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

[Synoptic-L] POREUOMAI

Expand Messages
  • David Gentile
    Hello Leonard, Since you insist, I ll try a word. It s not the strongest case statistically, but it seems clearer than some. POREUOMAI - Counts ... Mark - 0
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 29, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Leonard,

      Since you insist, I'll try a word. It's not the strongest case
      statistically, but it seems clearer than some.

      POREUOMAI -
      Counts
      --------------

      Mark - 0
      Matthew - 29
      Luke - 51

      Mark triple tradition - 0
      Matthew triple tradition - 9
      Luke triple tradition - 14

      Interestingly, in the triple tradition, Luke and Matthew never have the word
      in parallel. They do have it 5 times in parallel in the double tradition.

      On the 2SH, Mark has none, Matthew adds some, Luke adds some, and both Luke
      and Matthew pick up some from Q.

      On GH, Luke must avoid every Matthian occurrence of the word (100%) in the
      triple tradition (where he more closely follows Matthew's order), while
      picking up 5 of Matthew's 8 in the double tradition (where he's not
      following Matthew's order), and freely adding many his own. Then Mark must
      choose not to use any (0%) from either source. Mark also must somewhat
      remarkably manage to omit 100% of the material (the double tradition) where
      Matthew and Luke agree on using the word.


      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@...
    • John Lupia
      ... Dear David: POREUOMA occurs in Mk -3 , not 0. The HHB, Synoptic Concordance must have rejected the Long Ending of Mk and omitted the three counts in Mk
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 30, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        David Gentile wrote:

        > POREUOMAI -
        > Counts
        > --------------
        >
        > Mark - 0
        > Matthew - 29
        > Luke - 51
        >
        > Mark triple tradition - 0
        > Matthew triple tradition - 9
        > Luke triple tradition - 14

        Dear David:

        POREUOMA occurs in Mk -3 , not 0. The HHB, Synoptic
        Concordance must have rejected the "Long Ending" of Mk
        and omitted the three counts in Mk 16:10, 12, 15.

        It also occurs in Jn -16 times and in Acts -37 times.

        The parallels common to Mt & Lk only are called the
        Double Tradition. I have not checked if all the
        passages are in a triple tradition parallel as you
        stated. I did notice that the first 3 citations for
        Mt are in Mt special material: Mt 2:8,9,20. I also
        noticed Mt 8:9//Lk 7:8 a double tradition parallel
        which is the healing of the Centurion's slave at
        Capernaum. I have not looked long or carefully at the
        material to look for others.


        > Interestingly, in the triple tradition, Luke and
        > Matthew never have the word
        > in parallel. They do have it 5 times in parallel in
        > the double tradition.
        >
        > On the 2SH, Mark has none, Matthew adds some, Luke
        > adds some, and both Luke
        > and Matthew pick up some from Q.
        >
        > On GH, Luke must avoid every Matthian occurrence of
        > the word (100%) in the
        > triple tradition (where he more closely follows
        > Matthew's order), while
        > picking up 5 of Matthew's 8 in the double tradition
        > (where he's not
        > following Matthew's order), and freely adding many
        > his own. Then Mark must
        > choose not to use any (0%) from either source. Mark
        > also must somewhat
        > remarkably manage to omit 100% of the material (the
        > double tradition) where
        > Matthew and Luke agree on using the word.

        The argument is interesting, that shows Markan
        posteriority from one perspective, but not strong
        since other factors may have come into play, and
        besides it is reversible from another perspective.

        The Kohlenberger, Goodrick, Swanson, Greek Concordance
        lists 42 verbs for "going" (p. 881) showing the
        variety used. A study on the use of verbs for "going"
        in each Gospel would show each author's style. It is
        suggestive, though, that Mark was not first when
        neither Mt, Lk, Jn follow the vocabulary but introduce
        new or different terms. But, this assumption too must
        be scrutinized carefully through a comprehensive
        vocabulary study to see what the research shows. This
        would obviously contain studies on the verbs for
        "going" other verbs, etc., something not contained in
        the HBB, Synoptic Concordance, but a separate study
        altogether. The preliminary work for this would be
        studies on style for each of the synoptics, and should
        be linked together with them.



        Best regards,
        John

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

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
        http://health.yahoo.com

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Zeba Crook
        ... David, allow me to attempt a more precise breakdown in the interest of accuracy. Mt - 29x Sondergut - 9x Double Trad. where Lk lacks a parallel (+Q) - 2x
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 30, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          David Gentile wrote:

          > POREUOMAI -
          > Counts
          > --------------
          >
          > Mark - 0
          > Matthew - 29
          > Luke - 51
          >
          > Mark triple tradition - 0
          > Matthew triple tradition - 9
          > Luke triple tradition - 14
          >
          > Interestingly, in the triple tradition, Luke and Matthew never have the word
          > in parallel. They do have it 5 times in parallel in the double tradition.
          >
          > On the 2SH, Mark has none, Matthew adds some, Luke adds some, and both Luke
          > and Matthew pick up some from Q.
          >
          > On GH, Luke must avoid every Matthian occurrence of the word (100%) in the
          > triple tradition (where he more closely follows Matthew's order), while
          > picking up 5 of Matthew's 8 in the double tradition (where he's not following
          > Matthew's order), and freely adding many his own. Then Mark must choose not to
          > use any (0%) from either source. Mark also must somewhat remarkably manage to
          > omit 100% of the material (the double tradition) where Matthew and Luke agree
          > on using the word.

          David, allow me to attempt a more precise breakdown in the interest of accuracy.

          Mt - 29x
          Sondergut - 9x
          Double Trad. where Lk lacks a parallel (+Q) - 2x (these Q stats are based on the
          Crit Ed. of Q)
          Double Trad. with a Lk parallel (=Q) - 5x
          Triple Trad. with no Lk parallel (+Mk) - 10x

          Lk - 51x
          Sondergut - 23x
          Double Trad. where Mt lacks a parallel (+Q) - 4x
          Double Trad. with a Mt parallel (=Q) - 5x
          Triple Trad. with no Mt parallel (+Mk) - 14x

          However, here are some complicating factors. You claim that Mk never has this
          word, which is true (the long version of Mark is not Mark's, John Lupia; I think
          this is generally accepted), but he does use POREUOMAI in compounds with
          prepositions 24x (with EIS, EK, PARA, PROS, SUM). What is more, Mk has such a
          compound in several passages where Mt or Lk have the simple version. 3x Mt
          simplified Mk's compound: Mk 2:23; 11:2; 13:1; 4x Lk may have done the same
          thing to Mk: Mk 1:21; 2:23; 4:19;10:1. Now, these are not direct parallels, but
          they do occur within the same pericope (or too closely to separate), so we must
          allow for the possibility of influence. Along similar lines, you claim that Mt
          and Lk never share the word in triple tradition passages, which is also not
          entirely true. 3x Mt and Lk both use the word not in parallel verses, but in
          the same pericope. Again, we shouldn't imagine that this went unnoticed to
          them.

          As for what must happen within each source hypothesis, here's my rendition.

          On the 2DH (your 2SH), Mk never uses this word except in compound verbs. Mt
          comes and shows a strong willingness to use the word himself (9x in SM), as well
          as to add it to his sources: to Mark (9x), to Q (2x); he also takes it over
          from Q (5x), and changes Mk's compound to the simple verb 3x. With respect to
          Mk's compound verbs, Mt takes them over 7x, changes them to simple verbs 3x, and
          omits reference to it, sometimes by word and sometimes by the loss of a verse,
          12x. Lk then comes along and also shows a strong willingness to use the word on
          his own (23x SL); he adds it to Q 4x, takes it from Q 5x, adds it to Mk 14x.
          When it comes to the compounds in Mk, Lk changes them to simple verbs 3x,
          changes the preposition 1x, takes it over from Mk only 1x, and omits it 8x.
          What can we generalise about redactional policies on the 2DH? Not much, except
          to say that nothing here contradicts the 2DH position. So, it's neutral data.

          On the Griesbach Hypothesis (GH), Matt used the word a lot in a variety of
          places, both in simple and compound form. Lk came along and used the word 23x
          on his own. He took it over from Matt 5x and used it 3x in the same pericope
          but in a different place. He also added it to Mt 21x, and omitted it from Mt
          15x. Then Mark: Mk never takes over the the simple verb from his courses. But
          he does take over some compounds: from Mt 7x and from Lk 1x. He adds them to
          Mt 12x, makes a compound of Mt's simple verb 3x. With Lk, he changes 3 simples
          to compounds, and changes the preposition 1x, and adds the compound to Lk 8x.
          Only 3x did Mk find the word in both Mt and Lk, and yet not take it over. As
          for redactional policies, here too there is nothing problematic with how the GH
          might envision the evangelists working.

          On the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis (F-G), Mark was first, Mt uses the word himself
          (9x in SM + 7x DT), adds it to Mk 9x, and changes Mk's compound to the simple
          verb 3x. With respect to Mk's compound verbs, Mt takes them over 7x, changes
          them to simple verbs 3x, and omits reference to it, sometimes by word and
          sometimes by the loss of a verse, 12x. Lk comes next and does the same as the
          Griesbachian Lk. No problems here.

          So, my conclusion is that when it comes to POREUOMAI and compounds, all three
          hypotheses do an equally satisfactory job. None of them encounters problems
          that renders it less likely than the others.

          Cheers,

          Zeb

          ***

          Zeba Antonin Crook (Ph.D. Cand)
          University of St. Michael's College
          Faculty of Theology
          81 St. Mary Street
          Toronto, Ontario, Canada
          M5S 1J4

          (416) 964-8629
          http://individual.utoronto.ca/zeba_crook


          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@...
        • Zeba Crook
          ... David, allow me to attempt a more precise breakdown in the interest of accuracy. Mt - 29x Sondergut - 9x Double Trad. where Lk lacks a parallel (+Q) - 2x
          Message 4 of 13 , Apr 30, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            David Gentile wrote:

            > POREUOMAI -
            > Counts
            > --------------
            >
            > Mark - 0
            > Matthew - 29
            > Luke - 51
            >
            > Mark triple tradition - 0
            > Matthew triple tradition - 9
            > Luke triple tradition - 14
            >
            > Interestingly, in the triple tradition, Luke and Matthew never have the word
            > in parallel. They do have it 5 times in parallel in the double tradition.
            >
            > On the 2SH, Mark has none, Matthew adds some, Luke adds some, and both Luke
            > and Matthew pick up some from Q.
            >
            > On GH, Luke must avoid every Matthian occurrence of the word (100%) in the
            > triple tradition (where he more closely follows Matthew's order), while
            > picking up 5 of Matthew's 8 in the double tradition (where he's not following
            > Matthew's order), and freely adding many his own. Then Mark must choose not to
            > use any (0%) from either source. Mark also must somewhat remarkably manage to
            > omit 100% of the material (the double tradition) where Matthew and Luke agree
            > on using the word.

            David, allow me to attempt a more precise breakdown in the interest of accuracy.

            Mt - 29x
            Sondergut - 9x
            Double Trad. where Lk lacks a parallel (+Q) - 2x (these Q stats are based on the
            Crit Ed. of Q)
            Double Trad. with a Lk parallel (=Q) - 5x
            Triple Trad. with no Lk parallel (+Mk) - 10x

            Lk - 51x
            Sondergut - 23x
            Double Trad. where Mt lacks a parallel (+Q) - 4x
            Double Trad. with a Mt parallel (=Q) - 5x
            Triple Trad. with no Mt parallel (+Mk) - 14x

            However, here are some complicating factors. You claim that Mk never has this
            word, which is true (the long version of Mark is not Mark's, John Lupia; I think
            this is generally accepted), but he does use POREUOMAI in compounds with
            prepositions 24x (with EIS, EK, PARA, PROS, SUM). What is more, Mk has such a
            compound in several passages where Mt or Lk have the simple version. 3x Mt
            simplified Mk's compound: Mk 2:23; 11:2; 13:1; 4x Lk may have done the same
            thing to Mk: Mk 1:21; 2:23; 4:19;10:1. Now, these are not direct parallels, but
            they do occur within the same pericope (or too closely to separate), so we must
            allow for the possibility of influence. Along similar lines, you claim that Mt
            and Lk never share the word in triple tradition passages, which is also not
            entirely true. 3x Mt and Lk both use the word not in parallel verses, but in
            the same pericope. Again, we shouldn't imagine that this went unnoticed to
            them.

            As for what must happen within each source hypothesis, here's my rendition.

            On the 2DH (your 2SH), Mk never uses this word except in compound verbs. Mt
            comes and shows a strong willingness to use the word himself (9x in SM), as well
            as to add it to his sources: to Mark (9x), to Q (2x); he also takes it over
            from Q (5x), and changes Mk's compound to the simple verb 3x. With respect to
            Mk's compound verbs, Mt takes them over 7x, changes them to simple verbs 3x, and
            omits reference to it, sometimes by word and sometimes by the loss of a verse,
            12x. Lk then comes along and also shows a strong willingness to use the word on
            his own (23x SL); he adds it to Q 4x, takes it from Q 5x, adds it to Mk 14x.
            When it comes to the compounds in Mk, Lk changes them to simple verbs 3x,
            changes the preposition 1x, takes it over from Mk only 1x, and omits it 8x.
            What can we generalise about redactional policies on the 2DH? Not much, except
            to say that nothing here contradicts the 2DH position. So, it's neutral data.

            On the Griesbach Hypothesis (GH), Matt used the word a lot in a variety of
            places, both in simple and compound form. Lk came along and used the word 23x
            on his own. He took it over from Matt 5x and used it 3x in the same pericope
            but in a different place. He also added it to Mt 21x, and omitted it from Mt
            15x. Then Mark: Mk never takes over the the simple verb from his courses. But
            he does take over some compounds: from Mt 7x and from Lk 1x. He adds them to
            Mt 12x, makes a compound of Mt's simple verb 3x. With Lk, he changes 3 simples
            to compounds, and changes the preposition 1x, and adds the compound to Lk 8x.
            Only 3x did Mk find the word in both Mt and Lk, and yet not take it over. As
            for redactional policies, here too there is nothing problematic with how the GH
            might envision the evangelists working.

            On the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis (F-G), Mark was first, Mt uses the word himself
            (9x in SM + 7x DT), adds it to Mk 9x, and changes Mk's compound to the simple
            verb 3x. With respect to Mk's compound verbs, Mt takes them over 7x, changes
            them to simple verbs 3x, and omits reference to it, sometimes by word and
            sometimes by the loss of a verse, 12x. Lk comes next and does the same as the
            Griesbachian Lk. No problems here.

            So, my conclusion is that when it comes to POREUOMAI and compounds, all three
            hypotheses do an equally satisfactory job. None of them encounters problems
            that renders it less likely than the others.

            Cheers,

            Zeb

            ***

            Zeba Antonin Crook (Ph.D. Cand)
            University of St. Michael's College
            Faculty of Theology
            81 St. Mary Street
            Toronto, Ontario, Canada
            M5S 1J4

            (416) 964-8629
            http://individual.utoronto.ca/zeba_crook


            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • dgentil@sears.com
            Hello Zeb, Thank you for the added information. I agree that the word is not a problem for the 2DH, or the F-G hypothesis. But, on the GH isn t it at least a
            Message 5 of 13 , Apr 30, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello Zeb,

              Thank you for the added information.

              I agree that the word is not a problem for the 2DH, or the F-G hypothesis.

              But, on the GH isn't it at least a little coincidental that *every* time
              Luke directly follows Matthew
              it is in an area where he is not following Matthew's order? (5x)
              Also, isn't it a little coincidental that Mark does not contain *any* of
              the passages where that occurs?

              Or that *every* time Luke is following Matthew's order, he does not
              directly follow the word.
              (9x or 10x depending on the definition of the triple tradition). Even
              though Luke seems to have no problem with adding the word often.

              That does not appear to be random chance. Yet I don't see a clear
              motivation for the authors to intentionally behave that way.

              Just as a side note, this isn't really the same argument the study is
              making. But the word seems interesting, all by itself.

              Dave Gentile
              Riverside, Illinois





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


              To: Synoptic-L@...
              cc:

              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] POREUOMAI


              David Gentile wrote:

              > POREUOMAI -
              > Counts
              > --------------
              >
              > Mark - 0
              > Matthew - 29
              > Luke - 51
              >
              > Mark triple tradition - 0
              > Matthew triple tradition - 9
              > Luke triple tradition - 14
              >
              > Interestingly, in the triple tradition, Luke and Matthew never have the
              word
              > in parallel. They do have it 5 times in parallel in the double tradition.
              >
              > On the 2SH, Mark has none, Matthew adds some, Luke adds some, and both
              Luke
              > and Matthew pick up some from Q.
              >
              > On GH, Luke must avoid every Matthian occurrence of the word (100%) in
              the
              > triple tradition (where he more closely follows Matthew's order), while
              > picking up 5 of Matthew's 8 in the double tradition (where he's not
              following
              > Matthew's order), and freely adding many his own. Then Mark must choose
              not to
              > use any (0%) from either source. Mark also must somewhat remarkably
              manage to
              > omit 100% of the material (the double tradition) where Matthew and Luke
              agree
              > on using the word.

              David, allow me to attempt a more precise breakdown in the interest of
              accuracy.

              Mt - 29x
              Sondergut - 9x
              Double Trad. where Lk lacks a parallel (+Q) - 2x (these Q stats are based
              on the
              Crit Ed. of Q)
              Double Trad. with a Lk parallel (=Q) - 5x
              Triple Trad. with no Lk parallel (+Mk) - 10x

              Lk - 51x
              Sondergut - 23x
              Double Trad. where Mt lacks a parallel (+Q) - 4x
              Double Trad. with a Mt parallel (=Q) - 5x
              Triple Trad. with no Mt parallel (+Mk) - 14x





              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Maluflen@aol.com
              I wrote the following off-line before having seen Zeba Crook s response. I think my general conclusion is virtually identical with his, though some of his
              Message 6 of 13 , Apr 30, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                I wrote the following off-line before having seen Zeba Crook's response. I
                think my general conclusion is virtually identical with his, though some of
                his analyses are more complete.


                In a message dated 4/29/2002 11:34:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                GentDave@... writes:

                << Hello Leonard,

                Since you insist, I'll try a word. It's not the strongest case
                statistically, but it seems clearer than some.>>

                Thanks for the effort, but I am not overconfident a priori in the ability of
                POREUOMAI to serve as a symmetrical counterexample to mine. My term (PWRWSIS
                and cognates) was found only in Mark, but also had the qualitative advantage
                of being related to an acknowledged redactional theme of Mark's. In at least
                one of its uses (3:5) its omission in the parallels by both Matthew and Luke
                seemed strongly counter-intuitive, for qualitative reasons, as well.

                I am not criticizing your choice of a term simply on the grounds of its
                qualitative difference from the case of PWRWSIS. It is quite likely that a
                qualitative difference of some kind would accompany any word that could be
                thought of. But in this case, the qualitative difference affects the strength
                of your argument. Presumably you mean to argue that since Matt and Lk contain
                POREUOMAI numerous times it would be unlikely for a late Mark to have omitted
                the word each time he came across it when copying from Matt and Lk. Well,
                let's see what happens to that argument when we look at it a little more
                closely. First, to your own observations:

                << POREUOMAI -
                Counts
                --------------

                Mark - 0
                Matthew - 29
                Luke - 51

                Mark triple tradition - 0
                Matthew triple tradition - 9
                Luke triple tradition - 14>>

                On a purely quantitative basis, I will admit that these stats seem difficult
                for the GH. However, a closer analysis is going to show up the inadequacy of
                a purely quantitative approach – for this word, and by analogy, in general. I
                hope you will begin to see how much of this game must be qualitative in
                character in order to be responsible, and therefore how limited is the value
                of HHB to the extent that it represents a purely quantitative statistical
                analysis. It should be noted for the record that you ignore here the three
                uses of the term POREUOMAI in the latter part of Mark 16, though the reasons
                for this omission are obvious and I don't object to the procedure.

                << Interestingly, in the triple tradition, Luke and Matthew never have the
                word
                in parallel. They do have it 5 times in parallel in the double tradition.>>

                I think you would find that, though interesting, this is not surprising on
                the GH. In the double tradition the times Luke retains the word from Matthew
                would likely be in the context of sayings of Jesus. It is in the reproduction
                of sayings material that Luke tends to copy his sources most faithfully, as
                may be seen quite clearly by comparing Acts 7 with its OT sources. Otherwise,
                Luke usually attempts to avoid copying from his source and to use alternative
                ways of expressing something where possible.

                << On the 2SH, Mark has none, Matthew adds some, Luke adds some, and both
                Luke
                and Matthew pick up some from Q.>>

                A possible enough scenario in itself.

                << On GH, Luke must avoid every Matthian occurrence of the word (100%) in the
                triple tradition (where he more closely follows Matthew's order), while
                picking up 5 of Matthew's 8 in the double tradition (where he's not
                following Matthew's order), and freely adding many his own.>>

                As noted above, although you may find these statistics strange, they are
                exactly what I would expect, given the difference in the type of material in
                the triple tradition and double tradition and the way in which Luke normally
                handles the two sets of material. The fact that Luke follows Matthew's order
                more closely in the triple tradition material is irrelevant here.

                <<Then Mark must choose not to use any (0%) from either source. Mark also
                must somewhat
                remarkably manage to omit 100% of the material (the double tradition) where
                Matthew and Luke agree on using the word.>>

                The latter observation is not significant because Mark, on the GH, has chosen
                to omit much sayings material in order to achieve a fast-moving Gospel drama.
                The omission of POREUOMAI from this material is merely a collateral effect of
                this reasonable policy. The first observation here does require explanation.
                One should ideally examine here each case of omission, from either Matt or
                Luke, to see if it seems plausible from the scenario of a late Mark. I hope
                you don't mind if I give you the results simply of having examined the cases
                where Matthew has the term in triple tradition. Some of what I say here,
                however, could undoubtedly (though this should be checked) apply to Mark's
                use of Luke on this hypothesis as well.

                Even though the statistics here look damaging to Matthean priority from a
                purely quantitative perspective, I have examined the relationship between the
                two Gospels in each of the 9 cases in question, and conclude that the
                evidence of POREUOMAI is not a strong argument (even a strong isolated,
                partial argument) in favor of Markan priority. The following significant
                points are ignored by this purely quantitative approach:

                1. Though Mark does not use the term POREUOMAI (with the exceptions of the Mk
                16 cases), he does frequently use a compound of this verb, especially
                EISPOREUOMAI, and PARAPOREUOMAI. The latter term is found 4 times as often in
                Mark as in Matt and the former about twice as often. (This in itself is not
                much more than a stylistic preference, and does not have much value as a
                directional indicator either way.)

                2. A number of these uses of a compound of POREUOMAI are in fact parallel to
                the uses of Matt in triple tradition. They can thus be regarded as indicating
                Markan dependence on Matthew, even though the exact word is not reproduced
                from Matthew. I would accept that the opposite of this is also true.

                3. Mark sometimes uses a synonym of POREUOMAI (hUPAGEIN, etc.) where Matt has
                POREUOMAI; (in these cases, Mark has sometimes found hUPAGEIN in the parallel
                text of Luke, on the GH.)

                4. The term POREUOMAI is sometimes found, in triple tradition material, at
                the extreme beginning or ending of a Matthean pericope. These are points in
                the narrative when a later writer is most likely to depart from a source, so
                the cases in point are not strong directional indicators in either direction.

                The combination of the above points makes perfectly intelligible every single
                case of "omission" by Mark of the term POREUOMAI from his Matthean source on
                the GH. At least I think I have examined each case. If I am wrong, please
                supply the evidence of a difficult case I might have missed. Therefore, my
                conclusion is that POREUOMAI does not have the evidentiary value for Markan
                priority that PWRWSIS has for Markan posteriority (even though the latter is
                admittedly slight).

                I suspect that in the above I have not taken all relevant evidence into
                account (and certainly a thorough study of the Lukan cases of the use of the
                term in triple tradition and how they relate to the text of Mark would have
                to be undertaken), but I hope I have made clear the importance of qualitative
                observations in these terminological studies. You may well yet find a term
                that would be more equivalent to PWRWSIS in arguing for the opposite source
                theory. I don't think POREUOMAI works.

                Leonard Maluf

                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • John Lupia
                Zeba Crook wrote: You claim that Mk never has this word, which is true (the long version of Mark is not Mark s, John Lupia; I think this is generally
                Message 7 of 13 , Apr 30, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Zeba Crook wrote:
                  You claim that Mk never has this word, which is true
                  (the long version of Mark is not Mark's, John Lupia;
                  I think
                  this is generally accepted)

                  Dear Zeb:

                  Technically, this is not a scientific approach to any
                  serious study. To prejudge and exclude verses and
                  their vocabulary based on an opinion will only distort
                  the study. If verses are considered spurious they
                  should be included with appropriate labels. This is a
                  methodical matter and one that would show a
                  representation of the texts more fully without bias
                  and noise than one that excluded them.

                  Zeba Crook wrote:
                  (with EIS, EK, PARA, PROS, SUM)


                  This was insightful of you to look at the various
                  prefixes. Not having seen the HBB, Synoptic
                  Concordance I would assume that each of these is
                  treated, which is why the thought never crosse my mind
                  to look up the compounds. It is insightful on your
                  part since it gets into the use of the term as it is
                  treated by Mk. Interestingly, Mk & Lk use it with
                  prepositions and three of Lk's are hapaxes, which you
                  did not cite since you focused on Mk. The three are:
                  DIA (LK -3X), EPI (Lk -1X), PRO (Lk -1X).

                  DIAPOREUMAI
                  Lk 6:1
                  Lk 13:22
                  Lk 18:36
                  Acts 16:14
                  Rom 15:24

                  EPIPOREUMAI
                  Lk 8:4 (hapax)

                  PROPOREUMAI
                  Lk 1:76 (hapax, but also in Acts 7:40)

                  If what you are saying is that the term or as a
                  compound is not directional I might be inclined to
                  agree.

                  Best regards,
                  John


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

                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
                  http://health.yahoo.com

                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • dgentil@sears.com
                  Hello Leonard, Thank you for the response. You writes: ==== Even though the statistics here look damaging to Matthean priority from a purely quantitative
                  Message 8 of 13 , Apr 30, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello Leonard,
                    Thank you for the response.

                    You writes:

                    ====

                    Even though the statistics here look damaging to Matthean priority from a
                    purely quantitative perspective,

                    ====

                    D: If that is true, and if it were true over many examples, then what would
                    be needed to show the results of the study are wrong, would be to show that
                    systematically "other factors" cancel the quantitative evidence.

                    The other factors might weaken or strengthen the quantitative argument in
                    various cases.
                    With no other information, we have to assume they would cancel on balance.
                    It certainly is possible, that it could be shown that the other factors,
                    would systematically weaken the quantitative arguments. But that would
                    involve going over many, if not all examples.

                    ======

                    L:

                    My term (PWRWSIS
                    and cognates) was found only in Mark, but also had the qualitative
                    advantage
                    of being related to an acknowledged redactional theme of Mark's. In at
                    least
                    one of its uses (3:5) its omission in the parallels by both Matthew and
                    Luke
                    seemed strongly counter-intuitive, for qualitative reasons, as well.

                    ======

                    D: Yes we are making different sorts of arguments. it seems.


                    ======

                    L:

                    It is in the reproduction
                    of sayings material that Luke tends to copy his sources most faithfully,

                    L:

                    The latter observation is not significant because Mark, on the GH, has
                    chosen
                    to omit much sayings material in order to achieve a fast-moving Gospel
                    drama.
                    The omission of POREUOMAI from this material is merely a collateral effect
                    of
                    this reasonable policy.


                    ======

                    A possible explanation, but 100% still seems a bit coincidental, at least
                    to me.

                    Dave Gentile
                    Riverside, Illinois









                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • dgentil@sears.com
                    That should of course be: You write: Dave Gentile Riverside, Illinois Hello Leonard, Thank you for the response. You writes: ==== Synoptic-L Homepage:
                    Message 9 of 13 , Apr 30, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      That should of course be:

                      "You write:"


                      Dave Gentile
                      Riverside, Illinois






                      Hello Leonard,
                      Thank you for the response.

                      You writes:

                      ====



                      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
                      That should of course be: You write: Dave Gentile Riverside, Illinois Hello Leonard, Thank you for the response. You writes: ==== Synoptic-L Homepage:
                      Message 10 of 13 , Apr 30, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        That should of course be:

                        "You write:"


                        Dave Gentile
                        Riverside, Illinois






                        Hello Leonard,
                        Thank you for the response.

                        You writes:

                        ====



                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • Stephen C. Carlson
                        ... The appropriate labels are shown in the Nestle-Aland Critical Text. Mark 16:9-20 is enclosed in double brackets [[ ]], which means that the enclosed
                        Message 11 of 13 , May 1, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 11:13 AM 4/30/02 -0700, John Lupia wrote:
                          >Zeba Crook wrote:
                          >You claim that Mk never has this word, which is true
                          >(the long version of Mark is not Mark's, John Lupia;
                          >I think this is generally accepted)
                          >
                          >Technically, this is not a scientific approach to any
                          >serious study. To prejudge and exclude verses and
                          >their vocabulary based on an opinion will only distort
                          >the study. If verses are considered spurious they
                          >should be included with appropriate labels. This is a
                          >methodical matter and one that would show a
                          >representation of the texts more fully without bias
                          >and noise than one that excluded them.

                          The appropriate labels are shown in the Nestle-Aland
                          Critical Text. Mark 16:9-20 is enclosed in double
                          brackets [[ ]], which means "that the enclosed words,
                          generally of some length, are know not to be a part
                          of the original text." On a scholarly list such as
                          Synoptic-L, we assume that all participants are
                          aware of the Critical Text.

                          Stephen Carlson
                          --
                          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                          Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                          "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        • Maluflen@aol.com
                          In a message dated 4/30/2002 10:58:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, zeba.crook@utoronto.ca writes:
                          Message 12 of 13 , May 1, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In a message dated 4/30/2002 10:58:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                            zeba.crook@... writes:

                            << On the Griesbach Hypothesis (GH), Matt used the word a lot in a variety of
                            places, both in simple and compound form. Lk came along and used the word
                            23x
                            on his own. He took it over from Matt 5x and used it 3x in the same pericope
                            but in a different place. He also added it to Mt 21x, and omitted it from Mt
                            15x. Then Mark: Mk never takes over the the simple verb from his courses.
                            But
                            he does take over some compounds: from Mt 7x and from Lk 1x. He adds them
                            to
                            Mt 12x, makes a compound of Mt's simple verb 3x. With Lk, he changes 3
                            simples
                            to compounds, and changes the preposition 1x, and adds the compound to Lk 8x.
                            Only 3x did Mk find the word in both Mt and Lk, and yet not take it over. As
                            for redactional policies, here too there is nothing problematic with how the
                            GH
                            might envision the evangelists working.>>


                            I haven't checked your statistics here, but if they are accurate I think they
                            make a slightly stronger case for the GH than your conclusion suggests. You
                            write:

                            "He [...Mark] makes a compound of Mt's simple verb 3x. With Lk, he changes 3
                            simples to compounds..."

                            The symmetry here (the fact that Mark three times has a compound form of
                            POREUOMAI when a simple form occurs in Matt and three times when a simple
                            form occurs in Luke) requires a surprising conjunction of two independent
                            causes on the theory of Markan priority, but is what would be expected on the
                            theory of Markan posteriority, reflecting the consistency of a single
                            redactor in his use of sources. Note too that there is a consistency in the
                            statistics when seen from a GH perspective in that a later author (Luke /
                            Mark) never uses the simple form of the verb where a compound form occurs in
                            his source (if I have read your statistics correctly). Although the reverse
                            relationship is certainly a theoretical possibility, I wonder if this could
                            be shown to be a general rule or tendency with regard to the use of sources:
                            is there a general, verifiable tendency in the direction of a more widespread
                            use of compound verb forms by secondary authors with respect to their
                            sources? Of course, even if there were, this would hardly amount to
                            definitive proof of Markan posteriority because even if such a tendency could
                            be demonstrated I doubt very much that it would be an ironclad rule without
                            exceptions.

                            Leonard Maluf

                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          • Zeba Crook
                            ... But you make it sound as if Mk consistently makes compounds of simple forms. He does it three times in each case (Mk 2:23//Mt 12:1; 11:2//21:2; 13:1//24:1
                            Message 13 of 13 , May 1, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Maluflen@... wrote:

                              > I haven't checked your statistics here, but if they are accurate I think they
                              > make a slightly stronger case for the GH than your conclusion suggests. You
                              > write:
                              >
                              > "He [...Mark] makes a compound of Mt's simple verb 3x. With Lk, he changes 3
                              > simples to compounds..."
                              >
                              > The symmetry here (the fact that Mark three times has a compound form of
                              > POREUOMAI when a simple form occurs in Matt and three times when a simple form
                              > occurs in Luke) requires a surprising conjunction of two independent causes on
                              > the theory of Markan priority, but is what would be expected on the theory of
                              > Markan posteriority, reflecting the consistency of a single redactor in his use
                              > of sources.

                              But you make it sound as if Mk consistently makes compounds of simple forms. He
                              does it three times in each case (Mk 2:23//Mt 12:1; 11:2//21:2; 13:1//24:1 and Mk
                              1:21//Lk 4:30; 4:19//8:14; 10:1//9:51). But he when he finds the compound already
                              made in Mt, 19x, he only takes it over 7x, and only once in Lk when he finds it
                              9x. It's hard to argue based on these numbers that Mk has a strong attraction to
                              the compounds, but only that he has a strong aversion to the simple form, which he
                              never uses or takes over.

                              > Note too that there is a consistency in the statistics when seen from a GH
                              > perspective in that a later author (Luke / Mark) never uses the simple form of
                              > the verb where a compound form occurs in his source (if I have read your
                              > statistics correctly). Although the reverse relationship is certainly a
                              > theoretical possibility, I wonder if this could be shown to be a general rule or
                              > tendency with regard to the use of sources: is there a general, verifiable
                              > tendency in the direction of a more widespread use of compound verb forms by
                              > secondary authors with respect to their sources? Of course, even if there were,
                              > this would hardly amount to definitive proof of Markan posteriority because even
                              > if such a tendency could be demonstrated I doubt very much that it would be an
                              > ironclad rule without exceptions.

                              This is a good question. On the one hand, E.P. Sanders showed, I think, with
                              respect to a large number of tests, that when it came to style it was not possible
                              to argue that authors did things consistently, and thus to move from there to
                              direction arguments. I don't know that this test was among them, but I'd be
                              surprised to find out that it worked and was unnoticed by Sanders.


                              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.