Vinnie

Yuri's piece
http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/synprob.htm

So even if goodbye 2ST you kind of left the question of dependence unanswered. Given 90% our current Mark occurs in Matthew and over 60% in Luke and given the wording and order and all that you have to at least posit some sort of written dependence don't you???

I have recently been coming to favor this scenario:

Mark wrote with whatever sources and created some stuff

Matthew drew off of Mark, other sources and did some creation

Luke drew off of Mark, MATTHEW, other sources and did some creating.

Luke drawing off of Matthew would explain those "overlapps" and all the places where Matthew is the middle term (all those agreements) doesn't it?

And yes, we can add in something along the lines of Boismard and say that "we must allow for evolution of gospel material at all stages of its transmission, including after it was shaped into a distinctive gospel." (Sanders/Davies)

Basically, by making Mark so late I think you have the same difficulty as the Griesbach view (Matthean priority). Given the wording don't you have to posit that Mark knew Matthew on a written level and suggest the author condensed matthew? Why would Gmark condense and leave out so much material? The Lord's prayer, the sermon on the mount, etc. This is basically the standard objection against Matthean priority over Mark. Other than the impossibility of explaining why anyone would feel the need to condense GMatthew as such GH is a working hypothesis.

Vinnie

Yuri Kuchinsky

Vinnie,

Of course there's dependence. What I'm saying, quite simply, is that there were early source gospels. So our current canonical texts depend on those earlier source gospels.

Quote:

I have recently been coming to favor this scenario: Mark wrote with whatever sources and created some stuff Matthew drew off of Mark, other sources and did some creation Luke drew off of Mark, MATTHEW, other sources and did some creating.

This sounds like the Farrer Theory.

Quote:

Luke drawing off of Matthew would explain those "overlaps"

Correct!

Quote:

and all the places where Matthew is the middle term (all those agreements) doesn't it?

But was Matthew really the middle term, or often so? Where I see the Farrer Theory fail is all those places where Luke clearly preserves very early passages. I like the priority of Luke a lot! Or, to be more precise, the priority of the source of Luke. This is known as the Jerusalem School Hypothesis.

Quote:

And yes, we can add in something along the lines of Boismard and say that "we must allow for evolution of gospel material at all stages of its transmission, including after it was shaped into a distinctive gospel." (Sanders/Davies)

These are the words of wisdom!

Quote:

Basically, by making Mark so late I think you have the same difficulty as the Griesbach view (Matthean priority). Given the wording don't you have to posit that Mark knew Matthew on a written level and suggest the author condensed matthew?

But I will just say that Mark knew _the source_ of Matthew.

Quote:

Why would Gmark condense and leave out so much material? The Lord's prayer, the sermon on the mount, etc. This is basically the standard objection against Matthean priority over Mark. Other than the impossibility of explaining why anyone would feel the need to condense GMatthew as such GH is a working hypothesis.

No, generally, Mark didn't "condense" (although in some places he does seem to). There are many passages where Mk preserves the earlier text. But, likewise, IMHO there are also many passages where Mt preserves the earlier text.

This is known as the Multi-Stage Hypothesis, as argued e.g. by Boismard.

The whole thing is certainly NOT simple. But this complexity of the data is the best explanation for why the Synoptic Problem is still widely considered as not conclusively resolved.

All the best,

Yuri.

Jayhawker Soule

Thanks for the discussion. I found both

• The Present State Of The Synoptic Problem, and
• An Overview of the Jerusalem School Hypothesis

to be of interest, and I would much appreciate further information on JSH.

A question, Yuri. In response to Vinnie question:

• "Why would Gmark condense and leave out so much material?"

you wrote:

• "No, generally, Mark didn't "condense" (although in some places he does seem to)."

This seems unsatisfying. Why, for example, would Mark (like Paul) leave out the virgin birth narrative?

Thanks, again.

Vinnie

Failure to write does not necessarily mean failure to know but in this case that is my own general opinion on why there is no VC in GMark. Mark scarcely could have left out so much (e.g. all that sayings material, virginal conception and all the related incidents in Matt and Luke, the Lord's prayer, the sermon on them mount (or plain?), etc.) if he was condensing. Why anyone would want to condense a gospel like Matthew r Luke into Mark is hard to explain. This is probably the largest difficulty with Matthean or Lucan priority over Mark. What are some possible reasons? Or does it not even matter?

Yuri seems to be positing that Mark could have seen an earlier form of Matthew or an earlier source? I'm not sure?

Given all the similarity it seems so much easier for me to say Mark (or a form of Mark similar to Mark now was first). Though I agree we must allow for fluid gospel compostion and changes throughout the whole process. For instance, the infancy narrative of Luke could have come at a later stage.

To state an obvious example, I don't know if the "he declared all foods clean" was in the version that Matt and Luke used of Mark. It could have been and it might not have been. Agnosticism might be the prudent course here but I have my own opinion.

I'll post some stuff from Sander's/Davies work soon on Matthew as the middle term.

Which Mark? Proto, Duetero? Canonical? LOL

This is all insanely complex



Vinnie
spelling error*

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, Consequent,

Yes, these articles should be of interest to all those who are interested in the Synoptic Problem.

I've read a lot of stuff by Farmer before. He was a widely respected scholar (he passed away recently), and the leading defender of the Griesbach Hypothesis. He's at his best when poking holes in the 2ST, and in the other rivals to the GH. But the GH, itself, also suffers from numerous problems.

As to the Jerusalem School Hypothesis, one basic thing on which I agree with them is that Luke does preserve a lot of very early material -- the material that's more primitive than what is found either in Mk or in Mt. But this observation is certainly not new; it has been made often by many scholars, including Loisy.

And yet, IMHO often both Farmer and the Jerusalem School folks needlessly complicate things. My own goal in these matters is to simplify things as much as possible -- while at the same time staying true to evidence.

My whole point is that the basic solution to the Synoptic Problem is very simple. None of the 4 gospels is the earliest! Thus, the Synoptic Problem has a very simple solution.

And above all, it seems to me that the textual issues must be considered first. When we locate the earliest text, then this will also help immensely to clarify the relationships between the Synoptic gospels.

Quote:

A question, Yuri. In response to Vinnie question: "Why would Gmark condense and leave out so much material?" you wrote: "No, generally, Mark didn't "condense" (although in some places he does seem to)." This seems unsatisfying. Why, for example, would Mark (like Paul) leave out the virgin birth narrative?

No, Mark didn't leave out the virgin birth narrative. In my view, Mark never had the virgin birth in the first place!

Here's what I wrote in the file that Vinnie referenced at the start of this thread,

THE "SYNOPTIC PROBLEM"
http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/synprob.htm

In my own view, Mk, as we now see it, had been completed only around 250 CE. It's the shortest gospel, so, from the formal perspective, it does preserve quite well the shape of the earliest Christian proto-gospel (i.e. lacking the genealogies, the birth stories, extensive post-resurrection appearances, etc.). But from the textual perspective (when each particular passage is considered separately), Mk is often far later than Mt and Lk. To me, it seems to be the most politicised and heavily reworked text of the 3 Synoptic gospels.

[end quote]

And I'd like to clarify now that it's not just Mk that IMO had been completed only around 250 CE. Because the same can be said about the other 3 NT gospels, as well. Textually, they all basically date from mid 3rd century. And some minor changes might have been introduced even after that.

All the best,

Yuri.

Jayhawker Soule

Huh?

Let me try this again: Why would Mark not include the slightest reference to the Virgin Birth? He's literally the Christian Grinch who stole Christmas!

Yuri Kuchinsky

Vinnie,

Sure it matters.

No, I don't think that Mk condensed either Matthew or Luke, or both. This IMHO is just one of those GH humbugs...

Quote:

Yuri seems to be positing that Mark could have seen an earlier form of Matthew or an earlier source? I'm not sure?

Basically, IMO both Mk and Mt were based on the same very early and short proto-gospel X. Mk best preserves the short form of X, and Mt best preserves those parts of the text of X that it does preserve.

But also, I think that X was originally based on the source of Lk.

Quote:

Given all the similarity it seems so much easier for me to say Mark (or a form of Mark similar to Mark now) was first.

I can agree with this... (I tried to clarify your sentence above.)

Quote:

Though I agree we must allow for fluid gospel compostion and changes throughout the whole process. For instance, the infancy narrative of Luke could have come at a later stage. To state an obvious example, I don't know if the "he declared all foods clean" was in the version that Matt and Luke used of Mark.

Probably not...

Quote:

It could have been and it might not have been. Agnosticism might be the prudent course here but I have my own opinion.

YURI: But I will just say that Mark knew _the source_ of Matthew.

VINNIE: Which Mark? Proto, Duetero? Canonical? LOL

This is all insanely complex
[/B][/QUOTE]

It doesn't have to be... See above what I said about the common source of both Mk and Mt.

Cheers,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Obviously, the community standing behind Mk was not too enthused by the Virgin Birth idea... But the same can be said about Jn!

Hint: they were probably gnostics.

Cheers,

Yuri.

Vinnie

Yuri, when I get home from work I'll try to graph your dependence view so that way it will be a little easier for us to see what your saying. I think I generally got it but seeing it pictorial will help me and possible others.

Vinnie

http://www.acfaith.com/yuri.html

I didn't wait, I just graphed it real quick. Let me know of anything I missed or other sources and relations between them.

For instance, did Matt know Luke or vice versa?

What do you feel is the best positive evidence for this view? Does it adequately explain the triple tradition of Matthew, Mark, and Luke?

For instance, 90 percent of Mark is in Gmatthew so in your view Matthew's version of Proto Gospel x must have had very close to that same number of Marcan verses correct?

But that Makes proto Gospel X a gospel in its own right. We still have to posit some sort of dependence between the synoptics.

Why say Matthew had a different version of proto Gospel x? To explain for the double tradition of Luke and Matthew? Supposedly this would explain why they agree against Mark because their version of Proto Gospel x would have more material than Mark's version and they had a similar later version?

Is that your view? I don't think it is because it Makes proto Gospel X and actual Gospel in its own right.

I'll comment more on it later and post more on matthew as the middle term. For know, what am I missing here?

Vinnie