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

[Synoptic-L] New Issue of Novum Testamentum

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    The latest article of Novum Testament has *three* new articles on the synoptic problem. I haven t read any of them yet, only having received the email issue
    Message 1 of 15 , Nov 9, 2003
      The latest article of Novum Testament has *three* new articles
      on the synoptic problem. I haven't read any of them yet, only
      having received the email issue alert, but here they are:

      Paul Foster, "Is it Possible to Dispense with Q?"

      Abstract: Solutions to the Synoptic Problem that argue for Markan
      priority, but the non-existence of Q as the basis of the double
      tradition material continue to attract scholars. The best known
      of these theories, the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis arguing for Luke's
      direct use of Matthew, has been championed most recently by Mark
      Goodacre. He reworks some of the previous arguments in favour of
      that hypothesis as well as offering a number of new arguments. This
      paper assesses the validity of such arguments and the claim that
      it is now possible to finally dispense with Q.

      Alex Damm, "Ornatus: An Application of Rhetoric to the Synoptic Problem"

      Abstract: In this essay I shall consider ancient rhetoric as a means
      to suggest synoptic relationships. Focusing on the stylistic virtue
      of ornatus ("adornment"), I shall examine three triple tradition
      sentences in which the gospel of Mark employs a word used nowhere by
      the gospels of Luke or Matthew. Focusing on the relationship between
      Mark and the other gospels, I shall ask whether it is more likely
      that Mark adds the word to Matthew and/or Luke on the Two-Gospel
      Hypothesis, or whether Matthew and/or Luke delete it from Mark on
      the Two-Document Hypothesis. My study leads me to two conclusions.
      On grounds of ornatus, editing on either source hypothesis is
      plausible. But such editing on the Two-Document Hypothesis is more
      plausible, since Mark's addition of each word would entail the
      unlikely discovery of near-perfect or coincidentally co-ordinated
      literary patterns in Matthew and/or Luke.

      Michael Goulder, "Two Significant Minor Agreements (Mat. 4:13 Par.; Mat.
      26:67-68 Par.)"

      Abstract: Three of our oldest witnesses, Origen and P70 from the third
      century, and Eusebius from the fourth, read NAZARA at Mat. 2:23, and this
      should be accepted as the original, as at 4:13. Matthew is probably
      inferring the form from his (amended) citation of Jg. 13:5,7, NAZWRAIOS
      ESTAI, on analogy with IOUDAIOS IOUDA. So NAZARA is Matthaean, and Luke's
      use of the Matthaean form at Lk. 4:16 is an indication that he knows
      Matthew's Gospel. At 26:67-68 Matthew has divided the mockers into two
      groups. The first spit in Jesus' face, and punch it, and the evangelist
      therefore suppresses Mark's blindfolding, which would protect Jesus. The
      second group belabour Jesus with sticks from around and behind; as he cannot
      see them, the "Prophesy!" taunt is transferred to them, with its explanatory,
      "Who is it who smote you?" Luke has the same addition of five words in
      the same order, including a hapax. It is difficult to resist the conclusion
      here that Luke knew Matthew's Gospel.

      From my issue alerting message:
      >To view this issue online, please go to:
      >
      > http://www.ingentaselect.com/rpsv/cw/brill/00481009/v45n4/contp1-1.htm

      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 11/9/2003 4:45:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, ... Could someone please parse the last sentence in the above paragraph for me? As I read it
      Message 2 of 15 , Nov 9, 2003
        In a message dated 11/9/2003 4:45:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, scarlson@... writes:


        Abstract: In this essay I shall consider ancient rhetoric as a means
        to suggest synoptic relationships. Focusing on the stylistic virtue
        of ornatus ("adornment"), I shall examine three triple tradition
        sentences in which the gospel of Mark employs a word used nowhere by
        the gospels of Luke or Matthew. Focusing on the relationship between
        Mark and the other gospels, I shall ask whether it is more likely
        that Mark adds the word to Matthew and/or Luke on the Two-Gospel
        Hypothesis, or whether Matthew and/or Luke delete it from Mark on
        the Two-Document Hypothesis. My study leads me to two conclusions.
        On grounds of ornatus, editing on either source hypothesis is
        plausible. But such editing on the Two-Document Hypothesis is more
        plausible, since Mark's addition of each word would entail the
        unlikely discovery of near-perfect or coincidentally co-ordinated
        literary patterns in Matthew and/or Luke.


        Could someone please parse the last sentence in the above paragraph for me? As I read it (perhaps incorrectly) it makes non-sense, as does also its logical connection to what has gone before. Or, I suppose I could wait till I read the whole of the article in question.

        Leonard Maluf
        Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
        Weston, MA
      • Stephen C. Carlson
        ... I m confused too. Here s what I wrote on my weblog about it: Here, I m going to have to read the article to understand the argument, since the Abstract
        Message 3 of 15 , Nov 9, 2003
          At 12:36 PM 11/9/03 EST, Maluflen@... wrote:
          >In a message dated 11/9/2003 4:45:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, scarlson@... writes:
          > But such editing on the Two-Document Hypothesis is more
          > plausible, since Mark's addition of each word would entail the
          > unlikely discovery of near-perfect or coincidentally co-ordinated
          > literary patterns in Matthew and/or Luke.
          >
          > Could someone please parse the last sentence in the above paragraph for
          >me? As I read it (perhaps incorrectly) it makes non-sense, as does also its
          >logical connection to what has gone before. Or, I suppose I could wait till
          >I read the whole of the article in question.

          I'm confused too. Here's what I wrote on my weblog about it: "Here, I'm going
          to have to read the article to understand the argument, since the Abstract is
          counter-intuitive to me. Generally, co-ordinated literary patterns for Matthew
          and Luke (against Mark?) are problems, not strengths, of the Mark-Q Theory
          (Two-Document Hypothesis), not the other way around."

          Stephen Carlson
          --
          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
          Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
          "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@...
        • Mark Goodacre
          One note perhaps worth adding is that Alex Damm will be speaking on a similar topic at the SBL Annual Meeting in the Synoptics Section (Sunday, 4-6.30 p.m.),
          Message 4 of 15 , Nov 9, 2003
            One note perhaps worth adding is that Alex Damm will be speaking on a
            similar topic at the SBL Annual Meeting in the Synoptics Section
            (Sunday, 4-6.30 p.m.), "Ancient Paraphrase and the Synoptic Problem".

            I've not read Damm's article yet in the latest NovT but I have read
            Foster's and Goulder's. Goulder's is essentially a strengthening of
            his earlier arguments from the Minor Agreements at Matt. 4.13 // Luke
            4.16 and at Mark 14.65. He gave the paper at the British NT
            Conference in Cambridge last year. Foster's is a critique of my Case
            Against Q & The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze books. I
            have some major reservations about his argument and about the way it
            is framed and am half-way through preparing a response. Perhaps I
            will ask for some feedback on that in this forum when it is ready.

            Mark
            -----------------------------
            Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
            Graduate Institute for Theology & Religion
            Dept of Theology
            University of Birmingham
            Elmfield House, Bristol Road tel.+44 121 414 7512
            Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376

            http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
            http://NTGateway.com


            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Richard H. Anderson
            correction I said Caesarea when I might to say Caesarea Philippi . Richard H. Anderson Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l List
            Message 5 of 15 , Nov 9, 2003
              correction I said "Caesarea" when I might to say "Caesarea Philippi".
              Richard H. Anderson



              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Emmanuel Fritsch
              ... Two questions for those who have got the paper : ** when writing hapax , does Goulder mean a Lukan hapax which sounds Matthean, or a hapax of whole
              Message 6 of 15 , Nov 12, 2003
                Mark Goodacre wrote :
                >
                > Goulder's is essentially a strengthening of
                > his earlier arguments from the Minor Agreements at Matt.

                The end of Goulder's abstract :

                > Luke has the same addition of five words in the same order,
                > including a hapax. It is difficult to resist the conclusion
                > here that Luke knew Matthew's Gospel.

                Two questions for those who have got the paper :

                ** when writing "hapax", does Goulder mean a Lukan hapax which
                sounds Matthean, or a hapax of whole synoptic collection ?

                Considering the second case is true : if a hapax of whole synoptic
                collection urges us to conclude that Luke knew Matthew's Gospel, by
                symetry, it urges to conclude that Matthew knew Luke's Gospel. Non
                sequitur. For that reason, I will now consider that "hapax" should
                be understand as "Lukan hapax, common to Mark".

                ** If I find five words in Mark, common to Luke, with a word which
                is a hapax in Mark, but common to Luke, do you feel difficult to
                resist the conclusion here that Mark knew Luke's Gospel ?

                I do not have such an example in mind, but I would know : does
                Goulder say such a counter example does not exist ? Or, as you,
                Mark at the end of your paper about fatigue, does he challenge
                us to find such a counter example ? Or perhabs does he say
                nothing about the possible reversibility of his argument ?

                a+
                manu

                PS : I apologize, I do not have my tools here to check whether
                the hapax is a Lukan hapax or a hapax among synoptists.

                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                ... In the article, Goulder states hapax (for Luke) (372); thus he means that the word is read only once in Luke. ... Since the phrase in question is in a
                Message 7 of 15 , Nov 12, 2003
                  Emmanuel Fritsch <emmanuel.fritsch@...> wrote:
                  >Mark Goodacre wrote :
                  >The end of Goulder's abstract :
                  >> Luke has the same addition of five words in the same order,
                  >> including a hapax. It is difficult to resist the conclusion
                  >> here that Luke knew Matthew's Gospel.
                  >
                  >Two questions for those who have got the paper :
                  >
                  >** when writing "hapax", does Goulder mean a Lukan hapax which
                  >sounds Matthean, or a hapax of whole synoptic collection ?

                  In the article, Goulder states "hapax (for Luke)" (372); thus he means
                  that the word is read only once in Luke.

                  >Considering the second case is true : if a hapax of whole synoptic
                  >collection urges us to conclude that Luke knew Matthew's Gospel, by
                  >symetry, it urges to conclude that Matthew knew Luke's Gospel. Non
                  >sequitur. For that reason, I will now consider that "hapax" should
                  >be understand as "Lukan hapax, common to Mark".

                  Since the phrase in question is in a Minor Agreement, that Lukan
                  phrase does not come from (our) Mark, so I wouldn't characterize
                  it as a "common to Mark."

                  >** If I find five words in Mark, common to Luke, with a word which
                  >is a hapax in Mark, but common to Luke, do you feel difficult to
                  >resist the conclusion here that Mark knew Luke's Gospel ?

                  That sounds like Zeller's argument that Farmer tried to resurrect.
                  But that is not quite what Goulder is doing.

                  >I do not have such an example in mind, but I would know : does
                  >Goulder say such a counter example does not exist ? Or, as you,
                  >Mark at the end of your paper about fatigue, does he challenge
                  >us to find such a counter example ? Or perhabs does he say
                  >nothing about the possible reversibility of his argument ?

                  The hapax observation is not used in that way in Goulder. Rather,
                  Goulder uses the occurrence of the rare word PAISAS to establish
                  that there is a literary (not oral) relationship between Luke and
                  Matthew at this point, and then Goulder provides other reasons
                  that this phrase is original to Matthew. Thus, the logic is: if there is
                  a literary relationship between Matthew and Luke for this phrase,
                  and if the phrase is original to Matthew, then Luke depends on
                  Matthew.

                  Stephen Carlson

                  --
                  Stephen C. Carlson,
                  mailto:scarlson@...
                  "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@...
                • Emmanuel Fritsch
                  ... But in that case, where does the dependency of (Matthew-Luke) upon Mark come from ? How does he dismiss the possible schema : Mt - Lk - Mk ? This is the
                  Message 8 of 15 , Nov 12, 2003
                    "Stephen C. Carlson" answers :
                    >
                    > The hapax observation is not used in that way in Goulder. Rather,
                    > Goulder uses the occurrence of the rare word PAISAS to establish
                    > that there is a literary (not oral) relationship between Luke and
                    > Matthew at this point, and then Goulder provides other reasons
                    > that this phrase is original to Matthew. Thus, the logic is: if there is
                    > a literary relationship between Matthew and Luke for this phrase,
                    > and if the phrase is original to Matthew, then Luke depends on
                    > Matthew.

                    But in that case, where does the dependency of (Matthew-Luke)
                    upon Mark come from ? How does he dismiss the possible schema :
                    Mt -> Lk -> Mk ?

                    This is the old problem of the reverse argument.


                    Another observation about Goulder's abstract :

                    > Matthew is probably inferring the form from his (amended)
                    > citation of Jg. 13:5,7, NAZWRAIOS ESTAI, on analogy with
                    > IOUDAIOS IOUDA. So NAZARA is Matthaean, and Luke's use of
                    > the Matthaean form at Lk. 4:16 is an indication that he
                    > knows Matthew's Gospel.

                    In fact, even if an original Matthew in NAZARA does not look
                    odd, the special link with NAZWRAIOS is quite difficult. First, we
                    note that it presents a W switching into a A, wich does not appear in
                    "IOUDAIOS IOUDA".

                    Then, the origin of NAZARA in Luke looks rather related to NAZARHNE,
                    on analogy with GADARHNE, GERASHNE (and probably other similar examples
                    outside the NT). Please note that IOUDA is a province/kingdom name, and
                    NAZARA, as GADARA, a city, a town or a village.

                    In fact, NAZARETH looks aramean, original name, and NAZARA its greek
                    form (in french, it is called an exonyme : "Londres" is the french
                    exonymes for "London"). There is no reason to refuse that both forms,
                    aramean and greek exonyme, independantly appear in both Matthew and Luke.

                    Does Goulder address this possibility ?

                    If NAZARA is Matthean, what is the case about NAZAREQ (and
                    the other close forms) ? If they are considered as Lukan,
                    then when they are found in Matthew (21:11), are we allowded
                    to think they are an indication that he knows Luke's Gospel ?

                    This is still the question of the reverse argument.

                    (OK, I know, I should rather go to read the paper, but difficult to me).

                    a+
                    manu

                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • John Lupia
                    ... This sort of conclusion is based on emotion not logic. It is not only easy to resist this conclusion of Goulder s but it is logically obligatory to do so.
                    Message 9 of 15 , Nov 12, 2003
                      > Mark Goodacre wrote :
                      > >
                      > > Goulder's is essentially a strengthening of
                      > > his earlier arguments from the Minor Agreements at
                      > Matt.
                      >
                      > The end of Goulder's abstract :
                      >
                      > > Luke has the same addition of five words in the
                      > same order,
                      > > including a hapax. It is difficult to resist the
                      > conclusion
                      > > here that Luke knew Matthew's Gospel.


                      This sort of conclusion is based on emotion not logic.
                      It is not only easy to resist this conclusion of
                      Goulder's but it is logically obligatory to do so.
                      Logic shows the conclusion is foundationless since the
                      equation is clearly and self-evidently reversable.
                      What Goulder should have written is: " Both Matthew
                      and Luke have the same addition of five words in the
                      same order, including a Matthean hapax." Logically,
                      the hapax must be a referent to a Matthean hapax since
                      it cannot be a true hapax legomenon for the New
                      Testament since it occurs in both Matthew and Luke. No
                      irresitable conclusion is even remotely present. On
                      the other hand, the Matthean hapax could very possible
                      be a signal of dependence on Luke if the Matthean
                      hapax is not also a Lukan hapax. For if it is of equal
                      value to both authors then there is nothing compelling
                      in either direction.

                      When discussing a specific word that a theorist
                      "feels" may prove to be a key to determining literary
                      direction it is not only useful but compulsory or
                      obligatory to provide the entire profile of the word
                      showing the number of times it occurs in the canonical
                      New Testament and the index of all its occurrences.

                      Giovanni Lupia

                      =====
                      John N. Lupia, III
                      Toms River New Jersey 08757 USA
                      Phone: (732) 505-5325
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/
                      God Bless America

                      __________________________________
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
                      http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Mark Goodacre
                      The difficulty with the current thread on Goulder s article is twofold. First, I am afraid that it is not acceptable to discuss an abstract alone without
                      Message 10 of 15 , Nov 12, 2003
                        The difficulty with the current thread on Goulder's article is
                        twofold. First, I am afraid that it is not acceptable to discuss an
                        abstract alone without reference to the article as a whole.
                        Abstracts are necessarily terse; they tightly pack in information
                        and argument that is expanded in more leisurely detail in the
                        article. I realise that it is not easy for everyone to get hold of
                        these journals and I sympathise -- there are some that I sometimes
                        have to wait weeks or even months to get my hands on. But if one
                        doesn't have access to the article, why not just wait until one does?
                        I'm sure we all won't mind waiting. Second, it needs to be pointed
                        out that Goulder's argument here has a context and the context is the
                        extended debate that has taken place over a number of years both on
                        the Minor Agreements in general and Mark 14.65 in particular. If I
                        may be so bold, I would suggest my Case Against Q, Chapter 8 as a
                        jumping off point for assessing Goulder's argument over the MAs in
                        general and Mark 14.65 in particular, and for more detail
                        specifically on the language issue (viz. number of occurrences of
                        PAIW in the NT, construction of the sentence etc.), please see my
                        Goulder and the Gospels, Chapter 3. I also discuss there the general
                        argument from Minor Agreements which feature hapaxes in Luke. (Sorry
                        to refer to my own stuff -- it's just that I know my own stuff better
                        than other people's and know that there is some more biblio there.)

                        This is not to try to close down the thread in any way; I'm just
                        suggesting that there are probably more useful ways to proceed than
                        discussing a paragraph's abstract without reference either to the
                        article it is summarising or any of the previous, wide-ranging
                        discussion of the subject.

                        Mark
                        -----------------------------
                        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                        Graduate Institute for Theology & Religion
                        Dept of Theology
                        University of Birmingham
                        Elmfield House, Bristol Road tel.+44 121 414 7512
                        Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376

                        http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
                        http://NTGateway.com


                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • Stephen C. Carlson
                        ... Goulder is writing in a context in which Markan priority is a shared assumption. The purpose of the article is not to establish Markan priority but to
                        Message 11 of 15 , Nov 13, 2003
                          At 05:25 PM 11/12/03 +0100, Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:
                          >"Stephen C. Carlson" answers :
                          >> The hapax observation is not used in that way in Goulder. Rather,
                          >> Goulder uses the occurrence of the rare word PAISAS to establish
                          >> that there is a literary (not oral) relationship between Luke and
                          >> Matthew at this point, and then Goulder provides other reasons
                          >> that this phrase is original to Matthew. Thus, the logic is: if there is
                          >> a literary relationship between Matthew and Luke for this phrase,
                          >> and if the phrase is original to Matthew, then Luke depends on
                          >> Matthew.
                          >
                          >But in that case, where does the dependency of (Matthew-Luke)
                          >upon Mark come from ? How does he dismiss the possible schema :
                          > Mt -> Lk -> Mk ?
                          >
                          >This is the old problem of the reverse argument.

                          Goulder is writing in a context in which Markan priority is
                          a shared assumption. The purpose of the article is not to
                          establish Markan priority but to determine whether Luke used
                          Matthew or Q under the premise of Markan priority.

                          >Another observation about Goulder's abstract :
                          >> Matthew is probably inferring the form from his (amended)
                          >> citation of Jg. 13:5,7, NAZWRAIOS ESTAI, on analogy with
                          >> IOUDAIOS IOUDA. So NAZARA is Matthaean, and Luke's use of
                          >> the Matthaean form at Lk. 4:16 is an indication that he
                          >> knows Matthew's Gospel.
                          >
                          >In fact, even if an original Matthew in NAZARA does not look
                          >odd, the special link with NAZWRAIOS is quite difficult. First, we
                          >note that it presents a W switching into a A, wich does not appear in
                          >"IOUDAIOS IOUDA".
                          >
                          >Then, the origin of NAZARA in Luke looks rather related to NAZARHNE,
                          >on analogy with GADARHNE, GERASHNE (and probably other similar examples
                          >outside the NT). Please note that IOUDA is a province/kingdom name, and
                          >NAZARA, as GADARA, a city, a town or a village.
                          >
                          >In fact, NAZARETH looks aramean, original name, and NAZARA its greek
                          >form (in french, it is called an exonyme : "Londres" is the french
                          >exonymes for "London"). There is no reason to refuse that both forms,
                          >aramean and greek exonyme, independantly appear in both Matthew and Luke.
                          >
                          >Does Goulder address this possibility ?

                          Goulder is aware of the possibility that Nazara may have been in some
                          currency (although he suspects that it is an analogical coinage by
                          the writer ot Matthew). However, Goulder uses the rarity of Nazara
                          in conjunction with other literary features beyound what the Abstract
                          supplies to make his case.

                          Goulder is addressing a criticism by Tuckett of his earlier argument
                          that even though both Matthew and Luke employ the rare form of NAZARA
                          (both writers also use the much more common form of Nazareth), Goulder
                          has not established why the use of Nazara in this form and in this
                          context owes its origin to Matthew instead of another source. The goal
                          of Goulder's article is to do just that. Goulder's argument, briefly,
                          is that the clause containing Nazara at Matt. 4:13 is linked to an
                          almost identical clause in Matt. 2:23. Goulder further argues that
                          the original text of 2:23 also must have read Nazara, being attested
                          in P70 Origen and Eusebius. So, Goulder finds that the rare Nazara
                          form was employed rather than Nazareth to be a better linkage to the
                          Judges 13 proof text. Since 2:23 is in M and prophecy fulfilment is a
                          major Matthean interest, and this ties in with the use of Nazara in
                          2:23 (var.lect.) and 4:13, Goulder concludes that Luke's use of
                          Nazara owes its origin to Matthew--unless one is willing to make Q
                          look a lot more like Matthew.

                          >If NAZARA is Matthean, what is the case about NAZAREQ (and
                          >the other close forms) ? If they are considered as Lukan,
                          >then when they are found in Matthew (21:11), are we allowded
                          >to think they are an indication that he knows Luke's Gospel ?
                          >
                          >This is still the question of the reverse argument.

                          No, Nazareth is the common form, and it is found in contexts
                          in both gospels where there is no literary relation. A literary
                          relation is not necessary to explanation why the form Nazareth
                          is used. Nazara, by contrast, shows up only once in the same
                          literary context. The use of a rare (or coined) term in the
                          same literary context is strong evidence of a literary link.

                          >(OK, I know, I should rather go to read the paper, but difficult to me).

                          Yes, reading the paper will help a lot; don't rely on me. It will
                          also help to read the entire paper trail of the debate, so that
                          one can appreciate why Goulder is focusing on a few very specific
                          points relating to the Mark-Q theory and why questions of Matthean
                          priority, Boismard's multistage theories, etc. are outside of the
                          scope of the paper.

                          Stephen Carlson
                          --
                          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                          Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
                          "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@...
                        • Emmanuel Fritsch
                          ... No observation about that argument ? Is the W/A switch a common and natural feature in koine greek ? ... Rather than a possibility , it looks as the
                          Message 12 of 15 , Nov 14, 2003
                            I wrote and "Stephen C. Carlson" answered :
                            >
                            > >Another observation about Goulder's abstract :
                            > >> Matthew is probably inferring the form from his (amended)
                            > >> citation of Jg. 13:5,7, NAZWRAIOS ESTAI, on analogy with
                            > >> IOUDAIOS IOUDA. So NAZARA is Matthaean, and Luke's use of
                            > >> the Matthaean form at Lk. 4:16 is an indication that he
                            > >> knows Matthew's Gospel.
                            > >
                            > >In fact, even if an original Matthew in NAZARA does not look
                            > >odd, the special link with NAZWRAIOS is quite difficult. First,
                            > >we note that it presents a W switching into a A, which does not
                            > >appear in "IOUDAIOS IOUDA".

                            No observation about that argument ?
                            Is the W/A switch a common and natural feature in koine greek ?

                            > >Then, the origin of NAZARA in Luke looks rather related to NAZARHNE,
                            > >on analogy with GADARHNE, GERASHNE (and probably other similar examples
                            > >outside the NT). Please note that IOUDA is a province/kingdom name, and
                            > >NAZARA, as GADARA, a city, a town or a village.
                            > >
                            > >In fact, NAZARETH looks aramean, original name, and NAZARA its greek
                            > >form (in french, it is called an exonyme : "Londres" is the french
                            > >exonymes for "London"). There is no reason to refuse that both forms,
                            > >aramean and greek exonyme, independantly appear in both Matthew and Luke.
                            > >
                            > >Does Goulder address this possibility ?
                            >
                            > Goulder is aware of the possibility that Nazara may have been in some
                            > currency (although he suspects that it is an analogical coinage by
                            > the writer ot Matthew).

                            Rather than a "possibility", it looks as the natural greek
                            word, needed by the presence of "NAZARHNE", paralleling some
                            other city names.

                            Does Goulder provide some arguments against this self-evident solution ?


                            > However, Goulder uses the rarity of Nazara
                            > in conjunction with other literary features beyound what the Abstract
                            > supplies to make his case.
                            >
                            > Goulder is addressing a criticism by Tuckett of his earlier argument
                            > that even though both Matthew and Luke employ the rare form of NAZARA
                            > (both writers also use the much more common form of Nazareth),

                            "Much more common form" seems quite emphatic, since "Nazare/th/t/q"
                            appears only in seven places in synoptics (or only six if Goulder
                            is right about Mt 2:23). "Nazara" appears twice, or three time if
                            Goulder is right. So if Goulder is right, Nazareth is only twice
                            more common than Nazara.

                            It seems difficult to say "Nazareth/q/t" is the rule, and "Nazara"
                            a rare exception.

                            For the whole NT, you may add only two occurences of "Nazareth" in
                            John, and one in Acts.


                            > Goulder
                            > has not established why the use of Nazara in this form and in this
                            > context owes its origin to Matthew instead of another source. The goal
                            > of Goulder's article is to do just that. Goulder's argument, briefly,
                            > is that the clause containing Nazara at Matt. 4:13 is linked to an
                            > almost identical clause in Matt. 2:23. Goulder further argues that
                            > the original text of 2:23 also must have read Nazara, being attested
                            > in P70 Origen and Eusebius. So, Goulder finds that the rare Nazara
                            > form was employed rather than Nazareth to be a better linkage to the
                            > Judges 13 proof text.

                            This better link seems to not have been better for major
                            tradition which very fast prefered the aramaism "Nazareth/t/q".


                            > Since 2:23 is in M and prophecy fulfilment is a
                            > major Matthean interest, and this ties in with the use of Nazara in
                            > 2:23 (var.lect.) and 4:13, Goulder concludes that Luke's use of
                            > Nazara owes its origin to Matthew--unless one is willing to make Q
                            > look a lot more like Matthew.
                            >
                            > >If NAZARA is Matthean, what is the case about NAZAREQ (and
                            > >the other close forms) ? If they are considered as Lukan,
                            > >then when they are found in Matthew (21:11), are we allowded
                            > >to think they are an indication that he knows Luke's Gospel ?
                            > >
                            > >This is still the question of the reverse argument.
                            >
                            > No, Nazareth is the common form, and it is found in contexts
                            > in both gospels where there is no literary relation. A literary
                            > relation is not necessary to explanation why the form Nazareth
                            > is used. Nazara, by contrast, shows up only once in the same
                            > literary context. The use of a rare (or coined) term in the
                            > same literary context is strong evidence of a literary link.

                            Seeing the low occurence of "Nazara" and "Nazareth", it may be
                            due to a coincidence. But if you think it is not a coincidence,
                            considering that "NAZARHNE" is used only by Luke and not by
                            Matthew, and that "NAZARA - NAZARHENE" is the right declination,
                            much better than "NAZARA - NAZWRAIOS", we may answer that NAZARA
                            is a Lukan construction taken afterward by Matthew (and
                            contaminating long after some greek scribe, such as Eusebius
                            or P70).

                            About "NAZARA - NAZARHENE", another example (how did I
                            miss it?) : Magdalhne (but Magdala is not present in NT).



                            a+
                            manu

                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          • Stephen C. Carlson
                            Emmanuel, A lot of these questions are really getting quite afield from Goulder s argument. Perhaps, it is best to read the article rather than rely on the
                            Message 13 of 15 , Nov 14, 2003
                              Emmanuel,

                              A lot of these questions are really getting quite afield from
                              Goulder's argument. Perhaps, it is best to read the article
                              rather than rely on the abstract or my characterization of
                              Goulder's argument, before judging Goulder for not answering
                              questions that are really not pertinent to his case. That
                              being said, I'll try to address some of the concerns.

                              At 11:13 AM 11/14/03 +0100, Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:
                              >I wrote and "Stephen C. Carlson" answered :
                              >> >Another observation about Goulder's abstract :
                              >> >> Matthew is probably inferring the form from his (amended)
                              >> >> citation of Jg. 13:5,7, NAZWRAIOS ESTAI, on analogy with
                              >> >> IOUDAIOS IOUDA. So NAZARA is Matthaean, and Luke's use of
                              >> >> the Matthaean form at Lk. 4:16 is an indication that he
                              >> >> knows Matthew's Gospel.
                              >> >
                              >> >In fact, even if an original Matthew in NAZARA does not look
                              >> >odd, the special link with NAZWRAIOS is quite difficult. First,
                              >> >we note that it presents a W switching into a A, which does not
                              >> >appear in "IOUDAIOS IOUDA".
                              >
                              >No observation about that argument ?
                              >Is the W/A switch a common and natural feature in koine greek ?

                              Schaeder, TWNT 4:877, suggests that both the alpha and the omega
                              come from the full from of a schwa, and cites set of examples
                              showing a Greek omega standing for a Hebrew schwa.

                              Nevertheless, the A/W interchange is not the problem that
                              Goulder is addressing, and if the A/W interchange remains a
                              problem (if you don't like Schraeder's solution), that
                              would be true for both the standard critical text of Matt.
                              2:23 with Nazareth and for Goulder's proposed reading with
                              Nazara. So, Goulder's proposed text does not create
                              any more problems with 2:23 than what the standard text
                              already has.

                              However, Goulder is not trying to solve every problem in the
                              linkage that Matthew makes between Nazareth (or Nazara?) and
                              Nazorean in 2:23. In fact, Goulder is not even arguing for a
                              linguistic derivation of NAZARA from NAZWRAIOS or vice versa;
                              rather, Goulder is arguing that Matthew is making an exegetical
                              link between NAZWRAIOS, Jesus's hometown of Nazareth, and the
                              Judges proof text. In Goulder's view, the NAZARA form was
                              chosen (or selected) to facilitate this exegetical link,
                              because it is easier to go from NAZIRAIOS (Jg 13:3 LXX) to
                              NAZWRAIOS (yod/waw word play) to NAZ?RA than to NAZAREQ.

                              >> >Then, the origin of NAZARA in Luke looks rather related to NAZARHNE,
                              >> >on analogy with GADARHNE, GERASHNE (and probably other similar examples
                              >> >outside the NT). Please note that IOUDA is a province/kingdom name, and
                              >> >NAZARA, as GADARA, a city, a town or a village.
                              >> >
                              >> >In fact, NAZARETH looks aramean, original name, and NAZARA its greek
                              >> >form (in french, it is called an exonyme : "Londres" is the french
                              >> >exonymes for "London"). There is no reason to refuse that both forms,
                              >> >aramean and greek exonyme, independantly appear in both Matthew and Luke.
                              >> >
                              >> >Does Goulder address this possibility ?
                              >>
                              >> Goulder is aware of the possibility that Nazara may have been in some
                              >> currency (although he suspects that it is an analogical coinage by
                              >> the writer ot Matthew).
                              >
                              >Rather than a "possibility", it looks as the natural greek
                              >word, needed by the presence of "NAZARHNE", paralleling some
                              >other city names.
                              >
                              >Does Goulder provide some arguments against this self-evident solution ?

                              I'm not I understand the self-evident solution or why it is
                              self-evident. If you are talking about whether Nazara is a
                              possible or even natural Greek word for Nazareth, then Goulder
                              does recognize that possibility. However, it is the choice
                              of that form in a specific Matthean context (2:23) that interests
                              Goulder, because he can trace a direct path of derivation
                              from the use of Nazara in Matt. 2:23 (proof texting) to Matt.
                              4:13 (inclusio referring back to 2:23) to Luke 4:16 (via use
                              of Matthew at the contextual parallel). Thus, the use of
                              Nazara in the specific context of Luke 4:16 is dictated by
                              Matthean concerns, which indicates that Luke adopted that
                              form of Nazareth in that particular context from Matthew
                              rather than from some other source that does not share
                              Matthew's interests.

                              If you are suggesting that Nazara is a common alternative,
                              which Luke could have independently chosen, that appears
                              to be a poor description of Luke's word choice in Luke 1-2
                              where he four times in special Lukan material uses the
                              usual Nazareth. It is also a poor description of Greek
                              usage in which Nazaret(h) dominates over Nazara by about 20:1
                              (see below).

                              >> However, Goulder uses the rarity of Nazara
                              >> in conjunction with other literary features beyound what the Abstract
                              >> supplies to make his case.
                              >>
                              >> Goulder is addressing a criticism by Tuckett of his earlier argument
                              >> that even though both Matthew and Luke employ the rare form of NAZARA
                              >> (both writers also use the much more common form of Nazareth),
                              >
                              >"Much more common form" seems quite emphatic, since "Nazare/th/t/q"
                              >appears only in seven places in synoptics (or only six if Goulder
                              >is right about Mt 2:23). "Nazara" appears twice, or three time if
                              >Goulder is right. So if Goulder is right, Nazareth is only twice
                              >more common than Nazara.
                              >
                              >It seems difficult to say "Nazareth/q/t" is the rule, and "Nazara"
                              >a rare exception.
                              >
                              >For the whole NT, you may add only two occurences of "Nazareth" in
                              >John, and one in Acts.

                              Of the six places in the synoptics (putting aside Matt. 2:23) with
                              Nazareth, four are in Luke, and there's one more in Acts. None of
                              these are in a passage paralleled by the other synoptics, and the
                              only time that Luke deviates from Nazareth, Matthew's parallel has
                              Nazara. The natural conclusion is that for Luke, the preferred form
                              is Nazareth, and the only reason why Nazara is used is that it was
                              in Luke's source.

                              The fact that Nazareth is the more common form can be borne out by
                              a TLG search. A TLG search of Greek literature before A.D. 600 into
                              the forms of Nazareth indicates that NAZARA is used 14 times (mostly
                              by Origen and Eusebius commenting on this passage by Matthew) and
                              Nazaret(h) well over 350 times. This search indicates that Nazaret(h)
                              is overwhelmingly the name that the Greeks used for the town.

                              >> Goulder
                              >> has not established why the use of Nazara in this form and in this
                              >> context owes its origin to Matthew instead of another source. The goal
                              >> of Goulder's article is to do just that. Goulder's argument, briefly,
                              >> is that the clause containing Nazara at Matt. 4:13 is linked to an
                              >> almost identical clause in Matt. 2:23. Goulder further argues that
                              >> the original text of 2:23 also must have read Nazara, being attested
                              >> in P70 Origen and Eusebius. So, Goulder finds that the rare Nazara
                              >> form was employed rather than Nazareth to be a better linkage to the
                              >> Judges 13 proof text.
                              >
                              >This better link seems to not have been better for major
                              >tradition which very fast prefered the aramaism "Nazareth/t/q".

                              The link has to do with the ending of the name (-A vs. -EQ).
                              Furthermore, your "major tradition which very fast preferred
                              the aramism" appears to contradict your earlier suggestion
                              that it is the natural form.

                              >> Since 2:23 is in M and prophecy fulfilment is a
                              >> major Matthean interest, and this ties in with the use of Nazara in
                              >> 2:23 (var.lect.) and 4:13, Goulder concludes that Luke's use of
                              >> Nazara owes its origin to Matthew--unless one is willing to make Q
                              >> look a lot more like Matthew.
                              >>
                              >> >If NAZARA is Matthean, what is the case about NAZAREQ (and
                              >> >the other close forms) ? If they are considered as Lukan,
                              >> >then when they are found in Matthew (21:11), are we allowded
                              >> >to think they are an indication that he knows Luke's Gospel ?
                              >> >
                              >> >This is still the question of the reverse argument.
                              >>
                              >> No, Nazareth is the common form, and it is found in contexts
                              >> in both gospels where there is no literary relation. A literary
                              >> relation is not necessary to explanation why the form Nazareth
                              >> is used. Nazara, by contrast, shows up only once in the same
                              >> literary context. The use of a rare (or coined) term in the
                              >> same literary context is strong evidence of a literary link.
                              >
                              >Seeing the low occurence of "Nazara" and "Nazareth", it may be
                              >due to a coincidence. But if you think it is not a coincidence,
                              >considering that "NAZARHNE" is used only by Luke and not by
                              >Matthew, and that "NAZARA - NAZARHENE" is the right declination,
                              >much better than "NAZARA - NAZWRAIOS", we may answer that NAZARA
                              >is a Lukan construction taken afterward by Matthew (and
                              >contaminating long after some greek scribe, such as Eusebius
                              >or P70).

                              Luke's preferred term for the adjective is NAZWRAIOS, coming up
                              independently in Acts and once in redaction of Mark's NAZARHNOS.
                              Both cases where Luke used NAZARHNOS are paralleled by Mark's
                              use of the same term. Mark always prefers NAZARHNOS to NAZWRAIOS,
                              so Luke's use of NAZARHNOS against his usual preference is due to
                              his source.

                              >About "NAZARA - NAZARHENE", another example (how did I
                              >miss it?) : Magdalhne (but Magdala is not present in NT).

                              Goulder's argument takes the form of Matthew's exegetical
                              derivation of NAZWRAIOS --> NAZARA. Going from a town name
                              to an -HNOS ending is in the opposite direction and not
                              relevant to Goulder's argument.

                              Stephen Carlson
                              --
                              Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                              Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
                              "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 11/12/2003 12:48:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, ... Mark, I wonder if you would also be open to list discussion of your Cornerstone , chapter
                              Message 14 of 15 , Nov 15, 2003
                                In a message dated 11/12/2003 12:48:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, M.S.Goodacre@... writes:


                                If I
                                may be so bold, I would suggest my Case Against Q, Chapter 8 as a
                                jumping off point for assessing Goulder's argument over the MAs in
                                general and Mark 14.65 in particular, and for more detail
                                specifically on the language issue (viz. number of occurrences of
                                PAIW in the NT, construction of the sentence etc.), please see my
                                Goulder and the Gospels, Chapter 3.


                                Mark, I wonder if you would also be open to list discussion of your "Cornerstone", chapter 2? After all, I believe the original suggestion of Karel was to inaugurate a discussion of Markan priority, was it not? I would be ready to go on that at any time, at the risk of threatening the stability of the whole house. Pardon my subversive instinct, but I don't think discussion of the Synoptic Problem can dispense with the treatment of basics.

                                Leonard Maluf
                                Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                                Weston, MA
                              • Mark Goodacre
                                ... By all means discuss it -- you certainly don t need to ask my permission! I can t guarantee, of the course, that I ll have time to contribute myself
                                Message 15 of 15 , Nov 15, 2003
                                  On 15 Nov 2003 at 6:40, Maluflen@... wrote:

                                  > Mark, I wonder if you would also be open to list discussion of your
                                  > "Cornerstone", chapter 2? After all, I believe the original suggestion
                                  > of Karel was to inaugurate a discussion of Markan priority, was it
                                  > not? I would be ready to go on that at any time, at the risk of
                                  > threatening the stability of the whole house. Pardon my subversive
                                  > instinct, but I don't think discussion of the Synoptic Problem can
                                  > dispense with the treatment of basics.

                                  By all means discuss it -- you certainly don't need to ask my
                                  permission! I can't guarantee, of the course, that I'll have time to
                                  contribute myself though I would try to if I could. The excerpt of
                                  the email you quoted was from a different context, the discussion of
                                  the Minor Agreements in relation to Goulder's article.

                                  All best
                                  Mark
                                  -----------------------------
                                  Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                                  Graduate Institute for Theology & Religion
                                  Dept of Theology
                                  University of Birmingham
                                  Elmfield House, Bristol Road tel.+44 121 414 7512
                                  Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376

                                  http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
                                  http://NTGateway.com


                                  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.