suppose it
        came from DM.

        Both Lk and Mt have a sermon introduction. DM or Q?

        Ron Price, on his site, lists evidence that Luke knew characteristic
        Matthian material.
        Now DM starts to look like its style has even changed.

        My picture of this document is this:
        It is based on a Mark-like document and sayings. The minor agreements have
        been added.
        A pure sayings list is contained within a "sermon" in the gospel.
        The style in now more Matthian.

        I suggest:
        p-Mk/Lk => Mk
        p-Mk/Lk => p-Mt/Q+
        p-Mk/Lk + p-Mt/Q+ => Lk
        Mk + p-Mt/Q+ => Mt

        Comparing the two on other points:
        Luke does not appear to know Mark's order or specific content in the Mark/Q
        overlap.
        The DM hypothesis does not account for this. I account for Mark/Q overlap
        as
        material that Mk and p-Mt/Q+ independently get from an outside source,
        giving:
        p-Mt/Q+ => Lk
        Mk + p-Mt/Q+ => Mt

        According to the JSH Luke has some signs of being first in some cases.
        My hypothesis allows p-Lk => Mk => Mt

        I believe omissions by Luke relative to Mark, are more likely to reflect
        his ignorance
        of Mark on these points. Since Lk sees neither the finished Mark nor
        Matthew, my hypothesis allows this.

        Finally I think some Mt/Lk agreements of omission against Mark are better
        explained as additions
        by Mark. Again I would allow this.

        I end up with the same number of hypothetical sources (2), and only one
        more connection.
        The small amount of extra complexity seems quite justified.

        Dave Gentile
        Riverside, Illinois





        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • David Gentile
        Ron Price wrote: I don t know what you count as major . How about Mk 4:21 // Lk 8:16 with no Matthean equivalent in his redaction of Mark?
        Message 3 of 3 , Nov 1, 2001
          Ron Price wrote:
          I don't know what you count as "major". How about Mk 4:21 // Lk 8:16
          with no Matthean equivalent in his redaction of Mark?

          ==========================

          In this case Luke does know Mark (or proto-Mark) both order, and content.
          However, in this case Luke has a duplicate at 11:33.
          Luke's supposed aversion to duplication is not evident here.

          To me this represents Luke's behavior when he DOES have the material
          in 2 sources. He tends to put it in two places,
          once in Mark's location, and once in his special section.

          Dave Gentile
          Riverside, Illinois








          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.