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

Re: [Synoptic-L] documentary independence

Expand Messages
  • Tim Reynolds
    ... Tampoco tim Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@bham.ac.uk
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.