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

[Synoptic-L] Re: Q and the Lachmann fallacy

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    Thanks Stephen for your detailed reply. Perhaps I should read Butler and Neville? On a theoretical level (logic) Mark comes second or Mark comes third can
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 31, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks Stephen for your detailed reply. Perhaps I should read Butler and
      Neville?

      On a theoretical level (logic) "Mark comes second" or "Mark comes third"
      can certainly also explain the evidence from order. But in reality these
      are just too improbable to take them serious.
      The problem with these two is that both are scenarios where one copies
      from two. In both cases one (Lk or Mk) have to carefully pick out those
      things that are in the same order in both other editions and re-sort
      everything else. Only "Mk comes first" avoids this problem (one copies
      from one).

      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      ------------------------------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... Perhaps Sanders & Davies STUDYING THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS is more accessible. ... I don t think that the procedure is particularly problematic for Luke being
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        At 08:15 AM 2/1/2005 +0100, Wieland Willker wrote:
        >Thanks Stephen for your detailed reply. Perhaps I should read Butler and
        >Neville?

        Perhaps Sanders & Davies STUDYING THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
        is more accessible.

        >On a theoretical level (logic) "Mark comes second" or "Mark comes third"
        >can certainly also explain the evidence from order. But in reality these
        >are just too improbable to take them serious.
        >The problem with these two is that both are scenarios where one copies
        >from two. In both cases one (Lk or Mk) have to carefully pick out those
        >things that are in the same order in both other editions and re-sort
        >everything else. Only "Mk comes first" avoids this problem (one copies
        >from one).

        I don't think that the procedure is particularly problematic
        for Luke being third. Matthew incorporates 90% of Mark. For
        Luke to adopt Mark's order instead of Matthew, all he has to
        do is follow Mark instead of Matthew. It's that simple. It
        makes no difference when Mark and Matthew were actually written
        relative to each other.

        Here's what I wrote to Synoptic-L on Sep. 9, 1999 explaining
        this in more detail:

        ------

        I must admit that I've always been puzzled by Sanders and others
        who argue that it does not make sense that the middle term could
        be second. Let's use the AH as an example. Mark uses Matthew,
        either copying Matthew (and creating Matt-Mark agreements) or
        modifying Matthew (and creating Matt-Mark disagreements). [NB:
        this result also occurs under the FH if Matt uses Mark.] When
        Luke uses Mark for the narrative framework, he will either copy
        Mark or modify Mark, for four possibilities:

        1. If Luke copies Mark at the Matt-Mark agreements, then we have
        Matt-Mark-Luke agreements.
        2. If Luke copies Mark at the Matt-Mark disagreements, then we
        have Mark-Luke agreements against Matt.
        3. If Luke modifies Mark at the Matt-Mark agreements, then we
        have Matt-Mark agreements against Luke.
        4. If Luke modifies Mark at the Matt-Mark disagreement, then
        we have a triple disagreement between Matt, Mark, and Luke,
        unless Luke coincindentally modifies Mark to be in agreement
        with Matthew, which I would estimate to be at the same
        probability as for the Farrer Hypothesis.

        Thus, the theory predicts that Matt-Mark-Luke agreements, Mark-Luke
        agreements against Matt, Matt-Mark agreements against Luke, and
        triple disagreements are more common than Matt-Luke agreements
        against Mark, which is exactly what we see.

        For the order of Luke->Mark->Matt, we apply the same argument,
        mutatis mutandi, with the roles of Matt and Luke reversed, and
        come to the same conclusion.

        Interestingly, Butler thought that Griesbach was excluded as an
        explanation for the middle term, but withdrew this criticism in
        light of Farmer's work. I suspect that Butler was onto something
        but could not articulate it. To me, it seems that Griesbach should
        produce a slightly different prediction than the other middle term
        explanations.

        -----

        Stephen
        --
        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@...
      • Wieland Willker
        ... You are right! One could ask though, why Lk should follow Mk if he knows that Mt is older and more comprehensive. But, ok, I understand the problem now.
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Stephen wrote:
          > I don't think that the procedure is particularly
          > problematic for Luke being third. Matthew incorporates
          > 90% of Mark. For Luke to adopt Mark's order instead of
          > Matthew, all he has to do is follow Mark instead of
          > Matthew. It's that simple.


          You are right!
          One could ask though, why Lk should follow Mk if he knows that Mt is
          older and more comprehensive.
          But, ok, I understand the problem now. Thanks.

          Best wishes
          Wieland
          <><
          ------------------------------------------------
          Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
          mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
          http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
          Textcritical commentary:
          http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html


          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Stephen C. Carlson
          ... Great minds must think alike. This is exactly in line with Mark Goodacre s reaction to my original message. See:
          Message 4 of 6 , Feb 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Wieland Willker wrote:
            >You are right!
            >One could ask though, why Lk should follow Mk if he knows that Mt is
            >older and more comprehensive.

            Great minds must think alike. This is exactly in line with
            Mark Goodacre's reaction to my original message. See:

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/synoptic-l/message/3073

            >But, ok, I understand the problem now. Thanks.

            You're very welcome,

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