Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 01-28-2010, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

That's part of the complexity. And the two redactors working in different contexts just decided they wouldn't use their principal source here. Convenient once, but not twice. Twice is a warning.

From this particular set of verses, we could conclude that Matthew and Luke both had a manuscript to work from that differs from what we know as Mark.

But we could also conclude a sequence, where Matthew used Mark and made changes as he saw fit. Then Luke used Matthew and Mark as his sources, picking what he liked from each. Under that scenario, we would expect that Luke would omit some of the same things Matthew omits, but might also include other things Matthew omitted. We would expect Luke to include some of what Matthew added, but probably not everything, and we would expect Luke to omit that which he disliked from both, and add his own unique innovations as well.

How can we tell the difference between a scenario such as this, vs. some form of Q?

Well, now, to my no-academic mind - that scenario sounds real great, real simple, and really something that the owner of that razor that so often gets a mention would find appealing...

Probably one of the big issues re 'Luke' using 'Matthew' is the nativity narratives ie if 'Luke' had the gospel of 'Matthew' in front of him - what the hell was he doing contradicting the 'Matthew' nativity storyline in his own gospel??

Or do the NT scholars just dismiss the nativity narratives as mere interpolations - convenient, yes? Or just accuse 'Luke' of being a bad historian...

Sure, the historicists have a hard time here - but mythicists?

Bottom line is that the gospel storyline of Jesus is not a historical account of a human man. Consequently, at some point in any endeavor to uncover whatever historical core might be within that mythological/prophetic storyline, historians are going to have to face the fact that they are out of their comfort zone. The context, the medium from which they are trying to extract history is itself an interpretation of history - fulfilled prophecy. Fulfilled prophecy merged with mythological elements.

Whatever the exact Greek words in the most ancient of manuscripts are - interesting but ultimately, as with all words, their meaning and their use is only part of the story. Words, as ever, often fail us. Reading between the lines, trying to comprehend motive, intent - while indeed subjective - does have a far greater potential for understanding the picture that is being drawn, albeit inadequately, by the particular words used.

Chaucer · 01-28-2010, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Here we have a prime example of the weakness of certain arguments for Luke using Matthew. These “minor agreements” (in the chart by Spin) are so minor as to be trivial. First of all, they could be explained by the process of assimilation. Later copyists change the text of one Gospel—perhaps inadvertently—to agree with their familiarity with the text of another. Second, can we really believe that Luke would have made some conscious decision to do something like change Mark’s “he said to him” to “saying,”? Or that Luke couldn’t have felt the impulse to have the leper address Jesus as “Lord” without some prompting from Matthew? These things are more likely to be mere coincidence (or assimilation) than that Luke adopted a methodology of using Mark and Matthew, both open in front of him (though how does one “open” two scrolls and ‘leaf’ through both to compare common passages?), which would encompass such trivialities as this, while at the same time diverging from Matthew in large scale ways such as failing to adopt any of Matthew’s redactions of Mark (like the “upon this rock” addition I discussed earlier).

Yet great emphasis is placed on these minor agreements, probably because they constitute perhaps the strongest item in a very weak batch. And as a general principle there is also the possibility that the text of Mark as we have it has changed over its original, and in certain of the minor agreements the Ur-Mark Luke and Matthew used actually did agree with their texts. Again I stress the infeasibility of relying absolutely and solely on specific textual wording when our extant copies are separated from the autographs by as much as a century and more, and given the fluidity of most texts in the early Christian record in regard to amendments, deliberate and otherwise. These small-scale situations in textual comparison cannot be appealed to so absolutely, while ignoring other more telling indicators, such as the lack of Matthean redactions of Mark in Luke, or the alternating primitivity of the Q pericopes in Matthew and Luke.

Earl Doherty

Clearly, it's hard to determine the point at which a pattern of similarity changes from relatively random to seemingly purposive (and therefore possibly significant). So I would agree with what's said here in that respect.

At the same time, I remain disappointed that someone like Earl Doherty, who has a working knowledge of Greek that I don't have, has not yet addressed the implications of the Greek vocabulary quirks unchanged in those Q passages that appear identically in both Matthew and Luke and still bear vocabulary earmarks of Matthew's Greek style. I'm not asking for a fancy analysis of a sort that ED has already declined to attempt (for reasons of time that I can well understand). I am simply inquiring re three factors:

1) Does a perusal of the Gentile pages
(http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/main)
suggest to ED a reasonably knowledgeable traversal of Greek vocabulary and a sound statistical method?

2) In view of the possibly Matthean vocabulary quirks, might it make sense to revisit the notion that Q, while probably a separate source from any known Gospel, might be a younger compilation from the hand of Matthew's author as intimated by Papias in referring to "logia"
(http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_Plog.html)?

3) If the Matthean vocabulary quirks detected in Gentile's stats are valid, might it also make sense to start viewing the Matthean versions of Q verses as marginally more authentic than the Luke ones?

Thank you,

Chaucer

youngalexander · 01-28-2010, 11:38 PM

Earl and spin,
I am drawn to such conundrums as the Synoptic question, but am singularly ill-equiped to pursue them. Some questions if you will?
First:

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Here we have a prime example of the weakness of certain arguments for Luke using Matthew. These “minor agreements” (in the chart by Spin) are so minor as to be trivial. First of all, they could be explained by the process of assimilation. Later copyists change the text of one Gospel—perhaps inadvertently—to agree with their familiarity with the text of another. Second, can we really believe that Luke would have made some conscious decision to do something like change Mark’s “he said to him” to “saying,”? Or that Luke couldn’t have felt the impulse to have the leper address Jesus as “Lord” without some prompting from Matthew? These things are more likely to be mere coincidence (or assimilation) than that Luke adopted a methodology of using Mark and Matthew, ...

Yes, I take your point, but I am given to believe that there are some 700-1000 such minor agreements. Can they all be written off like this?

Second:

Quote:

Mark and Matthew, both open in front of him (though how does one “open” two scrolls and ‘leaf’ through both to compare common passages?),

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If scribes of the time didn't use desks, how did they manage working from two different sources at the same time? jumping from one to the other in the space of a sentence?

I have recently read H. Gamble's "Books and Readers in the Early Church (or via: amazon.co.uk)" and also Larry Hurtado's "The Earliest Christian Artifacts (or via: amazon.co.uk)" both of which deal with the physical reality of early written material. This rather interests me. Is this such a difficult problem? It is interesting to note that we have come full circle re scrolls!! You are looking at one right now.:wave:

Yes, OK, we have electronic means & search capability - but; could an ancient not fix the scroll ends to rollers in a horizontal or vertical position and scan thru them with reasonable facility? Also a scholar (literary cove) might have any number of secondary devices such as short excerpts etc. I am bloody sure that I would. Just a thort. Cannot see this as a big problem. You both seem to conceive of the process as some almighty rush - I have noted this in other contexts as well.

Third:

Quote:

diverging from Matthew in large scale ways such as failing to adopt any of Matthew’s redactions of Mark (like the “upon this rock” addition I discussed earlier).

This occured to me w/r to your earlier post as well. OK, so there is Luke with Mat., Mark & whatever else open (as previously proposed) before him. Given Lk1.4, why would he slavishly copy "Matthew’s redactions of Mark". What would be the point? He clearly reckons upon producing his own superior version. So he drops the 'Sermon on the Mount', or no, he spreads it around a bit. No point in wasting good Stoic stuff - whatever.
I just find this idea that Lk should have copied Mt so extensively, and particularly in the original Mt parts, a little odd. After all, it would hardly have been 'sacred' script? This is especially so since there are so many minor agreements?

I am not being picky, it is a genuine query.

aa5874 · 01-29-2010, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

....Probably one of the big issues re 'Luke' using 'Matthew' is the nativity narratives ie if 'Luke' had the gospel of 'Matthew' in front of him - what the hell was he doing contradicting the 'Matthew' nativity storyline in his own gospel??

But, the same can asked of the author of Matthew if it is assumed the author of gMark wrote first.

And what happens to Markan priority when "Q" is introduced? From what material was "Q" derived? When and who wrote "Q"?

The Gospel of gJohn show that there was no need for any "Q" material.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Bottom line is that the gospel storyline of Jesus is not a historical account of a human man. Consequently, at some point in any endeavor to uncover whatever historical core might be within that mythological/prophetic storyline, historians are going to have to face the fact that they are out of their comfort zone. The context, the medium from which they are trying to extract history is itself an interpretation of history - fulfilled prophecy. Fulfilled prophecy merged with mythological elements.

Justin Martyr used such an argument to claim Jesus was earth.

Based on Justin, Jesus did exist on earth because there are predictions of his coming to earth.

That is a most absurd argument.

Justin could have claim then that Jesus had already returned a second time because there are predictions of his second coming.

History cannot be argued by using predictions when history is about past events.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Whatever the exact Greek words in the most ancient of manuscripts are - interesting but ultimately, as with all words, their meaning and their use is only part of the story. Words, as ever, often fail us. Reading between the lines, trying to comprehend motive, intent - while indeed subjective - does have a far greater potential for understanding the picture that is being drawn, albeit inadequately, by the particular words used.

Only extant information can be examined. And the surviving information about Jesus is extremely clear and presented as the truth by the Church writers. IT was born of a virgin, and raised from the dead. They did truly present a MYTH.

Now, once you claim reading between the lines maybe inadequate, then such a method has little real potential for understanding the "picture'.

dog-on · 01-29-2010, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

True, though less strong that order and not necessarily speaking sternly.

Lk 5:14a is accounted for from Mk 1:44a. We then must still account for the lack of Mk 1:43 in the other two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Indeed, of course, when it comes down to it, we have no idea because we do not have the autographs.

So you feel you didn't have the knowledge to make an adequate statement in the first place.

spin

In reality, absolutely not. We have no autographs of any of these works and I do not hold to the position that we should consider these texts accurate representations of the autographs until proven otherwise.

And, btw, I still see the elephant in the room being Marcion's gospel, it's original wording, and especially regarding the gospel of Luke.

aa5874 · 01-29-2010, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

..And, btw, I still see the elephant in the room being Marcion's gospel, it's original wording, and especially regarding the gospel of Luke.

But, the writer who made statements about Marcion provided erroneous information regarding gLuke. The Gospel attributed to some Luke appears to have been an anonymous writing.

Now, if the Church writers were 100% wrong about the authorship of their own gospels then it can be deduced that that they were wrong about Marcion when it was claimed, even in a writing with the name Tertullian, that there was NO author ascribed to "Marcion's" gospel.

This is in a writing attributed to some Tertullian in "Against Marcion" 4.2

Quote:

Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body.

And, even Origen did not claim that Marcion himself mutilated any Gospel up to the third century.

This is in a writing attributed to some Origen in "Against Celsus" 2.27

Quote:

... Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian.

See http://www.newadvent.org

It must be noted that the Church writers did not admit that they mutilated their own Gospel.

Once the Church had the Gospels in their possession at all times and regarded the Gospels as SACRED SCRIPTURE then any changes that have occurred must have been approved and directed by the Church.

But, we don't even know which work of "Against Marcion" is now being circulated.

This is found in a writing attributed to some Tertullian in "Against Heresies" 1.1

Quote:

Whatever in times past we have wrought in opposition to Marcion, is from the present moment no longer to be accounted of.

It is a new work which we are undertaking in lieu of the old one. .................

This present text, therefore, of my work— which is the third as superseding the second, but henceforward to be considered the first instead of the third— renders a preface necessary to this issue of the tract itself that no reader may be perplexed, if he should by chance fall in with the various forms of it which are scattered about.

See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03121.htm

It would appear that the information about Marcion from some writer called Tertullian may be erroneous but that is not surprising since this assumed writer appear to have gotten virtually every thing about the Canonical NT wrong in terms of content, dating, authorship and chronology.

andrewcriddle · 01-30-2010, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The Western text of Mark 1:41 (Codex Bezae the Old Latin and aparently Ephraem Syrus) reads orgistheis ie being angry.

Strange, NA27, which I consider authoritative, doesn't cite Ephraemi (C) for οργισθεις.

spin

Sorry for causing confusion. C (Codex Ephraemi) is a palimpsest in which an ancient Greek NT manuscript was later overwritten with treatises attributed to St Ephraem.

What I meant by Ephraem Syrus is the Syriac commentary on the Diatessaron attributed to St Ephraem which survives in Armenian translation plus fragments of the original Syriac.

As David Hindley said; NA makes only limited use of non-Greek church fathers.

Andrew Criddle

spin · 01-30-2010, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Strange, NA27, which I consider authoritative, doesn't cite Ephraemi (C) for οργισθεις.

Sorry for causing confusion. C (Codex Ephraemi) is a palimpsest in which an ancient Greek NT manuscript was later overwritten with treatises attributed to St Ephraem.

What I meant by Ephraem Syrus is the Syriac commentary on the Diatessaron attributed to St Ephraem which survives in Armenian translation plus fragments of the original Syriac.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm always a little queasy when confronted with arguments based on texts in translation (here an Armenian translation of a Syriac interpretation of the Greek). I have been looking for an online copy of Bezae to understand what the Latin says, because I'm led to believe the Bezae Greek oddities are often related to the Latin.

spin

JoeWallack · 01-30-2010, 08:52 AM

JW:
Willker gives the Manuscript evidence here:

variants in the Gospel of Mark

Quote:

Page 46

TVU 22
10. Difficult variant:
Minority variant:
NA27 Mark 1:41 kai. splagcnisqei.j evktei,naj th.n cei/ra auvtou/ h[yato kai. le,gei auvtw/|\ qe,lw( kaqari,sqhti\

T&T #24
kai. ovrgisqei.j D, 135896% Byz, a, d, ff2, r1*, Ephraem Diatessaron, Bois

kai. pc4 Byz, b, g1

pc = 169, 505, 508, 783*

~O de. VIhsou/j splagcnisqei,j A, C, K, P, (Lâ), W, D, Q, f1, f13, 28, 565,
579, 700, 1424, Maj, Lat, Sy, Copt

txt kai. splagcnisqei.j 01, B, 892, e, Copt

Et iratus a, d, ff2, r1*
Iesus autem misertus aur, c, f, l, (q), r1C, vg
Et misericordia actus e (k lac.)

Lac: 33 (…gcnisqei.j)
B: no umlaut

splagcni,zomai "be moved with pity or compassion"

ovrgi,zomai "be angry, be furious"

JW:
Note that the Manuscript support against "compassion" is more than just Greek and Latin support for "angry". A few texts omit the offending word ("Matthew"/"Luke", look out!) and "compassion" has variation.

Willker is better than NA as it is only one of his sources. He notes that the majority of commentators now support "angry". He gives the following support for "angry":

Quote:

Arguments in favor of ovrgisqei.j:
1. The appearance of ovrgisqei.j in Ephrem's Diatessaron commentary.
2. It's the harder reading.
3. Both Mt and Lk omit the word.

He mentions the similarity of the offending Latin words but does not think that a contributing factor (I do). Willker's conclusion is "indecisive".

Ehrman has a condensed version of his argument for "angry" in Misquoting Jesus starting on 133. Ehrman relies on the Patristic category of evidence, specifically "Matthew"/"Luke". He points out that M/L wrote long before our extant Manuscripts and both not only omit the offending word here they never copy "angry" from "Mark's" several uses (point Q!). Ehrman adds the Internal evidence that "Mark's" Jesus has an attitude in general and specifically in this verse.

Ehrman points out a similar issue with 3:5. Here the Manuscript support is much better for "angry". The obvious difference is here Jesus has a contextual reason to be angry, unlike 1:41. I'll add here to Ehrman's Internal evidence that as I demonstrate here:

The Word According To Garp, Mork, Mark. Significant Editing Of The First Gospel

attributing anger to Jesus at the start and end of the Galilean ministry is structural Style of "Mark", he often attributes the same emotion to the start and end of stories/scenes. Jesus being angry/passionate during his Ministry is than ironically contrasted with his lack of emotion during his Passion:

"I Am IronyMan". How Much Ironic Contrast, Transfer and Reversal Did He kraM?

Everything in "Mark" is subservient to Style & Structure, even theology.

This exercise is a textbook example of having a good explanation for agreement between M/L against "Mark". Agreement by omission is typically unreMarkable being satisfactorily explained by theology or grammar.

I'll summarize Ehrman's full argument here later.

The lesson to be learned here is don't automatically rely on NA. There's no substitute for doing your own research.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Solo · 01-30-2010, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Luke knew both Matthew and Mark, it seems.

You bet: Luke and Matthew also knew the paradoxical effect of the spirit (manic excitement) on certain kinds of skin disorders and read Mark 1:40-45 as alluding to that phenomenon. Eczema/dermatitis, especially appear to have in some cases become manifest as secondary effects of anxiety or depression. During the euphoric phase of the manic excitement these types of skin diseases (conflated in the popular lore of the ancients as forms of 'lepra') often disappear suddenly and completely, as if by a magic cure. The dramatic increase of cardio-vascular activity during the manic highs alone could account for the clearing of the skin.

Jesus' charge to the leper not to tell anyone has a typical Markan ironic twist. Again the allusion is to what is known medically as 'pressure of speech' during manic excitement. People in that state talk incessantly, and at the heights of the ecstasy in a totally incoherent manner (glossolalia). Mark's 'Jesus', as the personified spirit, is aware that the babble is going to be seen as insanity or demon possession, so he orders the leper to be silent. But of course the leper can't help babbling away.
As a result, Jesus (allegorically) is being ostracized in the cities (i.e. in the 'normal' community life) and people who have the spirit seek 'him' in the country (i.e. in solitude).

Regards,
Jiri

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.