Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 03-21-2008, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
As previously mentioned, trying to measure the Unknown difference between Originals and Extants is Subjective. JP Holding has an interesting excerpt here (emphasis mine):

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html#agree

Quote:

How well do modern textual critics agree? An encyclopedic treatment of this issue is presented by the team of Kurt and Barbara Aland, who provide statistics as to both the percentage of variant free verses among the seven major editions of the Greek NT, and the number of variants per page (excluding orthographic errors). It is helpful to look at these [Alan.TNT, 29-30]:

Book---% of variant-free verses---# of variants per page

* Matthew 59.9 / 6.8
* Mark 45.1 / 10.3
* Luke 57.2 / 6.9
* John 51.8 / 8.5
<edit,brevity>

JW:
Holding's scholarship is poor by the standards of this Forum and he can not be relied on as a primary source because he sometimes misquotes and often quotes out of context and therefore, everything he says must be checked. However, as a starting point note above that "Mark", the original Gospel,

Joseph

As a starting point it is only a hypothesis that Mark is in fact the original Gospel. B.H. Streeter had five main arguments for the argument that Mark was the first gospel which has been conclusively proven to be absolute rubbish. Note the following source (page 7)

One Gospel From Two: Mark's use of Matthew and Luke

Toto · 03-21-2008, 01:15 PM

arnoldo - are you sure you want to hijack this thread to discuss the synoptic problem? If so, you need to read up on it, before you announce that one outdated theory has demolished another.

Synoptic Problem FAQ on hypotyposeis.org

Quote:

About a hundred years ago, the case for the Markan priority hypothesis was thought to rest as a consequence of the observation that Mark is the middle term between Matthew and Luke. In 1951, however, B. C. Butler exposed this fallacy (he called it the "Lachmann fallacy" but a more accurate term is the "middle term fallacy") and demonstrated that other solutions can satisfactorily account for the observation.

Consequently, careful proponents of Markan priority have restated their case as a cumulation of several suggestive arguments. For example, it is argued that it is easier to understand certain material (infancy accounts, Sermon on the Mount) being added to Mark than Mark's omission and understand both Matthew's and Luke's improving Mark's style rather than the reverse.

arnoldo · 03-21-2008, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

arnoldo - are you sure you want to hijack this thread to discuss the synoptic problem?

No, I don't want to hijack this thread since I was responding to the following statement

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
However, as a starting point note above that "Mark", the original Gospel, stands out as the most changed Gospel.
Joseph

I suggest you read up on William Farmer who has an up to date theory

Source: The Present State Of The Synoptic Problem by William R. Farmer

Quote:

What confidence are we to place in the conclusions of scholars who operate on the principle that "whatever one infers from" a given body of data "will have to be consistent with" something which is at issue in the discussion, in this instance, Marcan priority? Only those who agree with the premise of Davies and Allison that there are compelling reasons for Marcan priority will be disposed to take seriously their attempt to explain away the minor agreements. So the prior question is this: What are the compelling reasons for Marcan priority which dictate that a correct understanding of the minor agreements must be consistent with that postulate? One searches in vain for any compelling reason for believing in Marcan priority in the seventeen pages which Davies and Allison devote to their discussion of Mark. To prove this we must note exactly what they have written under the five headings of: (a) The argument from order; (b) The tendencies of the synoptic tradition; (c) Inconcinnities; (d) The Marcan 'additions'; (e) The minor agreements. We will take up these matters one by one in reverse order.

JoeWallack · 03-22-2008, 07:17 AM

Mission Impossible

JW:
The original demonstration of Markan priority was Horae Synopticae (1898) which still stands as decisive. The Likelihood of Markan priority has since been strengthened by additional considerations not dealt with by Hawkins. Hawkins strength was compiling the raw data and his weakness was clearly communicating what it meant. He had poor writing skills by modern scientific standards.

Hawkins first category of evidence indicating MP (Markan Priority) is summarized on Page 26. Here his data indicates that words which are characteristic of a specific Synoptic Gospel are significantly more likely to be found in unique material of "Matthew" and "Luke" than in unique material "Mark". This indicates that "Mark" is more likely to be a unified work than "Matthew" or "Luke".

Categories of evidence favoring MP so far:

1) Usage of characteristic words in unique material.

arnoldo, this is the type of evidence you need to defend against. On the Offensive side you need to provide the type of summary above Here on these holy boards. Attempted Appeal to Authority by simply/mostly providing links without at a minimum summarizing key points here does you no good as there is a consensus of Christian Bible scholarship for MP and something more than consensus for non-Christian Bible scholarship. Hawkins btw was Christian Clergy.

Good luck Mr. MPhelps.

Joseph

arnoldo · 03-22-2008, 07:28 AM

Actually, I only wanted to point out that it is open to debate whether or not Mark is the first gospel. Solely based on my limited knowledge of the matter it is only a hypothesis that Mark is the first gospel. However it appears that certain "experts" claim that Mark is in fact the first gospel thus any changes to it (Mark 16:9-20) has "profound theological implications" since the other 3 gospels borrowed from it.

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-22-2008, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Mission Impossible

JW:
The original demonstration of Markan priority was Horae Synopticae (1898)

Ummm .. aren't you neglecting the work of G. Ch. Storr, as well as of Karl Lachmann, Christian Gottlob Wilke, and Christian Hermann Weisse?

See History and Criticism of the Markan Hypothesis (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Hans-Herbert Stoldt

Jeffrey

JoeWallack · 03-22-2008, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Mission Impossible

JW:
The original demonstration of Markan priority was Horae Synopticae (1898)

Ummm .. aren't you neglecting the work of G. Ch. Storr, as well as of Karl Lachmann, Christian Gottlob Wilke, and Christian Hermann Weisse?

See History and Criticism of the Markan Hypothesis (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Hans-Herbert Stoldt

Jeffrey

JW:
Maybe I Am. The key is defining "demonstration". But thanks for the info Dr. Gibson.

Joseph

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

03-22-2008, 07:17 AM	#4
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	Mission Impossible JW: The original demonstration of Markan priority was Horae Synopticae (1898) which still stands as decisive. The Likelihood of Markan priority has since been strengthened by additional considerations not dealt with by Hawkins. Hawkins strength was compiling the raw data and his weakness was clearly communicating what it meant. He had poor writing skills by modern scientific standards. Hawkins first category of evidence indicating MP (Markan Priority) is summarized on Page 26. Here his data indicates that words which are characteristic of a specific Synoptic Gospel are significantly more likely to be found in unique material of "Matthew" and "Luke" than in unique material "Mark". This indicates that "Mark" is more likely to be a unified work than "Matthew" or "Luke". Categories of evidence favoring MP so far: 1) Usage of characteristic words in unique material. arnoldo, this is the type of evidence you need to defend against. On the Offensive side you need to provide the type of summary above Here on these holy boards. Attempted Appeal to Authority by simply/mostly providing links without at a minimum summarizing key points here does you no good as there is a consensus of Christian Bible scholarship for MP and something more than consensus for non-Christian Bible scholarship. Hawkins btw was Christian Clergy. Good luck Mr. MPhelps. Joseph

03-22-2008, 07:28 AM	#5
arnoldo Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Latin America Posts: 4,066	Actually, I only wanted to point out that it is open to debate whether or not Mark is the first gospel. Solely based on my limited knowledge of the matter it is only a hypothesis that Mark is the first gospel. However it appears that certain "experts" claim that Mark is in fact the first gospel thus any changes to it (Mark 16:9-20) has "profound theological implications" since the other 3 gospels borrowed from it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.