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

Re: [Synoptic-L] documentary independence

Expand Messages
  • Frides Laméris
    Hi Karel, ... From: Karel Hanhart To: Frides Laméris ; synoptic-l@bham.ac.uk Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] documentary
    Message 1 of 20 , Sep 19, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Karel,
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 5:06 PM
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] documentary independence

       
      You:
      I wonder who this Verkaik is, you mentioned in your contribution. Could you clarify?
       
      I'll try to contact him somehow. I only know that he graduated at Vrije Universiteit A'dam.
       
      On the website of Sönke Finnern where she(he?) deals with
        
      'Die Traditionshypothese als Alternative zur Zweiquellentheorie:
      Ihre neueren Vertreter, ihre Argumente, ihre Beurteilung* '

      I found a reference to another study of Verkaik:

      Verkaik, André, Hangovers over 'Überhänge': A study of the Additional Minor Details of Mark found in neither Matthew nor Luke, www.inexes.com/nt/synoptic_problem/ hangovers0t.html (5.3.01).

      I will contact you off list when I have found out more about him.

      Best wishes

      Frides Laméris

      Zuidlaren (Netherlands).

       

       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 2:41 PM
      Subject: [Synoptic-L] documentary independence

      Hi Tim,
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Tim Lewis
      Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 6:46 AM
      Subject: [Synoptic-L] documentary independence

      You wrote:
       
      >snip>
       
      It seems the Synoptics share much fewer verbal similarities than we might expect with documentary dependence given their context.
      My point is that one usually admits documentary dependence only when one believes that similar content, phrasing and sequence would not be expected given the context. Often it seems just as likely that the text has already had a oral life of its own. Could not phraseology from one Church's gospel effect another without positing direct literary dependence?
      Can someone please convince me that the synoptics are documentarily (inter)dependent (given the oral context).
       
      For my part, I very much doubt if real proof for documentary dependence proof can be given.
       
      E. Linnemann refers in her book 'Is there a synoptic problem' (I have a german edition from 1999) to the kind of considerations
      you are entertaining. She has also a lot of statistical observations that make documentary dependence of the synoptics according to her rather IMprobable. I think I referred before to the work of (Dutch) André Verkaik 'Tenability of Synoptic Independence' (a study that unfortunately I have not yet got hold of), who (also) goes for an (literary) independence view.
       
      As for myself, important, I think, is the point that when one allows more room for the gospel texts to reflect a higher level of historicity, directly or indirectly going back to reliable eyewitnesses, it MUST be that a certain percentage of the material being the same or having likeness can already be accounted for by this very fact.
       
      Other factors have to be considered of course and these one can certainly find in the literature of the 'Independentists'.
       
      As I have just rather recently gained (greater) interest in this matter, and I have not yet found the time to study (all) the details of the independence view, I am happy to leave the discussion at this point.
       
      I have understood from L. Dungans 'A history of the Synoptic Problem' that the formation of source theories often has been driven by questionable ideological factors. The postulated existence of Q is for me most enigmatic.
      One wonders, what drives the Q-theorists to almost make it a 'gospel' by itself
       
      Hoping the point that I have raised makes some connection with the question you have asked,
       
      Best wishes
       
      Frides Laméris
      Zuidlaren (Home)
      (Netherlands)
       
       
    • Joseph Weaks
      ... Of course, this type of historical reconstruction always strikes me as a random apology for how an author can leave out stories for the sake of brevity,
      Message 2 of 20 , Sep 19, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sep 19, 2004, at 6:31 AM, Maluflen@... wrote:
        > ... I would never express what Mark did, except in a moment of
        > carelessness, as an abbreviated version of Matthew and/or Luke.
        > Conflation and abbreviation were not what Mark was "doing"; they were
        > among a number of means used by him to create a Gospel drama suited
        > for his relatively unsophisticated community of Roman, Gentile
        > Christians. Another means he used was virtually the opposite of
        > abbreviation, namely (clearly secondary) expansion and elaboration,
        > which is found almost throughout Mark -- who achieved brevity, by
        > comparison to Matthew and Luke, only by omitting large sections of the
        > well-known teaching of Jesus, which would have slowed down his fast
        > moving narrative...

        Of course, this type of historical reconstruction always strikes me as
        a random apology for how an author can leave out stories for the sake
        of brevity, while most often expanding the individual traditions
        themselves. These appeals to hypothetical sociological settings in
        order to refute evidence internal to the text never strike me as
        plausible.

        Joe Weaks

        **************************************************************
        Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
        Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
        Ph.D. (Cand.), Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
        j.weaks@...
        **************************************************************


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • David Gentile
        Hello Leonard, As you say we have been through this before. I doubt I could add anything to what I have on my site, and what we have discussed on this list in
        Message 3 of 20 , Sep 19, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello Leonard,

          As you say we have been through this before. I doubt I could add anything to
          what I have on my site, and what we have discussed on this list in the past.
          Examples of specific vocabulary items are generally pointless, since the
          statistical argument is based on the combined weight of many examples, not
          individual cases which are by themselves insignificant.

          I posted this because there are people here who may not be familiar with
          earlier discussions on this list. If you, or others have specific questions
          about material presented on the web pages, I'd be happy to try to answer
          those question, since that might help me improve the site.

          Sincerely,
          Dave Gentile

          Dave Gentile
          Riverside, Illinois
          M.S. Physics
          M.S. Finance
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: <Maluflen@...>
          To: <GentDave@...>; <tlewistlewis@...>;
          <synoptic-l@...>
          Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 6:02 AM
          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] documentary independence


          > In a message dated 9/18/2004 9:33:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
          > GentDave@... writes:
          >
          >
          > > The vocabulary in the text common between Matthew and Mark, is
          > > significantly
          > > related to the vocabulary of Mark elsewhere in Mark's text. The same is
          not
          > > true of the text unique to Matthew. This result, and others
          relationships
          > > like it, strongly suggest that Mark was the original text, and that
          Matthew
          > > is based on Mark
          >
          > Dave, I know you have been through this before, but could you possibly
          spell
          > out, perhaps with some examples, what you mean by the above paragraph
          > (especially, in a few more words, what you say about Matthew). A
          construction of
          > vocabulary evidence that favors Markan priority always intrigues me, since
          on all
          > other grounds (except perhaps one) the theory seems so improbable to me.
          Thanks
          > much.
          >
          > Leonard Maluf
          > Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
          > Weston, MA
          >


          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 9/19/2004 4:40:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... Joe, read what you just wrote, please: A random apology for how an author can leave out
          Message 4 of 20 , Sep 20, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 9/19/2004 4:40:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, j.weaks@... writes:


            On Sep 19, 2004, at 6:31 AM, Maluflen@... wrote:
            > ... I would never express what Mark did, except in a moment of
            > carelessness, as an abbreviated version of Matthew and/or Luke.
            > Conflation and abbreviation were not what Mark was "doing"; they were
            > among a number of means used by him to create a Gospel drama suited
            > for his relatively unsophisticated community of Roman, Gentile
            > Christians. Another means he used was virtually the opposite of
            > abbreviation, namely (clearly secondary) expansion and elaboration,
            > which is found almost throughout Mark -- who achieved brevity, by
            > comparison to Matthew and Luke, only by omitting large sections of the
            > well-known teaching of Jesus, which would have slowed down his fast
            > moving narrative...

            Of course, this type of historical reconstruction always strikes me as
            a random apology for how an author can leave out stories for the sake
            of brevity, while most often expanding the individual traditions
            themselves.


            Joe, read what you just wrote, please: "A random apology for how an author can leave out stories for the sake of brevity.." Since when is it expected that an *author* would copy stories written by someone else? If you want to refer to a late Mark as a redactor, or better still as a scribe (in the sense of a copier of manuscripts) your sentence would make good sense. But in the case of an author, if you think that's what Mark is (and I would agree), the question is not why he would have left out some parts of an existing Gospel of Matthew, but rather why he would appear, at first glance, to have copied so much of it! (Of all the early Christian writers we know, who knew the Gospel of Matthew, none of them copied those parts you want to blame a late Mark for not copying.) And to answer my own question (why Mark would have copied what he did from Matthew), the fact is that he did not just copy them, but rather worked them into a different kind of communication, a Gospel drama, designed to reach a specific (low-class, relatively unsophisticated) audience with a powerful Gospel message. The hypothesized situation is perfectly coherent, identical in kind to that which obtains today when films are made from existing books (always with major omissions in the film product). The fact that the theory is coherent does not make it true, but it cannot be dismissed out of hand as inherently implausible. Especially not "of course".


            These appeals to hypothetical sociological settings in
            order to refute evidence internal to the text never strike me as
            plausible.

            My purpose, like yours, is not to refute, but rather to interpret evidence internal to the text. The Markan priority hypothesis, like the Matthean priority hypothesis, is not "evidence internal to the text" but theory that attempts to explain that evidence.

            Leonard Maluf
            Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
            Weston, MA
          • Maluflen@aol.com
            In a message dated 9/19/2004 9:16:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... I would just like to hear you express verbally, in somewhat fuller form, what you think your
            Message 5 of 20 , Sep 20, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 9/19/2004 9:16:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, GentDave@... writes:


              I posted this because there are people here who may not be familiar with
              earlier discussions on this list. If you, or others have specific questions
              about material presented on the web pages, I'd be happy to try to answer
              those question, since that might help me improve the site.



              I would just like to hear you express verbally, in somewhat fuller form, what you think your tables of statistics prove and why. The reason I say this is because your less fully stated interpretation of your verbal statistics does not match with my interpretation of more macro observations -- such as the fact that the common Synoptic material is in general more demonstrably Matthean in origin than it is Markan in origin. It would be nice if the statistics re-inforced, rather than contradicted, sound evaluation of the evidence based on macro observations.

              Leonard Maluf
              Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
              Weston, MA
            • Tim Reynolds
              on 18/9/04 5:41 AM, Frides Laméris at flameris@prettel.nl wrote: Hi Tim, ... From: Tim Lewis To: synoptic-l@bham.ac.uk
              Message 6 of 20 , Sep 21, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Re: [Synoptic-L] documentary independence on 18/9/04 5:41 AM, Frides Laméris at flameris@... wrote:

                Hi Tim,
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Tim Lewis <mailto:tlewistlewis@...>  
                To: synoptic-l@...
                Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 6:46 AM
                Subject: [Synoptic-L] documentary independence

                You wrote:

                >snip>

                It seems the Synoptics share much fewer verbal similarities than we might expect with documentary dependence given their context.
                My point is that one usually admits documentary dependence only when one believes that similar content, phrasing and sequence would not be expected given the context.
                Often it seems just as likely that the text has already had a oral life of its own. Could not phraseology from one Church's gospel effect another without positing direct literary dependence?
                Can someone please convince me that the synoptics are documentarily (inter)dependent (given the oral context).

                For my part, I very much doubt if real proof for documentary dependence proof can be given.

                E. Linnemann refers in her book 'Is there a synoptic problem' (I have a german edition from 1999) to the kind of considerations
                you are entertaining. She has also a lot of statistical observations that make documentary dependence of the synoptics according to her rather IMprobable. I think I referred before to the work of (Dutch) André Verkaik 'Tenability of Synoptic Independence' (a study that unfortunately I have not yet got hold of), who (also) goes for an (literary) independence view.

                As for myself, important, I think, is the point that when one allows more room for the gospel texts to reflect a higher level of historicity, directly or indirectly going back to reliable eyewitnesses, it MUST be that a certain percentage of the material being the same or having likeness can already be accounted for by this very fact.

                   
                Good point

                Other factors have to be considered of course and these one can certainly find in the literature of the 'Independentists'.

                As I have just rather recently gained (greater) interest in this matter, and I have not yet found the time to study (all) the details of the independence view, I am happy to leave the discussion at this point.

                I have understood from L. Dungans 'A history of the Synoptic Problem' that the formation of source theories often has been driven by questionable ideological factors. The postulated existence of Q is for me most enigmatic.
                One wonders, what drives the Q-theorists to almost make it a 'gospel' by itself

                Hoping the point that I have raised makes some connection with the question you have asked,

                Best wishes

                Frides Laméris
                Zuidlaren (Home)
                (Netherlands)

                It seems to me the synoptics are best described as "too similar to be unrelated and two dissimilar to be transcription or dictation.  Like the Bad Quartos of Shakespeare's most popular plays.

                Best,

                tim


              • Tim Reynolds
                on 19/9/04 4:02 AM, Maluflen@aol.com at Maluflen@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 9/18/2004 9:33:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, GentDave@worldnet.att.net
                Message 7 of 20 , Sep 21, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Re: [Synoptic-L] documentary independence on 19/9/04 4:02 AM, Maluflen@... at Maluflen@... wrote:

                  In a message dated 9/18/2004 9:33:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, GentDave@... writes:


                  The vocabulary in the text common between Matthew and Mark, is significantly
                  related to the vocabulary of Mark elsewhere in Mark's text. The same is not
                  true of the text unique to Matthew. This result, and others relationships
                  like it, strongly suggest that Mark was the original text, and that Matthew
                  is based on Mark


                  Dave, I know you have been through this before, but could you possibly spell out, perhaps with some examples, what you mean by the above paragraph (especially, in a few more words, what you say about Matthew). A construction of vocabulary evidence that favors Markan priority always intrigues me, since on all other grounds (except perhaps one) the theory seems so improbable to me. Thanks much.

                  Leonard Maluf
                  Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                  Weston, MA


                  Dave's formulation appears clear to me.  What's your problem with it?

                  Tim Reynolds
                  LB CA 90802
                • Tim Reynolds
                  ... Tampoco tim Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@bham.ac.uk
                  Message 8 of 20 , Sep 21, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    on 19/9/04 1:39 PM, Joseph Weaks at j.weaks@... wrote:

                    >
                    > On Sep 19, 2004, at 6:31 AM, Maluflen@... wrote:
                    >> ... I would never express what Mark did, except in a moment of
                    >> carelessness, as an abbreviated version of Matthew and/or Luke.
                    >> Conflation and abbreviation were not what Mark was "doing"; they were
                    >> among a number of means used by him to create a Gospel drama suited
                    >> for his relatively unsophisticated community of Roman, Gentile
                    >> Christians. Another means he used was virtually the opposite of
                    >> abbreviation, namely (clearly secondary) expansion and elaboration,
                    >> which is found almost throughout Mark -- who achieved brevity, by
                    >> comparison to Matthew and Luke, only by omitting large sections of the
                    >> well-known teaching of Jesus, which would have slowed down his fast
                    >> moving narrative...
                    >
                    > Of course, this type of historical reconstruction always strikes me as
                    > a random apology for how an author can leave out stories for the sake
                    > of brevity, while most often expanding the individual traditions
                    > themselves. These appeals to hypothetical sociological settings in
                    > order to refute evidence internal to the text never strike me as
                    > plausible.
                    >
                    > Joe Weaks
                    >
                    > **************************************************************
                    > Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
                    > Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
                    > Ph.D. (Cand.), Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
                    > j.weaks@...
                    > **************************************************************
                    >
                    >
                    > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...


                    Tampoco

                    tim


                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • dgentil@sears.com
                    Leonard, Maybe I could just give a philosophical answer. What do I believe the study proves? Nothing at all. I believe absolute proof of anything is
                    Message 9 of 20 , Sep 24, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Leonard,

                      Maybe I could just give a philosophical answer. What do I believe the study
                      proves?

                      Nothing at all. I believe absolute proof of anything is impossible.

                      What the study demonstrates is that when vocabulary frequencies are
                      examined, that form of evidence indicates a strong probability of Markian
                      priority.

                      However, it is always possible that if more evidence, of other sorts, were
                      considered, the probability of Markian priority could be reduced or even
                      reversed. (Updating probabilities in this way is either an implicit or
                      explicit application of Bayes's theorem.) But, I think that it would
                      require a quite substantial amount of evidence to change the probable
                      conclusion.

                      What macro features are you referring to? I recall that you have said that
                      the large scale structure of the synoptics seems most consistent with
                      Markian priority, but that your disagreement was with the details.

                      .
                      Sincerely,
                      Dave Gentile

                      Dave Gentile
                      M.S. Physics
                      M.S. Finance
                      Riverside, IL




                      Maluflen@...
                      Sent by: To: GentDave@..., synoptic-l@...
                      owner-synoptic-l@ cc:
                      bham.ac.uk Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] documentary independence


                      09/20/2004 07:32
                      PM






                      In a message dated 9/19/2004 9:16:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                      GentDave@... writes:


                      I posted this because there are people here who may not be familiar with
                      earlier discussions on this list. If you, or others have specific
                      questions
                      about material presented on the web pages, I'd be happy to try to answer
                      those question, since that might help me improve the site.



                      I would just like to hear you express verbally, in somewhat fuller form,
                      what you think your tables of statistics prove and why. The reason I say
                      this is because your less fully stated interpretation of your verbal
                      statistics does not match with my interpretation of more macro observations
                      -- such as the fact that the common Synoptic material is in general more
                      demonstrably Matthean in origin than it is Markan in origin. It would be
                      nice if the statistics re-inforced, rather than contradicted, sound
                      evaluation of the evidence based on macro observations.

                      Leonard Maluf
                      Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                      Weston, MA




                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Maluflen@aol.com
                      In a message dated 9/24/2004 3:18:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... What I would like is a fuller statement of your argument, as opposed to simply discussing
                      Message 10 of 20 , Sep 26, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 9/24/2004 3:18:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dgentil@... writes:


                        Maybe I could just give a philosophical answer. What do I believe the study
                        proves?

                        Nothing at all.  I believe absolute proof of anything is impossible.

                        What the study demonstrates is that when vocabulary frequencies are
                        examined, that form of evidence indicates a strong probability of Markian
                        priority.


                        What I would like is a fuller statement of your argument, as opposed to simply discussing its formal value, or stating what you believe to be its result or conclusion. I suspect that there are presuppositions in your argument that I would have serious problems with, but I can't say so for sure until you lay it out a bit more fully. It is not sufficient to say that such a fuller exposition can be found in Synoptic-L archives. You are writing on this list to an audience which should not be presumed to be familiar with those archives, and are stating that you have made a significant argument in favor of Markan priority, based on vocabulary statistics. I think you have to be able to describe or rehearse that argument with sufficient fulness to insure that list members don't have to simply take your word for it when you pronounce on its merit. Then I could proceed to either reject your argument, or perhaps to accept it, and then go on to air the numerous other possible arguments, also based on vocabulary statistics, that would favor Matthean priority. Thanks.

                        Leonard Maluf
                        Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                        Weston
                      • David Gentile
                        Leonard, I don t expect people to look through the archives. However, I do expect people who are interested in understanding the work to study all the webpages
                        Message 11 of 20 , Sep 26, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Leonard,

                          I don't expect people to look through the archives. However, I do expect
                          people who are interested in understanding the work to study all the
                          webpages on my site completely (including following all the links) and ask
                          specific questions about items there that they do not understand, or have
                          issues with.

                          http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/main.html

                          I don't see any value in cutting and pasting that material here, or trying
                          to do a re-statement of that material here, unless I know what is not clear
                          in the first attempt at explanation.

                          Thank you,
                          Dave Gentile

                          Dave Gentile
                          Riverside, Illinois
                          M.S. Physics
                          M.S. Finance
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: <Maluflen@...>
                          To: <dgentil@...>; <synoptic-l@...>
                          Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 10:39 AM
                          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] documentary independence


                          > In a message dated 9/24/2004 3:18:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                          > dgentil@... writes:
                          >
                          >
                          > > Maybe I could just give a philosophical answer. What do I believe the
                          study
                          > > proves?
                          > >
                          > > Nothing at all. I believe absolute proof of anything is impossible.
                          > >
                          > > What the study demonstrates is that when vocabulary frequencies are
                          > > examined, that form of evidence indicates a strong probability of
                          Markian
                          > > priority.
                          > >
                          >
                          > What I would like is a fuller statement of your argument, as opposed to
                          > simply discussing its formal value, or stating what you believe to be its
                          result or
                          > conclusion. I suspect that there are presuppositions in your argument that
                          I
                          > would have serious problems with, but I can't say so for sure until you
                          lay it
                          > out a bit more fully. It is not sufficient to say that such a fuller
                          > exposition can be found in Synoptic-L archives. You are writing on this
                          list to an
                          > audience which should not be presumed to be familiar with those archives,
                          and are
                          > stating that you have made a significant argument in favor of Markan
                          > priority, based on vocabulary statistics. I think you have to be able to
                          describe or
                          > rehearse that argument with sufficient fulness to insure that list members
                          > don't have to simply take your word for it when you pronounce on its
                          merit. Then I
                          > could proceed to either reject your argument, or perhaps to accept it, and
                          > then go on to air the numerous other possible arguments, also based on
                          > vocabulary statistics, that would favor Matthean priority. Thanks.
                          >
                          > Leonard Maluf
                          > Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                          > Weston
                          >


                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        • Maluflen@aol.com
                          In a message dated 9/26/2004 6:44:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... I wouldn t waste my time. I have no reason to question any of your statistical data that do
                          Message 12 of 20 , Sep 28, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In a message dated 9/26/2004 6:44:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, GentDave@... writes:

                            I don't expect people to look through the archives. However, I do expect
                            people who are interested in understanding the work to study all the
                            webpages on my site completely (including following all the links) and ask
                            specific questions about items there that they do not understand, or have
                            issues with.


                            I wouldn't waste my time. I have no reason to question any of your statistical data that do not require intelligence, and that can therefore be processed by a computer better than by a human being. I am interested in the following step: how you get from the data you have assembled to an argument in favor of Markan priority. It is there that I suspect (though I cannot yet say for sure, since you refuse to articulate your argument beyond the mere statement of its conclusion) that presuppositions would be operative to which I would take exception. Until you are able to articulate that argument, I don't believe its conclusion merits much credit or attention.

                            Leonard Maluf
                            Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                            Weston, MA

                          • dgentil@sears.com
                            I wouldn t waste my time. Then I really don t see why I should waste mine. But... The central premise is that if a category of text (A) and another category
                            Message 13 of 20 , Sep 28, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              "I wouldn't waste my time."

                              Then I really don't see why I should waste mine.

                              But...

                              The central premise is that if a category of text (A) and another category
                              of text (B) share a similar frequency of vocabulary items, above and beyond
                              any similarity we would expect, given that both categories are taken from
                              the synoptics, and if another category (C) does not share a similar
                              frequency of vocabulary items with (A) and (B), then (A) and (B) most
                              likely have the same author, and (C) most likely has a different author.

                              The study shows that the categories which include material in common
                              between Matthew and Mark show a similarity to categories which contain
                              material found only in Mark. But the categories containing material unique
                              to Matthew, do not show a similar relation to the categories containing
                              material common to Matthew and Mark.

                              Hence...the material in common between Matthew and Mark was likely
                              originally authored by the same person who produced the rest of Mark, and
                              not be the same person that produced the rest of Matthew.

                              Some objections to directly connecting vocabulary frequency, and authorship
                              have been raised on this list, and the objections are summarized and
                              discussed here.

                              http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/problems.html

                              Dave Gentile
                              M.S. Physics
                              M.S. Finance
                              Riverside, IL






                              Maluflen@...
                              Sent by: To: GentDave@..., synoptic-l@...
                              owner-synoptic-l@ cc:
                              bham.ac.uk Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] documentary independence


                              09/28/2004 11:55
                              AM






                              In a message dated 9/26/2004 6:44:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                              GentDave@... writes:

                              I don't expect people to look through the archives. However, I do expect
                              people who are interested in understanding the work to study all the
                              webpages on my site completely (including following all the links) and ask
                              specific questions about items there that they do not understand, or have
                              issues with.


                              I wouldn't waste my time. I have no reason to question any of your
                              statistical data that do not require intelligence, and that can therefore
                              be processed by a computer better than by a human being. I am interested in
                              the following step: how you get from the data you have assembled to an
                              argument in favor of Markan priority. It is there that I suspect (though I
                              cannot yet say for sure, since you refuse to articulate your argument
                              beyond the mere statement of its conclusion) that presuppositions would be
                              operative to which I would take exception. Until you are able to articulate
                              that argument, I don't believe its conclusion merits much credit or
                              attention.

                              Leonard Maluf
                              Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                              Weston, MA




                              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                            • Maluflen@aol.com
                              In a message dated 9/28/2004 1:51:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... Hmmm... I am wondering whether to try to tease out what this all means, or just to let it
                              Message 14 of 20 , Sep 28, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 9/28/2004 1:51:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dgentil@... writes:

                                The central premise is that if a category of text (A) and another category
                                of text (B) share a similar frequency of vocabulary items, above and beyond
                                any similarity we would expect, given that both categories are taken from
                                the synoptics, and if another category (C) does not share a similar
                                frequency of vocabulary items with (A) and (B), then (A) and (B) most
                                likely have the same author, and (C) most likely has a different author.


                                Hmmm... I am wondering whether to try to tease out what this all means, or just to let it stand as a monument to the stunning perlucidity of argumenation in favor of Markan priority. More seriously, I see a potential problem here in the fact that, on the one hand, you refer to "authors" of text here and on the other, the argument seems to presuppose a secondary author who is really, in a significant sense, more a copier than an author. I'm not sure exactly how this observation affects your argument, because it is not perfectly clear to me yet what your argument is, but perhaps some light will emerge if I proceed to read your next sentence


                                The study shows that the categories which include material in common
                                between Matthew and Mark show a similarity to categories which contain
                                material found only in Mark. But the categories containing material unique
                                to Matthew, do not show a similar relation to the categories containing
                                material common to Matthew and Mark.



                                Now you are writing in sentences I can understand, and if its components are true, your study would seem to be a valid, if inconclusive, argument in favor of Markan priority. I am not exactly sure how you are using the term "categories" in the above. Does it mean something more than "passages"? Also, I think it would be interesting if you could supply a concrete example, that could then be discussed, of the phenomenon the above sentences intend to convey. I realize that your original argument did not depend on a single item, but was rather cumulative in force. But I still find it difficult to evaluate your claims without the help of a few particulars. Maybe you could report on what you would regard as the most telling instances of the phenomenon you describe?


                                Hence...the material in common between Matthew and Mark was likely
                                originally authored by the same person who produced the rest of Mark, and
                                not be the same person that produced the rest of Matthew.


                                Your conclusion intrigues me because it is counter-intuitive. It states the opposite of what I would think to be true, coming at the problem from an approach not based exclusively on detailed vocabulary statistics. I think the material common to Matthew and Mark is demonstrably more Matthean than it is Markan in origin. I think, for instance, that the miracles in the two Gospels function differently in the two communication settings, and that that of Matthew is much more likely earlier than that of Mark. In Matthew the miracles of Jesus are part of a scriptural argument that legitimates Jesus as Israel's Messiah; in Mark the miracles are used to illustrate the saving mediation of Jesus' divine power in an ecclesial situation. Mark is not only no longer interested in legitimating Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, he is no longer even particularly interested in defining Jesus' relationship vis-a-vis Israel nor does he understand this relationship to be Jesus' defining identity. In other words, Mark's perspective is that of the later Christian creeds.

                                Leonard Maluf
                                Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                                Weston, MA

                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.