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

Expand Messages
• In a message dated 3/15/2002 11:41:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, dgentil@sears.com writes:
Message 1 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.