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

[Synoptic-L] A discussion of the different endings of Mark

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    To all, I am in the process of writing a book on various historical issues and problems regarding the Bible, and I have uploaded a draft of the section
    Message 1 of 21 , Mar 11, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      To all,

      I am in the process of writing a book on various historical issues and
      problems regarding the Bible, and I have uploaded a draft of the section
      regarding the ending of Mark at
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/synoptic-l/files/Who%20Wrote%20The%20Ending%20
      Of%20Mark.doc for comment.

      Please note that my book is not intended for a scholastic readership, and
      therefore the style of this extract is perhaps not what you are used to
      seeing here. Please bear this in mind before you rip me to shreds for not
      having references etc! Also, because it's an extract from a larger work,
      various of my assumptions are not spelled out, and hence a statement of the
      most important is probably in order.

      1) I believe that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were the authors of the Gospels
      bearing their names;
      2) I believe that a version of all of the synoptics existed prior to 70
      AD;
      3) I believe in Markan priority, at least in the sense that Matthew and
      Luke used something written by Mark.

      Therefore, could I please ask that any comments take these assumptions into
      account.

      Thank you,

      Dave Inglis
      david@...
      3538 O'Connor Drive
      Lafayette, CA, USA






      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Jeffrey Glen Jackson
      Interesting. I m someone skeptical of the claims about a larger edition of Mark existing, however. ... I almost agree with you. I believe there is a third
      Message 2 of 21 , Mar 11, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Interesting. I'm someone skeptical of the claims about
        a larger edition of Mark existing, however.

        > 1) I believe that Matthew, Mark, and Luke
        > were the authors of the Gospels bearing
        > their names;

        I almost agree with you. I believe there is a third source
        behind Mt (in addition to Mk and Q), what was written
        by Matthew, and which gave Mt its name, and gave rise
        to Papias' tradition. This would be the so-called
        Special Matthew material.

        > 2) I believe that a version of all of the synoptics existed prior to 70
        > AD;

        I agree here too. There is nothing about the predictions of
        Jerusalem's fall that actually require a post-70 AD date. In fact,
        the juxtaposition of predictions of Jerusalem's fall with eschatological
        sayings in Mt pretty much require a pre-70 AD date.

        I would date Q to pre-crucifixion notes of sayings. Special Matthew
        should probably be dated before a significant Gentile population was
        in the church, given how Jewish in form and content it is, maybe as
        early as the 30's. I take seriously the traditions of Mark (and Peter)
        being behind Mk, and Peter being in Rome in the 40's, and think Mk
        should probably be dated that early.

        > 3) I believe in Markan priority, at least in the sense that Matthew and
        > Luke used something written by Mark.

        Again, I agree, though perhaps in a different sense. I think Mk was
        written originally on a codex, and that very few copies were circulating.
        So few, that time, chance, and active persecution nearly made them
        all extinct. Luke worked from a copy that was missing some leaves.
        This is why he has no parallels to Mk 6:45-8:26 (except for a Mk-Q
        overlap at Mk 8:11-12||Q 11:16,29), nor to verse in Mt that I think
        came from the "lost" ending of Mk.

        The editor of Mt evidently had an intact copy of Mk, as he has the
        missing verses cited above. He may have even had the final leaf
        of Mk, as I think Mt 28:9-10 may be from this. In Mk 16:8, they
        run off telling no one because they are so afraid, so in Mt 28:9-10,
        Jesus himself appears to the women and reiterates what the
        angel told them, so now they do tell the disciples. Continuing
        that narrative thread, Mt 28:16-20 seem likely candidates for
        being from the full original Mk.

        I'd date Lk-Acts to about the time that Acts abruptly ends (62 AD),
        and Mt no later than the late 60's, but probably early 60's since
        the editor isn't familiar with Lk.

        After that, all complete copies of Mk vanished, leaving us with Mk
        ending at 16:8, which as you note, was variously completed.

        ><> Jeffrey Glen Jackson, son of Albert, son of George, son of <><
        ><> Henry, son of Miles, son of Randolph, son of Ephraim, son of <><
        ><> Thomas, son of John, son of Thomas, .... sonne of Jack. <><
        mailto:jeff@... http://www.jeff-jackson.com
        "The blithe 'reconstruction' not only of Q, not only of its different
        stages of composition, but even of complete communities whose
        beliefs are accurately reflected in these different stages, betokens
        a naive willingness to believe in anything as long as it is nothing
        like Mark (let alone Paul)." N. T. Wright




        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • David Inglis
        ... Frank, I can see that damage to the ends of the scroll is possible, but I think it unlikely. Consider the beginning of the scroll. Because of the way
        Message 3 of 21 , Mar 12, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Frank Schmuck wrote:

          > I like what you have written. I don't know how you feel about N.T.
          > Wright but during a question and answer period after a presentation he
          > suddenly began talking about his personal views on the ending of Mark.
          > It was a bit strange as the question had to do with his perception of
          > the personal views of a rival. Anyway he stated that he thought Mark
          > ended "bizarrely" and that it was fairly obvious that someone tried to
          > "fix" it. He then went on to talk about how "bizarrely" it begins.
          > Wham! Suddenly you're with John the Baptist. He also speculated that
          > the first sentence could also have been added to "fix" Mark's beginning.
          >
          > But why? Assuming the text was in the hands of those who felt this was
          > a sacred text, why did someone feel that Mark's Gospel need to be fixed
          > at the beginning and at the end? He then went on to talk about damage
          > to scrolls tended to be on the ends - the beginning and on the end -
          > possibly due to a mishap such as a fire or water damage while in
          > storage. If it was damaged the keeper would need to somehow "fix" the
          > problem. Hence, the fixing of Mark at the beginning and the fixing of
          > Mark at the end.

          Frank,

          I can see that damage to the ends of the scroll is possible, but I think it
          unlikely. Consider the beginning of the scroll. Because of the way text is
          written on a scroll, damage wouldn't normally affect just the first
          sentence, or even the first few sentences. Instead, damage would affect the
          left-hand side of the first column (and most likely the corners first), and
          then spread rightwards. Once the first column was totally lost, further
          damage would then affect the left-hand side of the second column, and so on.
          So, any 'fixing' would most likely consist of reconstructing lines that had
          lost the left-hand portion, rather than replacing a sentence or two at the
          beginning. As to the cause of the damage, it would almost certainly be some
          kind of 'traumatic' damage (e.g. fire or flood as you suggest), because
          otherwise it would have been possible to copy the scroll before the text was
          totally lost. Also, we need (I think) to assume that this happened after
          the author (Mark) was dead, because otherwise re-constructing the beginning
          would not have been a problem.

          Now, the problem with all this is that there is NO evidence that any other
          beginning of Mark ever existed. This implies either that no other copies
          existed when the damage occurred, or that all existing copies (apart from
          this one) were destroyed for some reason. As the evidence strongly suggests
          that both Rome and Alexandria had very early copies of some form of Mark,
          then it seems to me unlikely that (for example) the Church in Alexandria
          could arrange for all other copies of Mark to be destroyed to keep their
          copy 'sacred'. In other words, I don't see how damage (even very early
          damage) to a single scroll of Mark could result in the situation we have
          today, where there is no evidence of any other beginning.

          The situation regarding the end of Mark is different. There are multiple
          different endings in the MSS, and a general belief that 16:8 was not
          intended to be the ending. Although some people do argue that Mark could
          have ended at this point, I personally think this is 'clutching at straws',
          and that it is much more likely that 16:8 was not intended to be the ending.
          Could this be due to damage? Possibly, but the problem here is that the end
          of a scroll is usually the most protected part, because it's in the center
          of the roll. Therefore, flood (and in particular fire) damage is unlikely
          to affect the end until the rest of the scroll is also affected. It is also
          almost impossible to think of a process (other than general wear and tear as
          a result of unrolling and rolling) that would result in damage to BOTH ends
          of a scroll, and again, wear and tear is easily fixed by making a new copy.

          So, although the beginning could have been damaged, the evidence strongly
          suggests that it wasn't. Conversely, the evidence suggests that the end
          might have been damaged, but the physical characteristics of a scroll make
          it very unlikely.

          Dave Inglis
          david@...
          3538 O'Connor Drive
          Lafayette, CA, USA



          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Jeffrey Glen Jackson
          ... You re making the rather significant assumption that Mk was written on a scroll in the early days. As far as I know (I m sure someone will correct me if
          Message 4 of 21 , Mar 12, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            > I can see that damage to the ends of the scroll is possible, but I think it
            > unlikely. Consider the beginning of the scroll. Because of the way text is

            You're making the rather significant assumption that Mk was
            written on a scroll in the early days. As far as I know (I'm
            sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong :-), but there has
            never been a scroll of the Gospels found. They are all codices.
            Even p52 is written on both sides, and so is almost certainly
            from a codex. I would suggest that the reason the codex immediately
            became the popular, nay universal, form of Christian sacred texts was
            because their economy dictated that they were written on codices
            from the beginning.

            > beginning of Mark ever existed. This implies either that no other copies
            > existed when the damage occurred, or that all existing copies (apart from
            > this one) were destroyed for some reason. As the evidence strongly suggests
            > that both Rome and Alexandria had very early copies of some form of Mark,

            How early are you considering "very early"? As I noted earlier,
            the copy Luke worked from was missing not only the end, but
            likely a few leaves from the middle too. Although I think
            this would be in the 60's, even allowing for more common dates
            of the gospels, we're still talking about the 70's or 80's. It doesn't
            take much imagination to imagine all intact copies being lost at
            a time when you could probably count all the copies ever made
            on your fingers.

            ><> Jeffrey Glen Jackson, son of Albert, son of George, son of <><
            ><> Henry, son of Miles, son of Randolph, son of Ephraim, son of <><
            ><> Thomas, son of John, son of Thomas, .... sonne of Jack. <><
            mailto:jeff@... http://www.jeff-jackson.com
            "The blithe 'reconstruction' not only of Q, not only of its different
            stages of composition, but even of complete communities whose
            beliefs are accurately reflected in these different stages, betokens
            a naive willingness to believe in anything as long as it is nothing
            like Mark (let alone Paul)." N. T. Wright

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "David Inglis" <david@...>
            To: "Frank Schmuck" <fschmuck@...>; <Synoptic-L@...>
            Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 1:38 PM
            Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A discussion of the different endings of Mark


            > Frank Schmuck wrote:
            >
            > > I like what you have written. I don't know how you feel about N.T.
            > > Wright but during a question and answer period after a presentation he
            > > suddenly began talking about his personal views on the ending of Mark.
            > > It was a bit strange as the question had to do with his perception of
            > > the personal views of a rival. Anyway he stated that he thought Mark
            > > ended "bizarrely" and that it was fairly obvious that someone tried to
            > > "fix" it. He then went on to talk about how "bizarrely" it begins.
            > > Wham! Suddenly you're with John the Baptist. He also speculated that
            > > the first sentence could also have been added to "fix" Mark's beginning.
            > >
            > > But why? Assuming the text was in the hands of those who felt this was
            > > a sacred text, why did someone feel that Mark's Gospel need to be fixed
            > > at the beginning and at the end? He then went on to talk about damage
            > > to scrolls tended to be on the ends - the beginning and on the end -
            > > possibly due to a mishap such as a fire or water damage while in
            > > storage. If it was damaged the keeper would need to somehow "fix" the
            > > problem. Hence, the fixing of Mark at the beginning and the fixing of
            > > Mark at the end.
            >
            > Frank,
            >
            > written on a scroll, damage wouldn't normally affect just the first
            > sentence, or even the first few sentences. Instead, damage would affect the
            > left-hand side of the first column (and most likely the corners first), and
            > then spread rightwards. Once the first column was totally lost, further
            > damage would then affect the left-hand side of the second column, and so on.
            > So, any 'fixing' would most likely consist of reconstructing lines that had
            > lost the left-hand portion, rather than replacing a sentence or two at the
            > beginning. As to the cause of the damage, it would almost certainly be some
            > kind of 'traumatic' damage (e.g. fire or flood as you suggest), because
            > otherwise it would have been possible to copy the scroll before the text was
            > totally lost. Also, we need (I think) to assume that this happened after
            > the author (Mark) was dead, because otherwise re-constructing the beginning
            > would not have been a problem.
            >
            > Now, the problem with all this is that there is NO evidence that any other
            > then it seems to me unlikely that (for example) the Church in Alexandria
            > could arrange for all other copies of Mark to be destroyed to keep their
            > copy 'sacred'. In other words, I don't see how damage (even very early
            > damage) to a single scroll of Mark could result in the situation we have
            > today, where there is no evidence of any other beginning.
            >
            > The situation regarding the end of Mark is different. There are multiple
            > different endings in the MSS, and a general belief that 16:8 was not
            > intended to be the ending. Although some people do argue that Mark could
            > have ended at this point, I personally think this is 'clutching at straws',
            > and that it is much more likely that 16:8 was not intended to be the ending.
            > Could this be due to damage? Possibly, but the problem here is that the end
            > of a scroll is usually the most protected part, because it's in the center
            > of the roll. Therefore, flood (and in particular fire) damage is unlikely
            > to affect the end until the rest of the scroll is also affected. It is also
            > almost impossible to think of a process (other than general wear and tear as
            > a result of unrolling and rolling) that would result in damage to BOTH ends
            > of a scroll, and again, wear and tear is easily fixed by making a new copy.
            >
            > So, although the beginning could have been damaged, the evidence strongly
            > suggests that it wasn't. Conversely, the evidence suggests that the end
            > might have been damaged, but the physical characteristics of a scroll make
            > it very unlikely.
            >
            > Dave Inglis
            > david@...
            > 3538 O'Connor Drive
            > Lafayette, CA, USA
            >
            >
            >
            > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...



            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • David Inglis
            ... it ... text is ... I was simply replying to Frank Schmuck s anecdote about N.T.Wright talking about possible damage to a hypothetical scroll of Mark - I
            Message 5 of 21 , Mar 12, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Jeffrey Jackson wrote:

              > > I can see that damage to the ends of the scroll is possible, but I think
              it
              > > unlikely. Consider the beginning of the scroll. Because of the way
              text is
              >
              > You're making the rather significant assumption that Mk was
              > written on a scroll in the early days.

              I was simply replying to Frank Schmuck's anecdote about N.T.Wright talking
              about possible damage to a hypothetical scroll of Mark - I wasn't making any
              assumption about the existence of such a scroll at all. This is the
              situation as I understand it:

              "Among Christians the papyrus scrolls commonly used when the Old Testament
              was written were being replaced by papyrus codices by no later than 100 AD,
              and then by parchment codices by around 300 AD. Among Christian MSS found
              in Egypt the codex predominates as early as 200 AD, and all of the few 2nd
              century Christian MSS fragments which have been found are from codices. Of
              the 172 extant biblical MSS or fragments written before 400 AD, 92% are
              codices, in complete contrast to the 9% of extant secular MSS of the same
              period that are codices."

              > > beginning of Mark ever existed. This implies either that no other
              copies
              > > existed when the damage occurred, or that all existing copies (apart
              from
              > > this one) were destroyed for some reason. As the evidence strongly
              suggests
              > > that both Rome and Alexandria had very early copies of some form of
              Mark,
              >
              > How early are you considering "very early"?

              By around 62-65 AD.

              > As I noted earlier,
              > the copy Luke worked from was missing not only the end, but
              > likely a few leaves from the middle too.

              It is true that Luke does not include some text that is in Mark, but your
              interpretation of the reason for this is just one of a number of
              possibilities.

              > Although I think
              > this would be in the 60's, even allowing for more common dates
              > of the gospels, we're still talking about the 70's or 80's. It doesn't
              > take much imagination to imagine all intact copies being lost at
              > a time when you could probably count all the copies ever made
              > on your fingers.

              As you earlier suggested to me that the writers of both Luke and Matthew had
              different copies of Mark, you would need to allow for both Luke and Matthew
              having been written before this happened, plus then account for why all the
              copies of Mark were lost, but not the copies of Matthew, Luke, or John. I
              think it does, in fact, take quite a bit of imagination to imagine this
              happening.

              Dave Inglis
              david@...
              3538 O'Connor Drive
              Lafayette, CA, USA




              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Jeffrey Glen Jackson
              ... Fair enough. I should have been more careful in making assumptions myself. I just assumed since you didn t challenge the scroll scenario, you agreed with
              Message 6 of 21 , Mar 12, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                > I was simply replying to Frank Schmuck's anecdote about N.T.Wright talking
                > about possible damage to a hypothetical scroll of Mark - I wasn't making any
                > assumption about the existence of such a scroll at all.

                Fair enough. I should have been more careful in making assumptions
                myself. I just assumed since you didn't challenge the scroll scenario,
                you agreed with it. A codex makes it easy for individual pages to
                be damaged at the beginning and end and for whole signatures to be
                lost from the center.

                > Of
                > the 172 extant biblical MSS or fragments written before 400 AD, 92% are
                > codices,

                This doesn't say if any of the 8% remainder are Gospels or not. I could
                have sworn I read somewhere that there were no positively identified
                Gospel scrolls. Be that as it may, I don't think an isolated scroll would
                negate the argument that it seems very possible if not out right likely
                that the Gospels were on codices from the beginning.

                > It is true that Luke does not include some text that is in Mark, but your
                > interpretation of the reason for this is just one of a number of
                > possibilities.

                I find it difficult to come up with another plausible explanation of
                the omission of nine diverse, unrelated, consecutive pericopes, while
                elsewhere he hardly ever skips over even a single isolated pericope.
                Short of rejecting Marcan priority, in which case its a non-issue,
                I just don't see any explanation based on his not "liking" those
                pericopes to be plausible.

                > As you earlier suggested to me that the writers of both Luke and Matthew had
                > different copies of Mark, you would need to allow for both Luke and Matthew
                > having been written before this happened, plus then account for why all the
                > copies of Mark were lost, but not the copies of Matthew, Luke, or John. I
                > think it does, in fact, take quite a bit of imagination to imagine this
                > happening.

                Allow me then to engage in some imagination then (as an exercise to
                see just how much is actually needed). Come 60 AD, there are a
                handful of copies of Mk in existence made over the previous decade
                give or take, most maybe even made in Rome where Mk was written
                in the first place. Mt and Lk are written utilizing a couple of these.
                Now come 64 AD, Rome burns, perhaps losing most copies there,
                and the church enters an era of persecution. Christian scribal resources
                are limited, so most effort goes into producing copies of Mt and Lk.
                In fact, no copies of Mk, Q, Special Matthew may have been made over
                the next decade or so. Q and Special Matthew were completely lost.
                Mk was reduced to either a single defective manuscript, or a small
                number of copies of a defective manuscript (i.e., missing the end).
                I'm pretty sure I remember reading that for a long time, more copies
                of Mt and Lk were made then Mk, the numbers starting to equal out
                when single codices containing all four Gospels became common.
                I don't think it much of a leap to apply that to the 60's and 70's as
                well, when the resources to make copies would have been even more
                limited than they were in the following centuries.


                ><> Jeffrey Glen Jackson, son of Albert, son of George, son of <><
                ><> Henry, son of Miles, son of Randolph, son of Ephraim, son of <><
                ><> Thomas, son of John, son of Thomas, .... sonne of Jack. <><
                mailto:jeff@... http://www.jeff-jackson.com
                "The blithe 'reconstruction' not only of Q, not only of its different
                stages of composition, but even of complete communities whose
                beliefs are accurately reflected in these different stages, betokens
                a naive willingness to believe in anything as long as it is nothing
                like Mark (let alone Paul)." N. T. Wright




                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • David Inglis
                ... It s quite possible, and I believe it s likely, but I doubt that we ll ever be able to prove it one way or the other. ... The evidence from Dave Gentile s
                Message 7 of 21 , Mar 12, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jeffrey Glen Jackson wrote:

                  > This doesn't say if any of the 8% remainder are Gospels or not. I could
                  > have sworn I read somewhere that there were no positively identified
                  > Gospel scrolls. Be that as it may, I don't think an isolated scroll would
                  > negate the argument that it seems very possible if not out right likely
                  > that the Gospels were on codices from the beginning.

                  It's quite possible, and I believe it's likely, but I doubt that we'll ever
                  be able to prove it one way or the other.

                  > I find it difficult to come up with another plausible explanation of
                  > the omission of nine diverse, unrelated, consecutive pericopes, while
                  > elsewhere he hardly ever skips over even a single isolated pericope.
                  > Short of rejecting Marcan priority, in which case its a non-issue,
                  > I just don't see any explanation based on his not "liking" those
                  > pericopes to be plausible.

                  The evidence from Dave Gentile's recent HHBC analysis suggested that Matthew
                  and Luke may have known a Proto-Mark, which was then expanded by Mark later.
                  I discussed the issue of the Markan material that does not appear in Matthew
                  or Luke in the document that I asked people to comment on. Are you saying
                  that you think that my particular explanation is not plausible, or did you
                  not see that part of the document?

                  > > As you earlier suggested to me that the writers of both Luke and Matthew
                  had
                  > > different copies of Mark, you would need to allow for both Luke and
                  Matthew
                  > > having been written before this happened, plus then account for why all
                  the
                  > > copies of Mark were lost, but not the copies of Matthew, Luke, or John.
                  I
                  > > think it does, in fact, take quite a bit of imagination to imagine this
                  > > happening.
                  >
                  > Allow me then to engage in some imagination then (as an exercise to
                  > see just how much is actually needed). Come 60 AD, there are a
                  > handful of copies of Mk in existence made over the previous decade
                  > give or take, most maybe even made in Rome where Mk was written
                  > in the first place. Mt and Lk are written utilizing a couple of these.
                  > Now come 64 AD, Rome burns, perhaps losing most copies there,
                  > and the church enters an era of persecution.

                  The point about Rome is a good one. No doubt many MSS were lost.

                  > Christian scribal resources
                  > are limited, so most effort goes into producing copies of Mt and Lk.

                  I'm not convinced by this, mainly because I don't believe that any
                  organization existed by this time that could have decided to favor Matthew
                  and Luke over Mark. Instead, I think that at this time copying was either
                  an individual effort, or at most individual churches would copy the
                  documents that were most 'precious' to them. So, while other churches may
                  have been copying Matthew and Luke, I think it likely that the Roman
                  Christians would be mainly copying Mark

                  > In fact, no copies of Mk, Q, Special Matthew may have been made over
                  > the next decade or so. Q and Special Matthew were completely lost.

                  This presupposes that Q and Special Matthew actually existed as specific
                  documents in the first place, something that has often been assumed, but
                  never proved.

                  > Mk was reduced to either a single defective manuscript, or a small
                  > number of copies of a defective manuscript (i.e., missing the end).
                  > I'm pretty sure I remember reading that for a long time, more copies
                  > of Mt and Lk were made then Mk, the numbers starting to equal out
                  > when single codices containing all four Gospels became common.

                  This (I assume) is deduced from looking at the numbers of extant MSS from
                  different centuries, which is also something I discussed in the document
                  that I asked for comments on.

                  > I don't think it much of a leap to apply that to the 60's and 70's as
                  > well, when the resources to make copies would have been even more
                  > limited than they were in the following centuries.

                  What is the evidence for the lack of resources needed to make copies? It
                  only takes one person with a piece of parchment to make a copy.

                  Dave Inglis
                  david@...
                  3538 O'Connor Drive
                  Lafayette, CA, USA




                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • David Gentile
                  ... Matthew ... later. Actually, I d have to say the HHBC analysis was neutral on that point. It did not exclude the possibility, but it really didn t turn up
                  Message 8 of 21 , Mar 12, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dave Inglis wrote:

                    > The evidence from Dave Gentile's recent HHBC analysis suggested that
                    Matthew
                    > and Luke may have known a Proto-Mark, which was then expanded by Mark
                    later.

                    Actually, I'd have to say the HHBC analysis was neutral on that point. It
                    did not exclude the possibility, but it really didn't turn up any
                    significant support. However, I think it did place some limitations on
                    proto-Mark. The "great omission" material does seem to be in the general
                    style of Mark, and at least a significant portion of the 020 "sonndergut
                    Mark", must have been caused by omissions in Luke and Matthew, and not by
                    additions to a proto-Mark by Mark. So, I think the study was most
                    consistent with a proto-Mark that had relatively minor differences, or no
                    proto-Mark at all.

                    Dave Gentile
                    Riverside, Illinois
                    M.S. Physics
                    Ph.D. Management Science candidate




                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Jeffrey Glen Jackson
                    ... I didn t think that had anything to do with the pericopes in question since they do appear in Matthew and would, I assume have been then in your proto-Mk.
                    Message 9 of 21 , Mar 12, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > I discussed the issue of the Markan material that does not appear in Matthew
                      > or Luke in the document that I asked people to comment on. Are you saying
                      > that you think that my particular explanation is not plausible, or did you
                      > not see that part of the document?

                      I didn't think that had anything to do with the pericopes in question
                      since they do appear in Matthew and would, I assume have been
                      then in your proto-Mk. Or are you suggesting that a significant amount
                      of material was copied from Mt into canonical Mk? I didn't get that from
                      your paper.

                      > I'm not convinced by this, mainly because I don't believe that any
                      > organization existed by this time that could have decided to favor Matthew
                      > and Luke over Mark. Instead, I think that at this time copying was either

                      I don't think it is necessary to posit an organized decision. Any individual
                      in possession of both Mk and one of Lk or Mt would likely make the
                      same decision to copy Lk or Mt over Mk since the former includes so
                      much of the later.

                      > an individual effort, or at most individual churches would copy the
                      > documents that were most 'precious' to them. So, while other churches may
                      > have been copying Matthew and Luke, I think it likely that the Roman
                      > Christians would be mainly copying Mark

                      This may well be true up until the fire and subsequent persecutions.

                      > This (I assume) is deduced from looking at the numbers of extant MSS from
                      > different centuries, which is also something I discussed in the document
                      > that I asked for comments on.

                      Yes, but you practically refute your thesis yourself. Copies of
                      some form of Mk existed outside Alexandria. The lack of manuscripts
                      seems more because Mt and Lk were preferred over Mk.

                      > What is the evidence for the lack of resources needed to make copies? It
                      > only takes one person with a piece of parchment to make a copy.

                      When I say "resources" I'm thinking scribes, not a lack of paper and
                      ink. I would think it would be virtually a tautology that there were
                      a lot fewer Christians in the 60's and 70's, and hence a lot fewer
                      Christian scribes available to make copies. Granted it only takes
                      one person to make a copy, but that person must invest a lot of time.
                      If he has to make a choice between Mt/Lk and Mk, I'm betting he'd
                      probably choose Mt/Lk, they being largely supersets, and only
                      later when the church was lager and more organized would resources
                      be directed to copying lesser important manuscripts.

                      I'd like to comment on the Clement letter itself some, but its
                      getting late, and I have to get to bed. Maybe later this week.

                      ><> Jeffrey Glen Jackson, son of Albert, son of George, son of <><
                      ><> Henry, son of Miles, son of Randolph, son of Ephraim, son of <><
                      ><> Thomas, son of John, son of Thomas, .... sonne of Jack. <><
                      mailto:jeff@... http://www.jeff-jackson.com
                      "The blithe 'reconstruction' not only of Q, not only of its different stages of
                      composition, but even of complete communities whose beliefs are
                      accurately reflected in these different stages, betokens a naive
                      willingness to believe in anything as long as it is nothing like Mark
                      (let alone Paul)." N. T. Wright



                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Emmanuel Fritsch
                      ... - Do we have on-line ressource that list 020 sonndergut Mark , double tradition , and so on ? - What is according you the general style of Mark ? - Do
                      Message 10 of 21 , Mar 13, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        David Gentile a écrit :
                        >
                        > Dave Inglis wrote:
                        >
                        > > The evidence from Dave Gentile's recent HHBC analysis suggested
                        > > that Matthew and Luke may have known a Proto-Mark, which was
                        > > then expanded by Mark later.
                        >
                        > Actually, I'd have to say the HHBC analysis was neutral on that point. It
                        > did not exclude the possibility, but it really didn't turn up any
                        > significant support. However, I think it did place some limitations on
                        > proto-Mark. The "great omission" material does seem to be in the general
                        > style of Mark, and at least a significant portion of the 020 "sonndergut
                        > Mark", must have been caused by omissions in Luke and Matthew, and not by
                        > additions to a proto-Mark by Mark.

                        - Do we have on-line ressource that list 020 "sonndergut
                        Mark", "double tradition", and so on ?

                        - What is according you the general style of Mark ?

                        - Do you include in the "general style of Mark" the lukanisms
                        pointed out by Boismard ?

                        a+
                        manu

                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • Maluflen@aol.com
                        In a message dated 3/12/2002 10:43:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, GentDave@worldnet.att.net writes:
                        Message 11 of 21 , Mar 13, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a message dated 3/12/2002 10:43:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                          GentDave@... writes:

                          << The "great omission" material does seem to be in the general
                          style of Mark, and at least a significant portion of the 020 "sonndergut
                          Mark", must have been caused by omissions in Luke and Matthew, and not by
                          additions to a proto-Mark by Mark. So, I think the study was most
                          consistent with a proto-Mark that had relatively minor differences, or no
                          proto-Mark at all. >>


                          This conclusion is significant, if solid. Especially if linked to the
                          following statement by William Farmer in a recent essay ("The Case for the
                          Two-Gospel Hypothesis", in **Rethinking the Synoptic Problem**, eds. David
                          Allen Black and David R. Beck, Baker Academic 2001, 133):


                          "Helmut Koester, in his major address, laid out in detail convincing
                          linguistic evidence that the text of canonical Mark that we have -- was
                          written after the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. This little time bomb from
                          Harvard University has yet to explode in the minds of those who still think
                          in terms of Mark being our earliest Gospel".

                          Koester himself, of course, believes that an earlier form of Mark was
                          available to, and used by Matthew and Luke. But if the evidence shows that
                          the latest edition of Mark is not appreciably different from any earlier
                          edition, and if Koester's observations are still taken seriously, then the
                          Two Gospel Hypothesis has all but been demonstrated, at least from one point
                          of view: the Markan Gospel we have (which is the only one that can reasonably
                          be posited) was written later than Matthew and Luke.

                          Leonard Maluf

                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        • dgentil@sears.com
                          Leonard, Obviously I d have to see what Koester s arguments are (And I would be very interested in seeing them), but it is quite possible that his idea of a
                          Message 12 of 21 , Mar 13, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Leonard,

                            Obviously I'd have to see what Koester's arguments are (And I would be very
                            interested in seeing them),
                            but it is quite possible that his idea of a proto-Mark is consistent with
                            the analysis I did.
                            I think all the analysis can do is place some limitations on proto-Mark.
                            For example I think the analysis
                            can tell us that probably most of the 020-sonndergut-Mark material was in
                            the same style as the rest of Mark.
                            However, if Koester thought that say 30% or even less of 020 was added
                            later, that might not be inconsistent
                            with the analysis.

                            The method I used could be used to test various ideas too, if the required
                            data was gathered.
                            For example, if it was proposed that some 20% of 020 was non-Markian in
                            origin, then
                            those pieces could be gathered up, and word counts done on them, and they
                            could be compared
                            to the larger sections, to see if they had a similar style, assuming the
                            text sample was large enough.

                            But, one thing to keep in mind is that probably the most definite finding
                            of the analysis was that Luke seems
                            to have had a source at least very similar to Mark. 222, 022 and most
                            importantly 122 material (triple tradition words shared by Luke and Mark)
                            consistently showed themselves to be related to other Markian categories,
                            and not to Luke.

                            Dave Gentile
                            Riverside, Illinois
                            M.S. Physics
                            Ph.D. Management Science candidate








                            Maluflen@...@... on 03/13/2002 09:31:59 AM

                            Sent by: owner-synoptic-l@...


                            To: GentDave@..., Synoptic-L@...
                            cc:

                            Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A discussion of the different endings of Mark


                            In a message dated 3/12/2002 10:43:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                            GentDave@... writes:

                            << The "great omission" material does seem to be in the general
                            style of Mark, and at least a significant portion of the 020 "sonndergut
                            Mark", must have been caused by omissions in Luke and Matthew, and not by
                            additions to a proto-Mark by Mark. So, I think the study was most
                            consistent with a proto-Mark that had relatively minor differences, or no
                            proto-Mark at all. >>


                            This conclusion is significant, if solid. Especially if linked to the
                            following statement by William Farmer in a recent essay ("The Case for the
                            Two-Gospel Hypothesis", in **Rethinking the Synoptic Problem**, eds. David
                            Allen Black and David R. Beck, Baker Academic 2001, 133):


                            "Helmut Koester, in his major address, laid out in detail convincing
                            linguistic evidence that the text of canonical Mark that we have -- was
                            written after the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. This little time bomb from
                            Harvard University has yet to explode in the minds of those who still think
                            in terms of Mark being our earliest Gospel".

                            Koester himself, of course, believes that an earlier form of Mark was
                            available to, and used by Matthew and Luke. But if the evidence shows that
                            the latest edition of Mark is not appreciably different from any earlier
                            edition, and if Koester's observations are still taken seriously, then the
                            Two Gospel Hypothesis has all but been demonstrated, at least from one
                            point
                            of view: the Markan Gospel we have (which is the only one that can
                            reasonably
                            be posited) was written later than Matthew and Luke.

                            Leonard Maluf

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




                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          • dgentil@sears.com
                            Emmanuel Fritsch asked: - Do we have on-line ressource that list 020 sonndergut Mark , double tradition , and so on ? ======== In
                            Message 13 of 21 , Mar 13, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Emmanuel Fritsch asked:


                              - Do we have on-line ressource that list 020 "sonndergut
                              Mark", "double tradition", and so on ?

                              ========
                              In
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/synoptic-l/files/final%20results/

                              the document
                              bib-results.xls

                              has the results of the last analysis.

                              020 is related at the .0003 confidence level to:
                              121
                              021
                              120
                              also at the .01 confidence level to:
                              221
                              =========

                              - What is according you the general style of Mark ?


                              ========

                              I think we probably have to take 121 as the category most representative of
                              Mark, in general. However, we need to keep in mind that by itself it also
                              can reflect, at least to some extent, words that tended to be rejected by
                              Matthew and Luke.

                              The fact that 020 and 121 look very similar, probably means that they both
                              had the same author (or authors), at least for the most part.

                              ========

                              - Do you include in the "general style of Mark" the lukanisms
                              pointed out by Boismard ?

                              =========

                              The analysis is likely to pick up large scale phenomenon, but unlikely to
                              be effected much by
                              small details. If final Mark contained some small fragments borrowed from
                              Luke, but
                              they represented only a small fraction of the total text, then the analysis
                              would probably
                              not reflect this.

                              So, I think the analysis says that for the most part the arrow is Mark=>
                              Luke
                              but it still could be Luke => Mark in a minority of cases.

                              Dave Gentile
                              Riverside, Illinois
                              M.S. Physics
                              Ph.D. Management Science candidate







                              Emmanuel Fritsch <emmanuel.fritsch@...>@... on 03/13/2002
                              02:31:13 AM

                              Sent by: owner-synoptic-l@...


                              To: David Gentile <GentDave@...>
                              cc: Synoptic-L@...

                              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A discussion of the different endings of Mark



                              David Gentile a écrit :
                              >
                              > Dave Inglis wrote:
                              >
                              > > The evidence from Dave Gentile's recent HHBC analysis suggested
                              > > that Matthew and Luke may have known a Proto-Mark, which was
                              > > then expanded by Mark later.
                              >
                              > Actually, I'd have to say the HHBC analysis was neutral on that point. It
                              > did not exclude the possibility, but it really didn't turn up any
                              > significant support. However, I think it did place some limitations on
                              > proto-Mark. The "great omission" material does seem to be in the general
                              > style of Mark, and at least a significant portion of the 020 "sonndergut
                              > Mark", must have been caused by omissions in Luke and Matthew, and not by
                              > additions to a proto-Mark by Mark.

                              - Do we have on-line ressource that list 020 "sonndergut
                              Mark", "double tradition", and so on ?

                              - What is according you the general style of Mark ?

                              - Do you include in the "general style of Mark" the lukanisms
                              pointed out by Boismard ?

                              a+
                              manu

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




                              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                            • Emmanuel Fritsch
                              ... I am sorry, Dave, I did not understand you were speaking about your results. I am not depreciative with them, but I was looking for another thing : the
                              Message 14 of 21 , Mar 13, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > - Do we have on-line ressource that list 020 "sonndergut
                                > Mark", "double tradition", and so on ?
                                > In
                                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/synoptic-l/files/final%20results/

                                I am sorry, Dave, I did not understand you were speaking about
                                your results. I am not depreciative with them, but I was looking
                                for another thing : the real "sonndergut Mark", ie the lists of
                                verses and words that are special to Mark.

                                Only by that mean, I think, your theory about proto-Mk may be checked.
                                I should be checked on real sondergut how it has been changed in Mt
                                and Lk (for Markan priorist) or how it has been added (for markan
                                posteriorist), or perhabs both.

                                a+
                                manu

                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                              • dgentil@sears.com
                                Sorry, I misunderstood what you were looking for. I don t think the HBB lists the location of all the 020 passages. I can check tonight. It s easy to check if
                                Message 15 of 21 , Mar 13, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Sorry, I misunderstood what you were looking for.

                                  I don't think the HBB lists the location of all the 020 passages.
                                  I can check tonight.

                                  It's easy to check if they've labeled a specific passage as "020",
                                  but I think producing a list of them would be a sizeable task.

                                  Dave Gentile
                                  Riverside, Illinois
                                  M.S. Physics
                                  Ph.D. Management Science candidate







                                  Emmanuel Fritsch <emmanuel.fritsch@...>@... on 03/13/2002
                                  12:36:45 PM

                                  Sent by: owner-synoptic-l@...


                                  To: dgentil@..., synoptic-l@...
                                  cc:

                                  Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A discussion of the different endings of Mark



                                  > - Do we have on-line ressource that list 020 "sonndergut
                                  > Mark", "double tradition", and so on ?
                                  > In
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/synoptic-l/files/final%20results/

                                  I am sorry, Dave, I did not understand you were speaking about
                                  your results. I am not depreciative with them, but I was looking
                                  for another thing : the real "sonndergut Mark", ie the lists of
                                  verses and words that are special to Mark.

                                  Only by that mean, I think, your theory about proto-Mk may be checked.
                                  I should be checked on real sondergut how it has been changed in Mt
                                  and Lk (for Markan priorist) or how it has been added (for markan
                                  posteriorist), or perhabs both.

                                  a+
                                  manu

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




                                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                • John Lupia
                                  ... [snip] ... [snip] ... [snip] ... I have two questions. First, to Frank Schmuck or anyone else: could you provide the bibliographic citation of N.T. Wright
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Mar 13, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > > Frank Schmuck wrote:

                                    [snip]

                                    > N.T. Wright feels that Mark's
                                    > Gospel need to be fixed
                                    > > > at the beginning and at the end? He then went
                                    > on to talk about damage
                                    > > > to scrolls tended to be on the ends - the
                                    > beginning and on the end -
                                    > > > possibly due to a mishap such as a fire or water
                                    > damage while in
                                    > > > storage. If it was damaged the keeper would
                                    > need to somehow "fix" the
                                    > > > problem. Hence, the fixing of Mark at the
                                    > beginning and the fixing of
                                    > > > Mark at the end.
                                    [snip]

                                    Dave Inglis wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > written on a scroll, damage wouldn't normally
                                    > affect just the first
                                    > > sentence, or even the first few sentences.
                                    > Instead, damage would affect the
                                    > > left-hand side of the first column (and most
                                    > likely the corners first), and
                                    > > then spread rightwards. Once the first column was
                                    > totally lost, further
                                    > > damage would then affect the left-hand side of the
                                    > second column, and so on.

                                    [snip]

                                    > > The situation regarding the end of Mark is
                                    > different. There are multiple
                                    > > different endings in the MSS, and a general belief
                                    > that 16:8 was not
                                    > > intended to be the ending. Although some people
                                    > do argue that Mark could
                                    > > have ended at this point, I personally think this
                                    > is 'clutching at straws',
                                    > > and that it is much more likely that 16:8 was not
                                    > intended to be the ending.
                                    > > Could this be due to damage? Possibly, but the
                                    > problem here is that the end
                                    > > of a scroll is usually the most protected part,
                                    > because it's in the center
                                    > > of the roll. Therefore, flood (and in particular
                                    > fire) damage is unlikely
                                    > > to affect the end until the rest of the scroll is
                                    > also affected. It is also
                                    > > almost impossible to think of a process (other
                                    > than general wear and tear as
                                    > > a result of unrolling and rolling) that would
                                    > result in damage to BOTH ends
                                    > > of a scroll, and again, wear and tear is easily
                                    > fixed by making a new copy.
                                    > >
                                    > > So, although the beginning could have been
                                    > damaged, the evidence strongly
                                    > > suggests that it wasn't. Conversely, the evidence
                                    > suggests that the end
                                    > > might have been damaged, but the physical
                                    > characteristics of a scroll make
                                    > > it very unlikely.


                                    I have two questions. First, to Frank Schmuck or
                                    anyone else: could you provide the bibliographic
                                    citation of N.T. Wright where he discusses the damaged
                                    scroll theory?

                                    Second, is to Dave inglis: could you provide
                                    bibliographic sources that state your view about
                                    scrolls and damage. I find the view you presented not
                                    only highly improbable but counter to the finds in
                                    papyrology. Nowhere in the literature has such a view
                                    on scroll endings being the "most protected part,
                                    because its in the center of the roll." ever been
                                    stated by any papyrologist. Rather, the opposite view
                                    has been well established. The "ends" of a scroll are
                                    not in the "middle" but on the end. However, there
                                    may be some literature that states the position you
                                    presented that has interesting explanations that may
                                    be worthwhile.


                                    The following is an entry I wrote for the _Lexicon for
                                    Biblical Research _begun in 1993 by myself. The entry
                                    "deumbilication" was one of the first written in 1993.

                                    deumbilication, a papyrological term which makes
                                    convenient the description of the condition of a
                                    scroll that has lost its umbilicus or winding rod.
                                    First, as papyri aged they became brittle, and the
                                    affixed rod would break off. Second, umbilci were
                                    made from ivory or gilt wood which were frequently
                                    stolen for their resale in the market. When this
                                    occurred by either cause it easily mutilated the
                                    beginning and/or end of the roll where it was
                                    attached. It appears highly probable that the reason
                                    why the Gospel of Mark has two variations at the end
                                    are the direct result of deumbilication where the
                                    umbilicus attached to the end of the papyrus roll
                                    broke off removing the final column of text. The
                                    extant copies of this deumbilicated text were
                                    reproduced at scriptoria where the scribes perpetuated
                                    this version of the text they had as an archetype.
                                    Hence, the scribal center which had the broken
                                    fragmented end of the roll due to the deumbilication
                                    process produced the shorter ending version. This
                                    same process is also the same if the Gospel of Mark
                                    was written on a codex, since sewn leaves frequently
                                    became detached particularly the last quire. In this
                                    case the last folio broke off leaving the shorter
                                    ending in a scriptorium that employed it as an
                                    archetype. In either case the shorter ending of Mark
                                    is easily explained and highly consistent with papyri
                                    damage known.

                                    Best regards,
                                    John






                                    =====
                                    John N. Lupia
                                    501 North Avenue B-1
                                    Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA

                                    __________________________________________________
                                    Do You Yahoo!?
                                    Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
                                    http://mail.yahoo.com/

                                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                                    In a message dated 3/13/2002 11:36:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, dgentil@sears.com writes:
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Mar 15, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      In a message dated 3/13/2002 11:36:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                                      dgentil@... writes:

                                      << Obviously I'd have to see what Koester's arguments are (And I would be very
                                      interested in seeing them), but it is quite possible that his idea of a
                                      proto-Mark is consistent with the analysis I did. I think all the analysis
                                      can do is place some limitations on proto-Mark. For example I think the
                                      analysis can tell us that probably most of the 020-sonndergut-Mark material
                                      was in the same style as the rest of Mark. >>

                                      I really have serious problems with the whole methodology being used here.
                                      Part of my problem may however be lack of clarity (on my part) regarding what
                                      you are attempting to accomplish through your statistical analyses and
                                      regarding your fundamental presuppositions. When you say here, for example,
                                      that "probably most of the 020-sondergut-Mark material was in the same style
                                      as the rest of Mark", are you really talking about the material Mark used for
                                      his Sondergut passages (as opposed to those passages themselves), and does
                                      the phrase "as the rest of Mark" mean as the rest of Mark's Gospel that we
                                      have, or as the source used in the rest of Mark's Gospel? And are you
                                      presupposing (or does it just seem that you are) that Mark could not have
                                      written anything on his own, and that everything in our Mark must have been
                                      copied from a source? Until all of these questions, and more, are fully
                                      cleared up, and your presuppositions themselves carefully evaluated, I don't
                                      see how sound conclusions regarding the likely sequence or dependency among
                                      the Synoptic Gospels can be validly drawn from any of your statistical
                                      analyses. So far I have not been persuaded that they lead anywhere that is
                                      even remotely definitive. Perhaps you could help me (and possibly others on
                                      the list) by stating clearly which solutions to the Synoptic Problem you
                                      believe you have shown to be unlikely and precisely why? In fact, I would be
                                      most interested in your reasons for concluding that your analyses render
                                      unlikely the Two-Gospel hypothesis (if indeed that is your conclusion).

                                      Leonard Maluf

                                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                    • dgentil@sears.com
                                      Hello Leonard, I have had the opportunity to write this up as a class project, but I don t think that paper is suitable for this group. Its audience was
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Mar 15, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hello Leonard,

                                        I have had the opportunity to write this up as a class project, but I don't
                                        think that paper is suitable for this group.
                                        Its audience was entirely unfamiliar with the synoptic problem, and
                                        completely familiar with the mathematics employed.
                                        (I received a "B")

                                        However, writing it up did organize the presentation in my mind. It breaks
                                        down into 4 parts.
                                        1) The background of the synoptic problem
                                        2) The data
                                        3) The analysis
                                        4) The interpretation

                                        I'm satisfied, myself, that the mathematical techniques employed are sound,
                                        and only the interpretation of the results is seriously questionable, and
                                        to a lesser extent the categorization of the data. I think the techniques
                                        employed in the analysis can be explained conceptually without knowledge of
                                        the specific mathematics, as long as the listener is prepared to accept
                                        that portion, without examining it in detail.

                                        Let me skip ahead just briefly to the conclusion. At present, I believe the
                                        FH and the 3SH with a small sQ, as Ron Price proposes, are the simplest
                                        solutions that are fully consistent with the results. I favor the 3SH, but
                                        mostly for reasons not related to the analysis. Also, more complex
                                        solutions that build on the basic structure of those hypotheses are also
                                        quite possible, and fully consistent with the results. For example, I still
                                        doubt Mark is completely original, but I've certainly been persuaded, that
                                        its at least pretty close. Solutions with a proto-Matthew are still strong
                                        candidates, but I think they have to be rather complex, before they do as
                                        well as the 3SH does.

                                        But let's start with the data first. Are you familiar with what the HBB
                                        categories represent,
                                        and some possible issues with how the data was categorized?

                                        The codes the HBB uses are as follows:
                                        The first digit refers to Matthew, the second Mark, and the third Luke.
                                        A "2" means the word occurs. A "1" means there is a parallel without the
                                        word. A "0" means no parallel.
                                        For example "202" means words in the double tradition that Matthew and Luke
                                        have in common.
                                        "221" means words in the triple tradition, that are shared by Matthew, and
                                        Mark, but not Luke.
                                        "212" means the "minor agreements".
                                        Etc.
                                        The largest issue is probably that they assumed the 2SH in categorizing the
                                        "Mark/Q overlap".
                                        Things that are arguably "222" are categorised as "202" and "020", for
                                        example.
                                        While that's certainly an issue, by keeping that fact in mind, I think it
                                        is still possible to interpret results of analysis based
                                        on the data.

                                        Are there any questions at this point?

                                        Dave Gentile
                                        Riverside, Illinois
                                        M.S. Physics
                                        Ph.D. Management Science candidate







                                        I really have serious problems with the whole methodology being used here.
                                        Part of my problem may however be lack of clarity (on my part) regarding
                                        what
                                        you are attempting to accomplish through your statistical analyses and
                                        regarding your fundamental presuppositions. When you say here, for example,
                                        that "probably most of the 020-sondergut-Mark material was in the same
                                        style
                                        as the rest of Mark", are you really talking about the material Mark used
                                        for
                                        his Sondergut passages (as opposed to those passages themselves), and does
                                        the phrase "as the rest of Mark" mean as the rest of Mark's Gospel that we
                                        have, or as the source used in the rest of Mark's Gospel? And are you
                                        presupposing (or does it just seem that you are) that Mark could not have
                                        written anything on his own, and that everything in our Mark must have been
                                        copied from a source? Until all of these questions, and more, are fully
                                        cleared up, and your presuppositions themselves carefully evaluated, I
                                        don't
                                        see how sound conclusions regarding the likely sequence or dependency among
                                        the Synoptic Gospels can be validly drawn from any of your statistical
                                        analyses. So far I have not been persuaded that they lead anywhere that is
                                        even remotely definitive. Perhaps you could help me (and possibly others on
                                        the list) by stating clearly which solutions to the Synoptic Problem you
                                        believe you have shown to be unlikely and precisely why? In fact, I would
                                        be
                                        most interested in your reasons for concluding that your analyses render
                                        unlikely the Two-Gospel hypothesis (if indeed that is your conclusion).

                                        Leonard Maluf





                                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                      • Ken Olson
                                        ... proposes, are the simplest solutions that are fully consistent with the results.
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Mar 15, 2002
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On March 15, David Gentile wrote:

                                          >>At present, I believe the FH and the 3SH with a small sQ, as Ron Price
                                          proposes, are the simplest solutions that are fully consistent with the
                                          results.<<

                                          Dave,

                                          I've been travelling for the past two months and haven't been keeping up on
                                          recent developments. The last time I looked, you did not consider the
                                          "simple" FH fully consistent with the results. The problem, if I remember
                                          correctly, was a high correlation between 202 and 102. What's your current
                                          thinking on this?

                                          Also, my condolences on the "B". Your efforts are more highly appreciated
                                          on this list.

                                          Best Wishes,

                                          Ken

                                          kaolson@...


                                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                        • dgentil@sears.com
                                          Hello Ken, I m not sure what you have missed. One development was to move away from simple correlations. The statistical tests for significance assume a normal
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Mar 15, 2002
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Hello Ken,

                                            I'm not sure what you have missed.
                                            One development was to move away from simple correlations.
                                            The statistical tests for significance assume a normal distribution, and
                                            the distributions were not normal.
                                            The outliers were overweighted, and most of the data was under-used.
                                            Instead, I used individual Poisson distribution to describe the frequency
                                            of each Greek word.
                                            The maximum likelihood method was used to test for relationships, and
                                            a likelihood ratio test was used to test for significance. The results
                                            seemed much better.
                                            For example, we can go all the way to the .01 significance level now,
                                            without encountering any
                                            odd looking results. The technique uses the data much more efficiently too.
                                            Whereas before, only the very frequent words had a large effect. This
                                            method
                                            uses all the data effectively.

                                            The results are not that much different. Of significance here:
                                            202-200 are still related at the .0003 confidence level.
                                            However, 102-202 are only related at the .01 confidence level.

                                            A nice feature of the way I did the last analysis, was that it made it easy
                                            to look at the contribution
                                            different words made to the result. In looking at the details of 102-202 a
                                            pattern became clear.
                                            Both categories had lower than average use of the proper name "Jesus" and
                                            third person pronouns,
                                            but higher than average use of second person plural pronouns. This is just
                                            a result of who is talking.
                                            In narrative sections we expect more use of "Jesus", "himself", etc. But
                                            when Jesus is speaking to crowds,
                                            we see more use of "you".

                                            But while this effect seems to explain, the 102-202 relation, it did not
                                            seem to be a major factor in
                                            102 not being related to 112 or 002. With these effects taken into account,
                                            102 seems to form a group by itself.

                                            The groupings seem to be:

                                            (All the Markian categories, possibly with some structure within them)

                                            Matthew triple tradition group - 212, 211, 210

                                            Matthew double tradition group, with sonnedergut Matthew - 200, 201, 202

                                            Luke group - 002, 112, 012

                                            Luke's sayings - 102

                                            In looking at 201-211 it appeared specific content was at least a
                                            contributing factor in separating them.
                                            Example: Almost all the example of the word "TALENTS" are 201, but that's
                                            just because they
                                            a are in one pericope.

                                            The 202-200 connection still seemed strong, although in looking through the
                                            details, one reason for this was that Matthew occasionally repeats a phase,
                                            or part of a phrase in different contexts, whereas Luke only has it once.
                                            On the 2SH these are Q expressions that Matthew liked enough to repeat, one
                                            of the phrases is classified as 202, and the repeats as 200.
                                            If these multiple near-parallels had all been classified as 202, then the
                                            200-202 relationship would be weaker.
                                            It starts getting into the question of what is a parallel.

                                            In the new results 212-211, and 212-210 are solid connections too. With 212
                                            and 202 both being solidly related to Matthian categories, I think
                                            solutions that do not involve Luke using Matthew, need to be pretty
                                            complicated, in order to be fully consistent with the results.

                                            Dave Gentile
                                            Riverside, Illinois
                                            M.S. Physics
                                            Ph.D. Management Science candidate







                                            Dave,

                                            I've been travelling for the past two months and haven't been keeping up on
                                            recent developments. The last time I looked, you did not consider the
                                            "simple" FH fully consistent with the results. The problem, if I remember
                                            correctly, was a high correlation between 202 and 102. What's your current
                                            thinking on this?






                                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                          • Maluflen@aol.com
                                            In a message dated 3/15/2002 11:41:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, dgentil@sears.com writes:
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Mar 15, 2002
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              In a message dated 3/15/2002 11:41:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                                              dgentil@... writes:

                                              << I'm satisfied, myself, that the mathematical techniques employed are
                                              sound,
                                              and only the interpretation of the results is seriously questionable, and
                                              to a lesser extent the categorization of the data.>>

                                              I agree, and like your honesty here. But this is also why I am as yet
                                              undisturbed by any of your conclusions.

                                              << Let me skip ahead just briefly to the conclusion. At present, I believe the
                                              FH and the 3SH with a small sQ, as Ron Price proposes, are the simplest
                                              solutions that are fully consistent with the results. I favor the 3SH, but
                                              mostly for reasons not related to the analysis. Also, more complex
                                              solutions that build on the basic structure of those hypotheses are also
                                              quite possible, and fully consistent with the results. For example, I still
                                              doubt Mark is completely original, but I've certainly been persuaded, that
                                              its at least pretty close.>>

                                              I see, and I do hope that eventually you will be explaining to me why.


                                              << But let's start with the data first. Are you familiar with what the HBB
                                              categories represent,
                                              and some possible issues with how the data was categorized?>>

                                              I think so, but I may have some wrong notions here.

                                              << The codes the HBB uses are as follows:
                                              The first digit refers to Matthew, the second Mark, and the third Luke.
                                              A "2" means the word occurs. A "1" means there is a parallel without the
                                              word. A "0" means no parallel.
                                              For example "202" means words in the double tradition that Matthew and Luke
                                              have in common.
                                              "221" means words in the triple tradition, that are shared by Matthew, and
                                              Mark, but not Luke.
                                              "212" means the "minor agreements". Etc. >>

                                              Yes, this much has been clear enough to me for a while.

                                              << The largest issue is probably that they assumed the 2SH in categorizing the
                                              "Mark/Q overlap".
                                              Things that are arguably "222" are categorised as "202" and "020", for
                                              example.
                                              While that's certainly an issue, by keeping that fact in mind, I think it
                                              is still possible to interpret results of analysis based
                                              on the data.>>

                                              OK, I would like to see some of this, and am especially concerned with as yet
                                              unspoken presuppositions used in the analysis.

                                              << Are there any questions at this point?>>

                                              Just those, I guess. Can you move now to a specific question, namely, exactly
                                              how the results that you have reached so far seem to you to exclude the
                                              likelihood that Mark is a late gospel based on Matt and Lk? Thanks.

                                              Leonard Maluf







                                              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.