Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Posted: **Sun Dec 01, 2013 7:49 am**

So you don't want evidence, you want philosophy? I did that in FRDB regarding my thesis that there are seven identifiable written eyewitness records of Jesus. I got even less response to methodology than I did to the thesis itself. The problem apparently is that everyone feels free to ignore something new that can't quote someone making the same argument--even people like in FRDB who deny all the Consensus scholars outright.

Posted: **Sun Dec 01, 2013 2:32 pm**

I'm finding some support for my Proto-Gospel Hypothesis, but the Jerusalem School opts for translation into Greek before any use by the Evangelists, as does Brian E. Wilson (died 2012). In contrast, the earliest Proto-Gospel by Lessing failed by favoring Aramaic originals used in the Synoptics. My Horizontal Hypothesis splits the difference, saying that each Evangelist had a mixed Aramaic-Greek text in front of him.

rom "Jesus", by David Flusser (edited by Steven Notley), Magnes Press,
Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1997, pp. 21-22. [ISBN 965-223-978-X] (An
earlier version of this work was published in German in 1968.)

"Is it indeed credible to suggest that when the Synoptic Gospels are studied
scientifically they present a reliable portrayal of the historical Jesus, in
spite of the kerygmatic preaching of faith by the Church? My research has
led me to the conclusion that the Synoptic Gospels are based upon one or
more non-extant early documents composed by Jesus' early disciples and the
early church in Jerusalem. These texts were originally written in Hebrew.
Subsequently they were translated into Greek and passed through various
stages of redaction. It is the Greek translation of these early Hebrew
sources that were employed by our three evangelists. Thus, when studied in
the light of their Jewish background, the Synoptic Gospels do preserve a
picture of Jesus which is more reliable than is generally acknowledged."

"The question of literary interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels is called
the "Synoptic Problem". The scope of this book does not allow sufficient
space to address this crucial issue thoroughly. My experience, however,
chiefly based on the research of the late R.L. Lindsey, has shown me that
Luke preserves, in comparison to Mark (and Matthew when depending on Mark),
the original tradition. A critical re-evaluation of the literary evidence
thus indicates that Luke wrote before Mark. Mark then reworked the gospel
material and unfavorably influenced Matthew, who followed Mark's version
closely. Finally, it is important to add that Matthew, when independent of
Mark, frequently preserves the earlier sources of the life of Jesus that lie
behind Luke's Gospel. Hence, Luke and Matthew together provide the most
authentic portrayal of Jesus' life and teachings."

"The present biography intends to apply the methods of literary criticism
and Lindsey's solution to unlock these ancient sources. In order to
understand the historical Jesus, it is not sufficient to follow the literary
development of the Gospel material. We also need to possess intimate
familiarity with Judaism at the time of Jesus. The Jewish material is
important not just because it allows us to place Jesus in his own time, but
because it also permits a correct interpretation of his original Hebrew
sayings. Thus, whenever we can be sure that there is a Hebrew phrase behind
the Greek text of the Gospels, we translate that, and not the literal
Greek."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Best Wishes,

Dennis Sullivan (Friend of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research)

http://www.jerusalemperspective.com
http://www.jerusalemschool.org

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/syno ... opics/4693

Posted: **Sun Dec 01, 2013 3:06 pm**

Adam wrote:So you don't want evidence, you want philosophy?

I am interested in evidence. You're interested in evading the question.

Posted: **Sun Dec 01, 2013 9:14 pm**

http://www.ts.mu.edu/readers/content/pd ... 17.4.1.pdf
9 Pages by Fr. Francis McCool starting on pg. 459 or 7 pages starting on 461 about Leon Vaganay, one of several in 1950's with hypothesis like mine, but like all others failing to recognize that the Proto-Matthew (his Mg) was split between Aramaic and Greek.

Posted: **Sun Dec 01, 2013 9:50 pm**

There's really no polite way to keep posting to remind you that you haven't presented an argument based on evidence, but I am trying.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2013 7:53 am**

Looks like the link worked for you, but I agree it does not support me very well. I spent too much time reading the rest of McCool's article and didn't realize that in the cited pages Vaganay made all kinds of concessions about Q (in the form of "Sg") and Mt copying from Mk. I can always fall back to copying if I can't sustain the more radical Horizontal Hypothesis Occam's Razor strict use of only a mixed Aramaic-Greek Grundschrift.

I've always been suspicious of Proto-Matthew theories as too harmonized with Roman Catholic apologetics. Any port in a storm, I guess, but I guess we need to deal with whether my radical version can be sustained. Meanwhile, I don't think your Nov. 30 witty response to my Parable of the Tenants dealt at all with the amazing case I found there that is by far best explained by a mutual source for all three Synoptics. Can any of you guys cite a scholar who gives a better exposition of that parable in terms of their own Synoptic hypothesis?

The Jerusalem School is newer and probably better for support for my Proto-Gospel position, but I havn't found a good internet exposition of it yet.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:26 am**

The survey’s fifth section is devoted to solutions in which Luke is prior to the other Synoptic Gospels. Of the Lukan priority hypotheses, the most active is the Jerusalem School Hypothesis, which owes its origin to Robert L. Lindsey.[6] This hypothesis places much emphasis on the Hebrew background of the Gospels and argues for dependence in the order of Luke, Mark, and Matthew, with all three being dependent on a shared, hypothetical source.

The above quote gives the Jerusalem Hypothesis with Lindsey''s acceptance of Lukan Priority. He had translated Mark in 1963 and wrote in 1973 that the facility of back-translated Luke to Aramaic showed Luke was earliest. The various Proto-Gospel theories seem to wobble between basic use of a Grundschrift and the need to admit copying.
My Horizontal Hypothesis Occam's Razor version gets around the wobbling by holding the Proto-Gospel was bilingual, (Q1 in Aramaic and Q2 in Greek) thus explaining some exact verses and some altogether different in word-use. Lindsay has the right order of writing and my fall-back to some copying if necessary.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2013 5:02 pm**

The Synoptic Problem in Mycrandall worried me that different ordering patterns apply for Marcan as against Q sections. "This shouldn't be with everyone using the same Grundschrift," I reasoned. But my Proto-Gospel is composite, composed of Aramaic Q1 (also with Twelve-Source and the Passion Narrative) and Q2 (plus its own narrative). The narrative portions Twelve-Source, "Marcan", and Passion Narrative would retain more ordering by their nature. The actual Grundschrift text might include few sayings in the chronological text, with the rest relegated to an appendix. From this Matthew and Mark would integrate them into the text in different ways.

This understanding of it is particularly important regarding Luke and its 9-chapter interpolation, in which both Q1 and Q2 sayings are smoothly worked in. Otherwise we would expect Q to appear only in "Marcan" sections. The uniquely Lucan L material was not already in the Grundschrift, so incorporating any Q sayings would have been easier if most of them were already segregated in an appendix. Horizontal layers still apply, but I now conceive of them as remaining in discrete bundles.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2013 8:24 pm**

I'm about to spoil my own theory, but this may solve a critical problem with the Double Tradition. How is it that a number of pericopes are verbally exact? They look too exact for two or more copies to come from the same original, so could Matthew and Luke both be independently copying from the Grundschrift Proto-Gospel? However, my Occam's Razor version teaches that a final or near-final text of Luke got written from an incomplete Grundschrift. Concurrently with drawing material from it, Luke could have entered in those passages that are so exactly duplicated in Matthew. In this scenario, only one step remained before such exact verses would appear in Matthew. This still avoids any copying of one gospel from another, but what got added to Luke was presumably identical to what was added back to the Proto-Gospel. If any of the Synoptic gospels had actually seen any of the others, there would be much more identity of content. My admission here that Matthew must have been looking at the same words available to Luke (in which it had been added) gets us the best of all solutions, that Matthew could copy Luke without seeing Luke-- thus explaining why he would unaccountably fail to use anything else of the other 22 chapters not used.

Similarly I should add now that I am finding several Q1 pericopes (that is, what I had decided should be Q1 because largely so inexact in word use that Aramaic must underlie different translations to Mt and Luke) in which exactness in a summary verse or so would change the label to Q2. As an extension of the above principle for Double Tradition verses, if my theory is correct it would seem that this would have happened with Triple Tradition pericopes as well, and there are some. But I am also suspecting here that Luke in editing an Aramaic pericope inserted his own Greek redaction into (or alongside) the Aramaic text. This would give a fuller explanation for the Parable of the Tenants I analyzed above (Nov. 30). You ask, "Why would he do this?" I counter, "Why wouldn't he? Wouldn't he try to be helpful in understanding the text, if he had room to insert the words?"
In this regard, consider that Luke probably would have inserted the Septuagint Greek for "The stone that the builders rejected..." at Luke 20:17 that gets used exactly in both Mark and Matthew. That would leave him triggered perhaps to insert Jesus's question, "What will he do to those tenants..." that may have been missing in the Aramaic, but thereby introducing the possible confusion seen in Matthew that the answer is attributed to the authorities.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:09 pm**

Classic argumentum ad nauseam.

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Horizontal Synoptic Solution

Re: Horizontal Synoptic Solution

Re: Horizontal Synoptic Solution

Re: Horizontal Synoptic Solution

Re: Horizontal Synoptic Solution

Re: Horizontal Synoptic Solution

Re: Horizontal Synoptic Solution

Re: Horizontal Synoptic Solution

Re: Horizontal Synoptic Solution

The Exactly Parallel Q verses

Re: Horizontal Synoptic Solution