Maluflen@... wrote:

>
> I am persuaded by this and other recent comments that I owe the list an
> apology for much of my recent writing. I wish to protest one more time,
> perhaps in vain, that not a single remark of mine was intended as a personal
> attack.

Maybe when you get to be an old curmudgeon like myself, the skin
grows thicker..but for the life of me, I have not detected anything
in your posts (which I have found to be very informative, by the way)
to even cause one of my graying eyebrows to raise.

> My frustration is with ideas and systems, not with people; I bear no
> ill will whatsoever to anyone on this list. However, the consensus of list
> members clearly interprets my comments differently, and so I accept their
> judgment for purposes of this public forum.

And just how many form that "consensus?"

> For this reason I am voluntarily
> grounding myself from active participation in list discussions for a period
> of at least two-months, until I can learn how to behave in accordance with a
> stricter interpretation of list protocol.

I have been getting a great deal out of your exchanges.  Whether or not one
agrees with a premise or a conclusion, the discussion of the methodology and
approach is invaluable in quality discourse.  I am going to ask you not to
cease participation.

Jack

--
______________________________________________

taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

Jack Kilmon
jkilmon@...

http://www.historian.net

Maluflen@... wrote on 22.10'99:
>
> Dear Karel,
>
>   To my request that you supply evidence for your assertion that the story of
> the raising of the daughter of Jairus is haggadic midrash I did not really
> receive a response in your reply to my posting. I did, however, read
> carefully what you wrote on the subject to John Dickson,

Dear Leonard,

My apologies for responding so late. I have been quite busy; that
probably was the reason why I had to limit myself to the rather long
exegesis in response to John Dickson's question.

> and have the following reactions:
> 1. Your approach is fresh,.....and provocative, opening up a whole > series of
important new questions about Gospel writing.

This approach has been attempted once before by John Bowman, Gospel of
Mark: The New Christian Jewish Passover Haggadah; Leiden: Brill 1965.
However, Bowman failed to tackle the key question of the socalled
'Messianic Secret' in Mark satisfactorily.
Moreover, he too, didnot take C. Montefiore's observation (in 1927!)that
Mark referred in the burial story to LXX Isa 22,16. The expression "a
tomb hewn out of the rock" is a hapax both in Tenach and in the LXX. In
Greek the three words are almost identical. Moreover, in both cases the
context deals with Jerusalem being beleaguered or having been conquered
and the temple destroyed. For the passion week circles around the temple
with 13,2 at the centre. The post-70 dating of Mark was the point of
departure for my research.
I find it strange that interpreters have disregarded Montefiore's note
for so long. Editors of the GNT confidently referred the modern reader
to Ps 22,7; 108,25 in the note on Mk 15,29 "shaking their heads".
Rightly so because I believe Mark wanted to remind his own readers to
these verses. With the same confidence GNT referred to Ps 69,21 in Mk
15,36. Again this was Mark's [and Mt's etc] literary method of inviting
his readerrs to search Scriptures for the deeper meaning of the event.
In other words, Mark was familiar with midrash.
	 Now why have so many commentators ignored Mark's own signaling in the
all important climax of his work (15,46)?  I for one believe Mark did
write a post-70 Christian-Judean Passover Haggadah. He revised, I think,
an earlier pre-70 version of that haggadah that had been used by the
ecclesia when celebrating Passover. Indeed, this approach opens up "new
questions about Gospel writing", as you put it.

> 2. The possibility that even some of the Gospel miracle stories are >not to be
taken literally at all, but rather as haggadic midrash, with >a theological
point, is not in itself strange to me, nor does it seem >to me altogether
implausible. On the other hand, if pushed to the >limit, it raises the
historical question of what in fact Jesus did that >caused anyone to take notice
of him, and that led to his eventual >execution on messianic charges.

I have long found Bultmann's claim (the miracle stories are myths) to be
wanting. Even though these miracle stories are not to be taken
literally, they reflected the author's belief concerning the effects
Jesus' teachings and his acts had on his contemporaries. They were
written for the worshipers in the house of learning somewhere in the
diaspora. They included children and the simple believers! Truths of God
were told through hagadot (cmp the Exodus stories), but adults were able
to understand the deeper truths conveyed, the presbyter serving as
interpreter. I indicated this in my exegesis of the legio - Jairus'
hagadot. The 'healing' of Legio sheds light on Jesus' radical teaching
"to love even the enemy".

> So there is a need to establish good criteria of distinction between stories
> that have a plausible (basic) historicity and those that may not. I thought.

Exegetes will forever be seeking and debating 'good criteria'. These are
hard to come by. However, internal evidence (e.g. where the author has
left midrashic clues and hints) are a good guide.
	 One need not perform magic miracles in order to be "noticed". An
inspirational person like Ghandi performed no miraculous deeds, but he
certainly was noticed.  I donot mean to equate Ghandi with Jesus. That
would be an anachronism to say the least. But the comparison underlines
my point that these miracle stories were hagadot to underline God's
fidelity to his people as part of a Passover Haggadah. The drying up of
the fig tree is an agadic story; it is not history in the literal sense
of the word. But Jesus' overturning the tables of the money changers, on
the other hand, has a ring of historical truth, although the eventual
destruction of the temple deeply affected the present form of the
story.
  > 3. A related and intriguing question your comments triggered in my  >
own mind was the extent to which it might be argued, in some cases at >
least, that a "second" evangelist actually understood the original >
work of a predecessor as haggadic midrash, and was able himself to >
extend that midrashic work in a homogeneous fashion. I believe this is
often the case, e.g., between the Gospels of Matt and Lk.

     I think Matthew (adopting most of Mark's Gospel, correcting and
improving it to fit his purpose) did understand Mark's midrashim.

> 4. It is my firm conviction that you are on the wrong track when you > posit
the author of Mark as the originator of any of the haggadah in > the common
tradition.

I too am following L-synoptic, Leonard, and I know your position. And I
am aware with what vigor and conviction each contributor to the list is
defending his/her position.
I rather believe I am on the right track by sticking to Markan priority.
I wonder if the oft repeated phrase "until proven otherwise" can be
fully achieved for any of the theories.
	 Mark's character appears to have been different from Matthew and his
Greek certainly was not as polished as Luke's; but I fail to see why
Mark was "a far less original, in  fact an inferior writer". After all,
as I see it, he conceived the passion story  and it moved millions.

cordially,     Karel

From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley@...>
To: <Synoptic-L@...>
Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: the Synoptic Problem
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:06:59 -0500
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <0.f5026a6.25502462@...>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0

Leonard Maluf wrote:

>>Your ongoing psychological analysis of Farmer strikes me as a kind of
character assassination. I apologize if it is not intended as such. I
think, however, that it would be far more productive, and more
appropriate
for this format, if you would instead attempt to deal with some of the
evidence Farmer adduces in support of his positions. I realize that this
would be a considerably more challenging undertaking.

[Quote from Mr Miller's post snipped]

The difference lies in the fact that I am wholeheartedly agreeing with
the
substance of Farmer's remark, and wondering, to boot, whether
anyone is
really so naive as to question its validity. My interpretation of your
comment was that it represented something less than enthusiastic
endorsement of Farmer's statement. I marvelled at this.<<

I do not think that SCM is assassinating Prof. Farmer's character but
rather making a judgement concerning the validity of the weight
Farmer has
assigned to the evidence he has weighed. My goodness, anyone who
has ever
reviewed a scholarly article or monograph makes observations such as
these, and by necessity. A. Schweitzer was famous for this earlier in
the
century.

While it is true that it is a debating tactic to attack the author when it
is not as easy to attack the substance of what the author wrote, we all
have to make judgement calls about what authors deserve our
attention and
how much effort will go into the undertaking. These judgements must
also
enter the debate.

In the USA, we have all sorts of right evangelical scholars who pour
out
hundreds of books a year. Each one will make some valuable
observations,
but not many of them will be read by historical-critical scholars, and
for
good reason! The trick is to evaluate the proportion of useful
observations compared to the total of all ideas contained in the book,
in
order to effectively allocate the level of our resources of time and
effort that should be assigned to its study.

It appears to me Steven has decided that in spite of Farmer's stated
bias,
it was worth his time to investigate what he says. But in the end, SCM
appears to think that Prof. Farmer's conclusions were too heavily
influenced by his personal bias to have sufficiently proved his thesis.

Regards,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, OH USA

I would like to request that the current thread on "list decorum" ends
immediately.  It is always preferable to deal with this kind of issue off-
list, in discussion with the people concerned or in discussion with the
coordinators, to whom any further comments on this should be
addressed.


--------------------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre       M.S.Goodacre@...
   List Owner, Synoptic-L

Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l

To: Leonard Maluf,

<< The difference lies in the fact that I am wholeheartedly agreeing with
the substance of Farmer's remark, and wondering, to boot, whether anyone is
really so naive as to question its validity. My interpretation of your
comment was that it represented something less than enthusiastic
endorsement of Farmer's statement. I marvelled at this. >>

FWIW  my first message, where I put forth the notion that Professor Farmer
had fallen into the "trap" of believing that truth is manifest, was written
in part because I sensed from what you had written that you too have fallen
into the same "trap." And just as I believe that Farmer's belief that the
"truth" of the Synoptic Problem is manifest has led him into inflammatory
rhetoric and ad hominem attacks, so your messages have seemed to me to have
led you down the same road. I don't know if it is possible for me to say
what I've just said without appearing to be making my own ad hominem
attacks against you, perhaps not, but it is certainly not my intent. What
little I know of you is what I've learned participating on this list. You
are obviously a very intelligent and knowledgeable person. But
unfortunately on more than one occasion you have directed ad hominem
remarks in my direction. Perhaps I notice them only because they have been
directed at me. I have tried my best to simply ignore most of them. FWIW I
also "picked" on Farmer, and not you directly, out of respect for you,
since you are present (so to speak). But I mean no disrespect to either of
you. I assume that you are both honorable and intelligent persons, people
(like most of us) who hold their beliefs deeply and sincerely. (I assume
you won't be offended by being compared with Professor Farmer.)

I would like to add that I greatly appreciate being able to participate on
this list. I am cognizant that I'm merely a househusband (with no post-grad
degrees) and not a scholar. And thus, I consider my participation here an
honor. It is certainly not my desire to offend you, or anyone else on this
list by my participation. I hope I haven't done so, if I have, I deeply
regret it and am truly sorry.

-Steven Craig Miller
Alton, Illinois (USA)
scmiller@...

"Refutations have often been regarded as establishing the failure of a
scientist, or at least his theory. It should be stressed that this is an
inductivist error. Every refutation should be regarded as a great success;
not merely a success of the scientist who refuted the theory, but also of
the scientist who created the refuted theory and who thus in the first
instance suggested, if only indirectly, the refuting experiment" (Karl R.
Popper, "Conjectures and Refutations," 243).

From:            Mark Goodacre <M.S.Goodacre@...>
To:              M.S.Goodacre@...
Subject:         Re: [Synoptic-L] re: Fatigued in Jerusalem
Send reply to:   M.S.Goodacre@...
Date sent:       Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:48:03 -0000

On 1 Nov 99, at 22:07, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

> Yes, I'm beginning to think that stressing the linguistic aspect is too
> stringent, especially because of the Lukan Vocabulary Fallacy.  Perhaps
> it is merely a sufficient condition but not a necessary condition.

Yes -- the difficulty is that here, as elsewhere, one does not want to give
Luke an  unfair disadvantage because of his large vocabulary.

>
> Ultimately, the case for fatigue boils down to which scenario for the
> cause of a difficulty is more plausible: the secondary author created
> the difficulty because he did not sustain a plan of redaction or the
> difficulty was original to one text and the later author fixed the
> difficulty.

Agreed -- one needs to focus on plausibility.  Does this example or that
make a good,  plausible account of the data?

> In the case where the texts first disagree and then agree at point
> that creates a difficulty in one of the texts, then it looks more
> plausible that the difficulty is due to fatigue.  (A finding of
> fatigue can be bolstered by showing characteristic language and
> indicators of redaction.)  On the other hand, if the texts first
> agree and then disagree at a point that creates a difficulty,
> then it is more safely presumed that the difficulty was original.
>
> These presumptions, which are based on the order of the agreement
> and disagreement, should be intuitive: if a later author is to
> fix a difficulty, it is much more likely to occur by changing
> the text at the point the difficulty is noticed, i.e., at the
> second point in the text.  On the other hand, if a secondary
> author is fatigued, the difference between the texts is more
> likely to occur at a sooner point.

I think that this is a fine summary of the case as I see it.
>
> As for Mark 10:52, it still remains to be shown that there is a
> difficulty.  The mere fact that an eager person disobeys Jesus'
> command (by following Jesus instead going away) is not a good
     > example, because earlier in Mark the leper disobeyed Jesus'
      > command to silence (Mark 1:44-45) with full approval of the
      > Evangelist.


Indeed disobedience of Jesus' commands by those who have been healed is
common in  Mark -- most famously at 7.36:

" Jesus commanded them not to tell anyone. But the more he did so, the
more they kept  talking about it."

Mark
--------------------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre                mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
   Dept of Theology                tel: +44 121 414 7512
   University of Birmingham     fax: +44 121 414 6866
   Birmingham  B15 2TT  United Kingdom

http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
    The New Testament Gateway
    Mark Without Q
    Aseneth Home Page

Thanks for the further feedback and discussion.

On 2 Nov 99, at 14:44, yochanan bitan wrote (some omitted):

> mark has simply been at work as his expansive self:
> adding "not enough earth"
>     (to luke's 'rocky ground')
> adding "immediately (sprouted up)"
>    (to luke's 'sprouted')
> adding "scorched in the sun,
>    (to luke's 'withered' and to luke's explanation of 'trial')
> adding "because of no root"
>    (to luke's 'without moisture' and from luke's explanation 'not having
> root')
> plus a couple of evthys "immediately's" in the interpretation. good ol'
> mark!

The problem I find with this is the idea of Mark borrowing details forward from
Luke's
interpretation into his telling of the parable.  We come back again to the
question of
plausibility.  Which is more likely: that Mark has read the Lukan parable +
interpretation
and taken care to borrow forward the details from the interpretation into his
story, or
Markan Priority, on which Luke omits the details in the story and then shows
fatigue
when he reproduces them in the interpetation?  It is simply that this kind of
textual
complex, parable + interpretation, with intervening verses, presents just the
kind of
scenario on which one might expect to see editorial fatigue at work.

The point is re-inforced by the fact that, assuming Markan Priority over Matthew
as well
as over Luke, Matthew does just the same thing: Mark 4.7 has the thorns choking
(SUMPNIGW) the seed, 'and it yielded no grain' (KAI KARPON OUK EDWKEN).
In Matt 13.7 they only choke (PNIGW) the seed. In the Interpretation (Mark 4.19
//
Matt 13.22), however, anxieties and love of riches choke (SUMPNIGW) the word,
'and it proves unfruitful' (KAI AKARPOS GINETAI).

As for the comments on vocabulary, I think I would grant (see the earlier
exchange with
Stephen Carlson) that that characteristic language will not take us all of the
way in
discussions of examples of fatigue like this.  It can be helpful in showing
which way the
wind is blowing, but I don't think I would want to go any further than that.


> back to mark 10.52, there you have a fatigue, or a marcan 'bump' if
> you want to demand arbitrary distance to 'fatigues'. (on 'distance', see
> steve notley's comments on mark 1.2)


I do not want to suggest "arbitrary distance" to signs of editorial fatigue
but would like to reinforce the point that the phenomenon only really makes
sense if one
is talking about changes made in the early stages / beginning of a pericope etc.
On
"distance" see also my comments on Mark 1.2, in response to the above!

> another markan bump is the question about the greatest commandment. in the
> original culture this was not a trick question. yet mark puts it in a
> "trick" context and introduces it with 'answered' just after his source
> said 'no more questions'. good ol' mark.

Would you care to elaborate?  How do you know that the lawyer's question was not
a
"trick question" in "the original culture"?  Is the alleged source to which you
refer Luke
20.40 and if so, why is that problematic here?


Mark
--------------------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre                mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
   Dept of Theology                tel: +44 121 414 7512
   University of Birmingham     fax: +44 121 414 6866
   Birmingham  B15 2TT  United Kingdom

http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
    The New Testament Gateway
    Mark Without Q
    Aseneth Home Page

To: David C. Hindley,

<< It appears to me Steven has decided that in spite of Farmer's stated
bias, it was worth his time to investigate what he says. But in the end,
SCM appears to think that Prof. Farmer's conclusions were too heavily
influenced by his personal bias to have sufficiently proved his thesis. >>

I would prefer to distance myself somewhat from your last remark. At least
I would not want to give the impression that merely because a person has a
"personal bias," that this necessarily means anything one way or the other
whether he (or she, in this case he) has or has not "proved his thesis."

Since Farmer seems to hold that the "truth" of the Synoptic Problem is
manifest, he has a need to explain why the Two-Source hypothesis has been
accepted by seemingly intelligent people despite the fact that (according
to Farmer) the Two-Source hypothesis is "grossly false." Thus for Farmer,
the REAL problem is NOT the Synoptic Problem, rather the REAL problem is
explaining the scholarly consensus. Thus the bulk of Farmer's 1964 book
(which in past messages I have misdated based on a revised edition) "The
Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis" is NOT the touting of the virtues of
the Griesbach hypothesis over the inadequacy of the Two-Source hypothesis,
but rather the bulk of Farmer's book is his documenting of the supposed
bias of scholars so as to explain why they accepted a hypothesis which
Farmer claims is "grossly false."

Perhaps Farmer felt like he faced an enormous psychological barrier, since
so many scholars at that time seemed to have accepted the Two-Source
hypothesis almost as an "assured finding" (or something very close to it)
of modern biblical research. Unfortunately, Farmer often went too far, for
example, he would strongly imply that scholars accepted the Two-Source
hypothesis "more or less uncritically" (190).

On the one hand, I would agree with Farmer that it is possible for
"nonscientific" factors to influence one's research. Yet on the other hand,
I would disagree with Farmer on his insistence that these "nonscientific"
factors were and are necessarily "determinative" of one's critical judgment
(181). IMO that is a hard one to prove. Obviously a hypothesis, which is
complementary towards other beliefs which one might have, is going to get a
better hearing than hypotheses which run counter to one's beliefs. But does
that mean that nonscientific factors are "determinative"?

Unfortunately, one almost gets the impression that Farmer and other
Griesbachians are conducting a propaganda war against the Two-Source
hypothesis. The notion of fair play seems to have been  thrown out the
window. Farmer's << he [Sanday] drank deeply from the cup of salvation
offered by the cult of "scientism" >> (181) is a classic example. But I was
also somewhat surprised by "A History of the Synoptic Problem" by David
Laird Dungan (1999) to read about Farmer's 1964 work:

<< Farmer ... documented the repeated occurrence of hypothetical
conjectures that began with no evidence whatsoever to support them and
later were turned into unquestioned axioms. He discovered eclectic and
nebulous hypotheses that were based on erroneous logic and maintained by
sloppy methodology. Most damning of all, Farmer documented the repeated use
of intimidation to suppress scholarly opposition when scientific arguments
failed >> (372).

Gosh ... this appears to be partisan rhetoric! Unfortunately, Dungan does
not substantiate this statement with footnotes, so it is unclear which
hypothetical conjectures began with no evidence whatsoever; it is unclear
which hypotheses were based on erroneous logic and sloppy methodology. And
it is unclear who used intimidation against whom. (Perhaps someone can help
me out here?) Did Streeter and few of his buddies go over Jameson's house
and threaten to beat him up or something?

None of this, IMO, proves anything one way or another about the Synoptic
Problem. But in my opinion, the way these scholars have conducted
themselves in this debate is an interesting area of research in itself!

-Steven Craig Miller
Alton, Illinois (USA)
scmiller@...

"... learning exists for people, and not people for the sake of learning;
we study antiquity in order to use it for our own purposes" (Hugh
Lloyd-Jones, "Blood for the Ghosts: Classical Influences in the Nineteenth
and Twentieth Centuries," 11).

At 11:19 AM 11/3/99 -0600, Steven Craig Miller wrote:
>I would prefer to distance myself somewhat from your last remark. At least
>I would not want to give the impression that merely because a person has a
>"personal bias," that this necessarily means anything one way or the other
>whether he (or she, in this case he) has or has not "proved his thesis."

It is unfortunate that the remaining seven paragraphs of your message,
however, which I deleted and which focused on a person's mindset or
"personal bias" to the exclusion of the merits of his view, would
lead one to the opposite impression.

Let me quote from the charter of Synoptic-L:

>Synoptic-L is an academic list devoted to scholarly discussion of the
>Synoptic Gospels. Its purpose is to provide a forum for questions relating
>to the exegesis of Matthew, Mark and / or Luke, using and analysing the
>standard critical tools and methods, with a special emphasis on the
>interrelationships among the Synoptics.

Synoptic-L is about the scholarly discussion of the Synoptic Gospels;
it is not about the psychology of Synoptic researchers.  Since the
psychology of Synoptic researchers means nothing "one way or the other"
about the truth of their theses, I would suggest that this extended
discussion throughout many messages is off-topic for the list.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson@...
Synoptic Problem Home Page   http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35

I've been following this thread for a bit, and find a lot compelling about the
notion of editorial
"fatigue", but in this particular example from Mark and Matthew, I really don't
see fatigue at
work.


> The point is re-inforced by the fact that, assuming Markan Priority over
Matthew as well
> as over Luke, Matthew does just the same thing: Mark 4.7 has the thorns
choking
> (SUMPNIGW) the seed, 'and it yielded no grain' (KAI KARPON OUK EDWKEN).
> In Matt 13.7 they only choke (PNIGW) the seed. In the Interpretation (Mark
4.19 //
> Matt 13.22), however, anxieties and love of riches choke (SUMPNIGW) the word,
> 'and it proves unfruitful' (KAI AKARPOS GINETAI).

Mark seems to be an author who is very interested in the use of parallelisms and
structural
elements in his story telling.  It is, in fact, far easier for me to imagine
Mark adding the detail
fruitlessness to the earlier portion of the story, so as to heighten the
emphasis on fruitfulness,
than it is to imagine Matthew, seeing this clear parallel, omitting a portion of
it.

If this were the case, though, it would argue in favor of an editorial process
operating in the
opposite direction suggested by the other "fatigues," no?

Jeff K.



Jeffrey H. Krantz
Church of the Advent
Mercer School of Theology
http://www.agapenetwork.org

tertia
die...

It would appear that there is a certain measure of disagreement among
subscribers to this list on the question of Markan priority. At first blush,
it seems strange that this should be so, since we all have the same texts in
front of us, all are intelligent, motivated by a sincere desire to reach the
truth, etc. Yet we all also know that the question involves complexity,
various levels of evidence, various approaches to the evaluation of that
evidence, etc. The purpose of the present exercise (a "line" hereby
initiated) is not to rehash tired arguments, pro and con, on the issue of
Markan priority, but rather to pursue consensus. More precisely, my plan is
to suggest an outline of levels to the question of Markan priority that will
reveal (1) where on the issue consensus might exist, even among the
proponents of diverse solutions to the Synoptic problem represented among us
(2) where precisely, (3) and on what precise grounds, consensus on the
question breaks down.

The whole will be done in sections (otherwise I will undoubtedly run foul of
some item of list protocol regarding length of postings), but I will outline
here the plan of the whole:

A. level of macro-considerations of Synoptic Gospel materials
B. level of Synoptic passion-narratives analysis
C. level of micro-analysis of three-fold and two-fold common Synoptic
traditions

Following these lettered elements will come a series of numbered elements,
which will provide as objective an analysis as possible of how two opposite
positions, one claiming, and the other rejecting Marcan priority (for the
moment, for the sake of simplicity, no consideration will be given to a
tertium quid, a la Brian Wilson), are generated from the above three levels
of analysis:

1. How supporters of Markan priority tend to proceed in their synthetic
evaluation of the evidence that emerges from the above three levels of
analysis.

2.  How supporters of Markan posteriority tend to proceed in their synthetic
evaluation of the evidence that emerges from the above three levels of
analysis.

3. (optional) A final section that would propose a "third way", by which a
fuller consensus might be reached (and the Second Coming ushered in).

A. Level of macro-considerations of Synoptic Gospel materials

     I will (perhaps) provoke some surprise here by conceding that the
evidence emerging from this level of analysis can be counted as an argument
in favor of Markan priority. (I will give you time here to re-read this
statement, and recover from shock). I am not in the habit of making this
concession, but that is only because I perceive of Markan priority as a
raging fire that is out of control (pardon the "inflammatory" rhetoric here)
and that needs no added fuel thrown upon it.

     The argument does not proceed with scientific or mathematical rigor, and
it requires that one also prescind from considerations of a text-pragmatic
character (which is not normally a healthy thing to do). But just
considering, at a macro level, the topics covered by the various Synoptic
Gospels, one could speak of a presumption that emerges legitimately from this
level of consideration, in favor of Markan priority. What kicks in here are
templates, deeply imbedded in the modern psyche, having to do (roughly) with
evolutionary theory and snow-ball effect. The details of this procedure could
undoubtedly be spelled out in greater detail, but I am banking on the hope
that broad-ranging consensus is already achieved at this level, so further
analysis would be superfluous for purposes of the present line.

     Just two further points.

1. I had originally contemplated naming this "level" "a priori", meaning, of
course, relatively a priori, that is, a priori with respect to a careful and
full examination of the Synoptic texts. But since "a priori" thinking, except
in rather confined circles to which I proudly belong, has something of a bad
name today (especially when set off against the heart warming modifier
"empirical") I deliberately opted for the more semantically neutral
designation "level of macro-considerations".

2. Beyond conceding this level of analysis to Markan priorists, I would
express my hunch (and it is only a hunch) that this level is by far the most
decisive factor in the vehemence with which the theory is often held and
propounded by those who hold and propound it. I will happily be informed
otherwise in the course of this discussion, if I turn out to be wrong here.

See you (i.e. "B" you) tomorrow (or whenever)!

Leonard Maluf

In a message dated 10/30/1999 10:41:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
cwconrad@... writes:

<< At 11:04 AM -0400 10/30/99, Maluflen@... wrote:
  >In a message dated 10/30/1999 9:13:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
  >ron.price@... writes:
  >
  ><< Thus for example, Mark's Parable of the Vineyard, Matthew's Judgement
  > of the Nations and Luke's Good Samaritan are all great stories. On the
  > widely accepted basis of Markan priority there is no evidence that any
  > of them are significantly dependent on written sources. >>
  >
  >It should be noted for the record that numerous scholars who maintain Markan
  >priority have suspected a pre-Markan written version of the parable of the
  >vineyard, as they have of most else that is found in Mark. Very perceptive,
I
  >might add.

  Although it must be added that whether there are any and/or how many there
  are has no probative value. Isn't that the way the argument goes?
   >>

Since I am at present in a generally concessionary mood, I would like to be
able to respond: touche, and let it go at that. Apart from the fact that the
expression looks odd without the acute accent, I cannot respond in this way,
in all honesty. No. I think in this case the witness of the scholars referred
to is very significant, precisely because evidence is forcing them to affirm
something that is in a way difficult for their overall Synoptic theory
(difficult, at least in the sense of aiding and abetting the enemy). On the
passage under discussion, consider, e.g., the comment of D. E. Nineham:

".. [Mk] 12:1 could well be an independent beginning, perhaps originally
introducing a series of parables from which St Mark has selected a single
example. (Cf. the plural parables in v.1)". In view of Matt 21:28 -- 22:14,
this is, I think, a remarkable statement for a Markan priorist to make.

Leonard Maluf

Stephen Carlson wrote:

>>Let me quote from the charter of Synoptic-L:

"Synoptic-L is an academic list devoted to scholarly discussion of the
Synoptic Gospels. Its purpose is to provide a forum for questions relating
to the exegesis of Matthew, Mark and / or Luke, using and analysing the
standard critical tools and methods, with a special emphasis on the
interrelationships among the Synoptics."

Synoptic-L is about the scholarly discussion of the Synoptic Gospels;
it is not about the psychology of Synoptic researchers.  Since the
psychology of Synoptic researchers means nothing "one way or the other"
about the truth of their theses, I would suggest that this extended
discussion throughout many messages is off-topic for the list.<<

Then again, what do the phrases "the exegesis of ..." and "analysing the
standard critical tools and methods ..." mean, if not to discuss exactly
this kind of issue? Bias of a researcher, whatever its source or nature,
will affect the way that they deal with, and interpret, the evidence at
hand.

As an observer looking in from the sidelines, it does appear that a good
many judgements "a posteriori" are being passed off as "a priori!" This
phenomenon does not appear to be limited to arguments offered by list
members, but in some cases the authors they quote themselves seem to be
doing it as well.

To be honest, I think that it would be to the list's advantage to allow a
discussion to continue relating to the logic being applied to the synoptic
debate. If we cannot eliminate bias, we should at the least know how -not-
to let it influence list discussions. Are the premises of a logical
construction valid? Have we adequately recognized the level of uncertainty
contained in any one premise? These are very important things to consider!

If we are not doing this, are we truly being "scholarly?"

Regards,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, OH USA

To: Stephen C. Carlson,

I would like it to be known that before I even dared to post a public reply
to this message of yours, that I first asked you to clarify if this
statement of yours was an official prohibition, or merely your personal
opinion. You have stated that it is your personal opinion, and thus I hope
it is now okay for me to respond here.

<< Synoptic-L is about the scholarly discussion of the Synoptic Gospels; it
is not about the psychology of Synoptic researchers. Since the psychology
of Synoptic researchers means nothing "one way or the other" about the
truth of their theses, I would suggest that this extended discussion
throughout many messages is off-topic for the list. >>

First of all, I feel that it is unfair of you to characterize my messages
as analyzing "the psychology of Synoptic researchers," rather I have been
analyzing the mode of argumentation which Synoptic researchers have used to
argue for the Synoptic Problem.

Second, you seem to make a big deal out of the fact that I claim that
analyzing the mode of argumentation does not necessarily lead one way or
another to the "truth" of their theses as proof that such messages are off
topic for this list. Really? I would like to offer a quotation from Farmer,
who (1994:10-11) writes:

<< ... it should be readily admitted that advocates of the Two-Gospel
Hypothesis realize their paradigm can be useful. For example, it can be
useful for anyone interested in combating racism, or poverty, or
oppression. It can be useful for anyone interested in the question of the
faithful witness of women in the ministry of Jesus. It can be useful for
anyone interested in the relevance of the Lord's Prayer, the Lord's Supper,
justification by faith, and the keys of the kingdom passage in Matthew.
This usefulness, however, does not settle the question of the validity of
this hypothesis. The validity of any Gospel hypothesis depends upon
arguments based on historical and literary evidence. >>

Farmer is here making the same type of distinction which I made in one of
my earlier messages, namely that there are aspects of the Synoptic Problem
which do not immediately hinge upon the validity of any hypothesis, and yet
there are relevant issues nonetheless.

You have posted your opinion that it would be inappropriate for me to
continue discussing Farmer's seminal work "The Synoptic Problem" on this
list. I wonder if you are being a little heavy handed here. In fact, I
wonder if the subject might not have died a natural death if you hadn't
replied. After all, if no one is interested in discussing Farmer's seminal
work with me, there would be no reason for me to post any messages to the
list on the subject. But I note that your name is listed as part of the
"advisory committee" for this list. This kind of puts me into an awkward
position. Who gets to make official decisions for this list? Am I being
prohibited from discussing Farmer's seminal work on this list? It is not my
desire to offend anyone, or to do anything which might be inappropriate for
this list, so I would like this point clarified. I certainly hope that you
are not trying to shut down a discussion of Farmer's seminal work merely
because you would personally prefer people not to look at his work critically.

I am cognizant that I'm merely a househusband (with no post-grad degrees)
and not a scholar. And thus, I consider my participation here an honor. It
is certainly not my desire to offend you, or anyone else on this list by my
participation. And I am more than willing to abide by any official
decision, indeed I am hesitant to continue until I am better informed as to
what is appropriate in this particular matter for this list.

-Steven Craig Miller
Alton, Illinois (USA)
scmiller@...

  From Luther's Large Catechism: "Why, do you think, is the world now so
full of unfaithfulness, shame, misery, and murder? It is because everyone
wishes to be his or her own master, be free from all authority, care
nothing for anyone, and do whatever he or she pleases. So God punishes one
knave by means of another" (BoC 386.154).

Just let me say that I very much enjoy SC Miller's messages. He is very
knowledgable and always polite and helpful.

I really don't know what has happened to you all. Is it the season (or the
end of the millenium)?
Hey! Relax!
:-)

Best wishes
     Wieland
       <><
--------------------
mailto:willker@...
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/

At 4:30 PM -0500 11/4/99, Maluflen@... wrote:
>In a message dated 10/30/1999 10:41:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>cwconrad@... writes:
>
><< At 11:04 AM -0400 10/30/99, Maluflen@... wrote:
> >In a message dated 10/30/1999 9:13:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> >ron.price@... writes:
> >
> ><< Thus for example, Mark's Parable of the Vineyard, Matthew's Judgement
> > of the Nations and Luke's Good Samaritan are all great stories. On the
> > widely accepted basis of Markan priority there is no evidence that any
> > of them are significantly dependent on written sources. >>
> >
> >It should be noted for the record that numerous scholars who maintain Markan
> >priority have suspected a pre-Markan written version of the parable of the
> >vineyard, as they have of most else that is found in Mark. Very perceptive,
>I
> >might add.
>
> Although it must be added that whether there are any and/or how many there
> are has no probative value. Isn't that the way the argument goes?
>  >>
>
>Since I am at present in a generally concessionary mood, I would like to be
>able to respond: touche, and let it go at that. Apart from the fact that the
>expression looks odd without the acute accent, I cannot respond in this way,
>in all honesty.

Well, it looks pretty good as "touché"--but unless you are using the right
operating system, that will appear as gobbledygook on your screen.

> No. I think in this case the witness of the scholars referred
>to is very significant, precisely because evidence is forcing them to affirm
>something that is in a way difficult for their overall Synoptic theory
>(difficult, at least in the sense of aiding and abetting the enemy). On the
>passage under discussion, consider, e.g., the comment of D. E. Nineham:
>
>".. [Mk] 12:1 could well be an independent beginning, perhaps originally
>introducing a series of parables from which St Mark has selected a single
>example. (Cf. the plural parables in v.1)". In view of Matt 21:28 -- 22:14,
>this is, I think, a remarkable statement for a Markan priorist to make.

(a) As for what you cited me saying in reply to your message of October 30,
I was not (only) trying to be amusing: I really do think that the only
"scholarly" opinion that matters is the one that is backed up by evidence
and argumentation which one finds convincing, certainly not the one that is
supported by the greatest number. BUT, just for the record, I note that
you've cited in this instance not "many scholars" but one.

(b) The question regards the use of the plural EN PARABOLAIS in Mk 12:1,
which reads, KAI HRXATO AUTOIS EN PARABOLAIS LALEIN: AMPELWNA ANQRWPOS
EFUTEUSEN ...
The parable sequence in chapter 4 of Mark begins at 4:2 with KAI EDIDASKEN
AUTOUS EN PARABOLAIS POLLA ... Although several more parables are later
told, the sequence is interrupted by what has long been regarded as a very
curious intercalated dialogue between Jesus and his disciples (not
uncommonly thought to belong to his thematic demonstration of the
obtuseness of the disciples) followed by an explanation of the parable of
the sower (an explanation that one might think unnecessary in itself). At
any rate, this curious little intercalated dialogue climaxes with Jesus
saying to the circle of disciples (4:11) hUMIN TO MUSTHRION DEDOTAI THS
BASILEIAS TOU QEOU; EKEINOIS DE TOIS EXW EN PARABOLAIS TA PANTA GINETAI.
Here too there has been comment--I can't remember by whom offhand--that
this plural EN PARABOLAIS is strange; I know that one suggestion offered
(and again I can't remember who made it) is that for Mark the phrase EN
PARABOLAIS doesn't mean "in parables" but "in riddles"--inasmuch as in this
particular dialogue what is underscored is not the helpfulness of parables
to get a supposedly difficult message across but rather the notion that
indirect teaching has as its purpose making sure that only the right
persons will understand it, namely, those who are intended to understand
it. This whole little segment (Mk 4:9-11) and its parallels in the other
Synoptic gospels is a fascinating snippet in itself (Frank Kermode built
much of his _The Genesis of Secrecy_ upon it. I've brought this up not
because I believe it necessarily "proves" anything about the plural EN
PARABOLAIS in Mk 12:1, but only because it is another factor to consider
before one reaches a decision whether Mark 12:1 is "an independent
beginning, perhaps originally introducing a series of parables ..." IF one
were satisfied that Mark uses EN PARABOLAIS not to mean "by use of
parables" but "in riddles," then that sense of the plural would be
intelligible in 12:1. I don't think this argument is conclusive, but I
think it is worth considering.

(c) One other little point: I guess I've always assumed that each of the
synoptists draws upon oral tradition and that at least two of them drew
upon one or more written documents--and also (some might not agree with
this) that each of the synoptists composed directly transitions between
pericopae stitched together in the larger fabric of a gospel narrative and
probably also composed some new narrative units that did NOT exist in
earlier tradition (I've thought that Mark may have composed the story of
the man with the withered hand in the opening verses of chapter 3, although
I know there are alternative views on that). 12:1 is a transitional
introduction of the new pericope, whether Mark got the pericope of the
vineyard from oral tradition or from one of the other synoptists. Redaction
critics have always assumed that each of the synoptists is genuinely
creative in weaving together a fabric out of very disparate oral
traditional and perhaps written sources and interspersing within the larger
narrative numerous items pointing in the direction of this particular
evangelist's way of reading the traditional stories. There is, of course,
nothing new in this perspective; I only meant to note that I've always
assumed that Mark 12:1 and 12:2 were distinct pieces combined for the
purposes of continuing the narrative sequence of Jesus' confrontation with
Israel's Jerusalem leadership begun with chapter 11.






Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@...

On 4 Nov 99, at 15:16, Maluflen@... wrote (much omitted)

> 2. Beyond conceding this level of analysis to Markan priorists, I would
> express my hunch (and it is only a hunch) that this level is by far the
> most decisive factor in the vehemence with which the theory is often held
> and propounded by those who hold and propound it. I will happily be
> informed otherwise in the course of this discussion, if I turn out to be
> wrong here.

I think for me it is not either macro or micro but rather the issue of the
one in the light of the other.  One of the things that, to me, remains
convincing about the case for Markan Priority is the combination of
two elements, the first of which you might call "macro" and the second
of which you might call "micro": (a) much of what is available in Mark
is also available in Matthew and / or Luke and (b) those individual
elements which are unique to Mark (Blind Man of Bethsaida; Deaf
Mute; Man Running Away Naked) make better sense as Matthean
and Lukan mutual omissions than they do as Markan additions.

(b) thus helps us to deal with (a): our hunch about the macro level is
apparently confirmed by the most plausible scenario at the micro level.

Mark


--------------------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre                mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
   Dept of Theology                tel: +44 121 414 7512
   University of Birmingham     fax: +44 121 414 6866
   Birmingham  B15 2TT  United Kingdom

http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
    The New Testament Gateway
    Mark Without Q
    Aseneth Home Page

Wieland Willker wrote:
>
> Just let me say that I very much enjoy SC Miller's messages. He is very
> knowledgable and always polite and helpful.
>

I second that.

J.

--
______________________________________________

taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

Jack Kilmon
jkilmon@...

http://www.historian.net

sharing a meal for free.
http://www.thehungersite.com/

>Would you care to elaborate?  How do you know that the lawyer's question
was not a
>"trick question" in "the original culture"?  Is the alleged source to
which you refer Luke
>20.40 and if so, why is that problematic here?

1) the lawyer's question and the resopnse were already part of a discussion
within judaism.
otherwise, the answer could not have been drawn out of the questioner like
we see in luke 10. there, jesus doesn't answer but asks two questions,
which lead to an acceptable answer. good rabbi technique to a real
discussion as the new 'rabbi' in town.
(though as i've said before, the form of the lawyer's question has been
rewritten in luke to fit jesus' final comment, but matthew preserves the
pristine wording [cludgy greek (what be commandment big?), but slick,
culturally fitting, mishnaic hebrew (mahu klal gadol?)], probably still in
the source Luke used.)

as for documentation, besides the luke 10 text which on its own would seem
to beg such a background to be understandable, we have testam. of issachar
5.2, dan 5.3, and philo (Spec. 2.63?), that put shma and love your neighbor
together, and a rabbi akiva quote (early 2nd cent AD, but pro-bar-kocha and
anti-christian as regards messianism).
in mark it is in the mouth of jesus as though original with him. that makes
good sense as a rewrite for a roman audience who do not know the cultural
background. afterall, it represents jesus teaching, too, so mark is even
true to his sources.
[luke then came along and correctly reconstructed the whole cultural
background, getting rid of a dominical teaching that gets jesus out of a
non-squeeze?! (read this ironically, it's the opposite of what i believe to
be probable.)]

2) the problem is not in lu 20.40, but in mark 12.34-35 and based on luke
10.28. if the luke 10 version of this episode is much more culturally
appropriate, as noted above, then mark has inserted the story and then
tacked on 'they dared not ask any more questions' from the previous story,
where it had fit much better, resolving a true, known point of
confrontation. the tax question and resurrection question were true thorns,
and jesus' answers admirable and surprising. not so, mark 12.28-34, which
was cultural acceptability at its highest and hardly the kind of deft
'sword-fighting' that would intimidate others in silence!
    and in mark 12.34 the lawyer's comment is called an 'answer', while the
lawyer is only repeating, evaluating and commending jesus. an 'answer' fits
luke's version at 10.25-28, orthws apekrithhs, where it is a real answer to
a real question. thus, we probably have a true fatigue in mark 12.34.
   and then jesus 'answers' again in verse 35. neither is this a response to
a question. and right after a statement about no questions. not a smooth
transition.
(yes, i'm aware that apokitheis gets used in circumstances without explicit
question-answer. still, question-answer is its natural context.
here, in context 12.34 qualifies as 'fatigue', echoing a much more
appropriate orthws apekrithhs,
12.35 is just a bump.)

erroso
randall buth

>on which Luke omits the details in the story and then shows fatigue
>when he reproduces them in the interpetation?

this misses the point.
    if there was no omission, there is no fatigue. the only way one can call
this an omission is to assume that luke was obliged to produce the kinds of
details like we see in mark.
    now, if the details were contradictory (carlson's point 3), then we
would have a case for fatigue and omission. but if they are logically
consistent, then there is no case for omission and no case for fatigue.
here, 8.4-15, luke's story reads fine as is. therefore, no evidence of
omission or fatigue. [whether mark is fuller is is logically irrelevant,
and as mentioned, literarily suspect. e.g. mark's OT citations are
regularly longer, like we see here and as a parallel development in
multiple stories within rabbinic literature.]

(as for mark's getting details from later in the same story, all that would
require is a reading of the pericope before rewriting it in his words. if
fact the amount of rewriting that is obvious in all our gospels requires
such an assumption and something you and i agree on when we see matthew
doing that with mark. details float up and down within pericopes without
any problem, especially when you consider that a later detail will be more
recent if the whole story was just read.)

braxot
randall buth

In a message dated 11/5/1999 9:33:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,
M.S.GOODACRE@... writes:

<< On 4 Nov 99, at 15:16, Maluflen@... wrote (much omitted)

  > 2. Beyond conceding this level of analysis to Markan priorists, I would
  > express my hunch (and it is only a hunch) that this level is by far the
  > most decisive factor in the vehemence with which the theory is often held
  > and propounded by those who hold and propound it. I will happily be
  > informed otherwise in the course of this discussion, if I turn out to be
  > wrong here.

<< I think for me it is not either macro or micro but rather the issue of the
  one in the light of the other.  One of the things that, to me, remains
  convincing about the case for Markan Priority is the combination of
  two elements, the first of which you might call "macro" and the second
  of which you might call "micro": (a) much of what is available in Mark
  is also available in Matthew and / or Luke and (b) those individual
  elements which are unique to Mark (Blind Man of Bethsaida; Deaf
  Mute; Man Running Away Naked) make better sense as Matthean
  and Lukan mutual omissions than they do as Markan additions.>>

The absence of the "material" of the Blind Man of Bethsaida, the Deaf Mute,
and the Man Running Away Naked in Matt and Luke would come under my
definition of "macro-considerations", which I have already gallantly conceded
to Markan priorists. (Actually, more precisely, the last of the three falls
under "B"). I mean something different by "micro-considerations", which will
be explained more fully in my "C" posting. However, since you have raised the
point, I don't see the logic of it at all, at least until you can explain to
me WHY you think, say, the "healing" stories make better sense as Matthean
and Lukan omissions than they do as Markan additions. I certainly do not see
this as self-evident, and personally would count these as arguments, within
(my definition of) the macro category, in favor of Markan posteriority (and
especially so in the sense of an argument against the 2 SH, where Matt and
Luke are supposedly using Mark independently). So in the light of the
evidence raised by Mark G., I would have to revise my summary of the evidence
at this level of consideration: it points to Markan priority in general, but
not in every respect. I am willing, however, to be extra generous here and
leave my original concession virtually intact: at the level of
macro-considerations, the balance of the evidence points in the direction of
Markan priority. Don't look a gift horse.... !

Leonard Maluf

At 02:33 PM 11/5/99 EST, Maluflen@... wrote:
>I am willing, however, to be extra generous here and
>leave my original concession virtually intact: at the level of
>macro-considerations, the balance of the evidence points in the direction of
>Markan priority.

I would tend to agree with you that the direction of this
evidence tends to Markan priority.  However, direction is
only half the picture, we need to look at the weight of
the evidence.  How much weight can we really assign to the
fact that Matthew has the Sermon on the Mount, for example,
but Mark does not?

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson@...
Synoptic Problem Home Page   http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35

At 03:16 PM 11/4/99 EST, Maluflen@... wrote:
>A. Level of macro-considerations of Synoptic Gospel materials
...
>2. Beyond conceding this level of analysis to Markan priorists, I would
>express my hunch (and it is only a hunch) that this level is by far the most
>decisive factor in the vehemence with which the theory is often held and
>propounded by those who hold and propound it. I will happily be informed
>otherwise in the course of this discussion, if I turn out to be wrong here.

I can't really address the "vehemence", but I think that there are
a number of factors that explains why most people hold to Markan
priority.  The simplest reason for most folks is that it seems, on
first blush, improbable that anyone would want to copy Matthew and
omit the Sermon on the Mount and the infancy of Jesus.  Of course,
the simplest reason is not always the best thought out, but it appears
to be a commonly accepted reason.

Among those who have compared the gospels in Greek, Mark's relatively
poorer Greek appears to those people as being cleaned up by Matthew
and Luke rather than Matthew's and/or Luke's Greek was brought down a
notch or two in quality.  (I suppose this is the micro consideration
for your part C.)

In my experience, it has been these two reasons, Mark's omission of
valuable content and Mark's poorer Greek, that have been especially
persuasive to most Markan prioritists.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson@...
Synoptic Problem Home Page   http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35

To: Stephen C. Carlson,

<< In my experience, it has been these two reasons, Mark's omission of
valuable content and Mark's poorer Greek, that have been especially
persuasive to most Markan prioritists. >>

I would like to expand on this slightly and offer four major reasons for
Markan priority:

(1) Argument from Order: It often seems easier to explain the derivations
of Matthew and Luke's order as redactional changes to Mark's order than it
is to explain Luke and Mark's order as redactional changes to Matthew or
Matthew and Mark's order as redactional changes to Luke.

(2) Argument from Christology: Matthew and Luke have a higher Christology
than Mark. In addition, Matthew and Luke often appear to be correcting
Mark's story in order to put Jesus in a better light.

(3) Argument from Greek Grammar: Matthew and Luke often appear to be
improving on Mark's poorer Greek prose.

(4) Argument from special content: It is hard to imagine why Mark would
want to exclude from his gospel: (a) the "Christmas" story, (b) the many
non-Markan sayings of Jesus, such as the "Sermon on the Mount" and
especially the "Lord's Prayer," and (c) the post-Empty-Tomb Resurrection
stories.

-Steven Craig Miller
Alton, Illinois (USA)
scmiller@...

"The use of argumentation implies that one has renounced resorting to force
alone, that value is attached to gaining the adherence of one's
interlocutor by means of reasoned persuasion, and that one is not regarding
him [or her] as an object, but appealing to his [or her] free judgment.
Recourse to argumentation assumes the establishment of a community of
minds, which, while it lasts, excludes the use of violence" (Ch. Perelman
and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, "The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation," 55).

At 12:47 AM 11/6/99 -0500, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

>I can't really address the "vehemence", but I think that there are
>a number of factors that explains why most people hold to Markan
>priority.  The simplest reason for most folks is that it seems, on
>first blush, improbable that anyone would want to copy Matthew and
>omit the Sermon on the Mount and the infancy of Jesus.  Of course,
>the simplest reason is not always the best thought out, but it appears
>to be a commonly accepted reason.

I agree that this is a line of reasoning that one frequently hears, but it
involves certain unspoken assumptions that seem to me very problematic.
There are, after all, a number of reasons why a person will copy an earlier
document. The secondary author may intend to supplement, to correct, to
reinterpret, or to replace the earlier document. These are only examples.
There are, of course, other reasons why an author will write again
something that has already been written. If, as seems to me most likely, in
the case of the gospels the secondary (or tertiary) authors understood that
the documents that they used as sources would continue to be available and
read, there would be no reason to copy everything. One would then copy only
those elements that were related to the purpose of the new document. The
author may want to provide additional information. The author may want to
set the materials in a new framework. The possibilities are many. The
point, however, is that if Mark were the secondary (or tertiary) author and
wrote, understanding that Matthew's gospel would continue to be available
to and read by the audience for which he wrote, there would be little
reason for him to include every detail, even details as important as the
birth narratives, the Sermon on the Mount, etc. Indeed, on the two source
(modified Griesbach) hypothesis, the audience would have this material
available in two versions already (Matthew and Luke) and Mark might think
there was no need for a third version of everything. The unspoken
assumption here is that Mark (if secondary) would be writing to replace
Matthew. This is by no means clear and, I think, it is an unlikely
scenario. Even on the traditional two document hypothesis one need not
assume (and most people don't assume) that Matthew and Luke intended to
replace Mark's gospel. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, none of the
major synoptic theories explicitly argues that a secondary or tertiary
author wrote with the intent that his gospel would replace the earlier
one(s), that is that they would no longer be used.

>Among those who have compared the gospels in Greek, Mark's relatively
>poorer Greek appears to those people as being cleaned up by Matthew
>and Luke rather than Matthew's and/or Luke's Greek was brought down a
>notch or two in quality.  (I suppose this is the micro consideration
>for your part C.)

I continue to be puzzled by this line or reasoning as well but admit that
one often hears it. There is an abundance of evidence, both from the
ancient world and from the work of modern authors (if one wants to argue by
analogy) to show that secondary authors sometimes improve and sometimes
worsen the language and style of the source documents that they use. The
idea that a secondary author will always, or by definition, be a superior
author seems to me incredible. Certainly those of us who teach can attest
that occasionally we find a student who has not significantly improved the
language, style or argument of the texts used as sources. Again, the
argument that Mark's text is "more primitive" (assuming "primitive" to be
inferior) or "rough," etc. contains the unspoken assumption that "later is
always better." If it is true that Matthew (or Luke) is a better author
than Mark this does not prove that Mark is the earlier document. If it's
true it proves no more than that Mark doesn't write as well (by the
standards we have selected) as Matthew or Luke.

>In my experience, it has been these two reasons, Mark's omission of
>valuable content and Mark's poorer Greek, that have been especially
>persuasive to most Markan prioritists.

This has been my experience too. While I don't want to presume to speak for
him, perhaps what Leonard meant by the "vehemence" of some arguments for
Markan priority is the way in which, even when the arguments are shown to
be problematic or fallacious, they continue to be cited as the most
compelling reasons for the conclusion.

Of course, the demonstration that an argument is fallacious or defective
does not mean that the theory it is cited to support is wrong. It does
mean, however, that the argument used in support does little to indicate
that the theory is right either. If the theory of Markan priority is based
on a foundation of evidence, these are not the strongest building blocks in
the foundation (cf. Psalm 118:22).

So, in my view, these two arguments, although one continues to hear them
frequently, offer little support for the two document hypothesis.

Stephen Carlson wrote -
>
>I think that there are a number of factors that explains why most
>people hold to Markan priority.  The simplest reason for most folks is
>that it seems, on first blush, improbable that anyone would want to
>copy Matthew and omit the Sermon on the Mount and the infancy of Jesus.

Thomas Longstaff replied -
>
>... So, in my view, these two arguments, although one continues to hear
>them  frequently, offer little support for the two document hypothesis.
>

I think the (subconscious?) assumption above by Thomas Longstaff that
the two document hypothesis is the sum-total of Markan priority, points
to the real reason why most people think they hold to Markan priority.
The two document hypothesis (not "Markan priority") is the synoptic
hypothesis most people were first taught, and the hypothesis with which
they subconsciously compare all other attempts at solving the Synoptic
Problem. Basically, most people understand "Markan priority" in terms of
the two document hypothesis, and equate these.

In fact "Markan priority" is not merely the two document hypothesis, but
a class of synoptic hypotheses. Consequently it is doubtful whether it
is meaningful to talk of evidence in support of "Markan priority", or
against it,  generally. For example, under the umbrella of Markan
priority, there are synoptic hypotheses in which Mark chooses to omit
the Sermon. See, for instance, Harry Fleddermann's synoptic hypothesis
in H. T. Fleddermann "Mark and Q" (Leuven, 1995) pages 214-215. On
Fleddermann's view, Q contained the Sermon, and Mark omitted the Sermon
when he used Q, whereas Matthew and Luke each copied the Sermon from Q
as well as using the Gospel of Mark which was written prior to both of
them.  So omission of the Sermon by Mark is perfectly consistent with
Markan priority, not evidence against it.

If most people came to understand that "Markan priority" means a class
of various synoptic hypotheses, they might realize that it is an idea
which is of doubtful usefulness in solving the Synoptic Problem. They
might instead begin to see the point of considering one synoptic
hypothesis at a time, not a whole class of them, and of testing one
hypothesis at a time against the data in the synoptic gospels.

Best wishes,
BRIAN WILSON

E-MAIL: brian@...        HOMEPAGE
SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson,
10 York Close, Godmanchester,          http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk

I am grateful for the contributions to this line by Mark Goodacre and Stephen
Carlson, but since its stated purpose was to aim at identifying areas, or
levels, of consensus on the question of Markan priority, I should note that
neither of these postings have in any way called into question my concession
to Markan priorists of arguments based on "macro-considerations of Synoptic
materials". I do sense the presence of some concern that Markan priority may
somehow be suffering damnation by faint praise from my posting; nevertheless,
this fairly broad-ranging consensus should be noted and enjoyed by all (while
it lasts).

In a message dated 11/6/1999 12:55:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,
scarlson@... writes:

<< At 03:16 PM 11/4/99 EST, Maluflen@... wrote:
  >A. Level of macro-considerations of Synoptic Gospel materials
  ...
  >2. Beyond conceding this level of analysis to Markan priorists, I would
  >express my hunch (and it is only a hunch) that this level is by far the
most
  >decisive factor in the vehemence with which the theory is often held and
  >propounded by those who hold and propound it. I will happily be informed
  >otherwise in the course of this discussion, if I turn out to be wrong here.

[Stephen]
  <>

This is, of course, precisely the kind of thing I meant by
"macro-considerations" of Synoptic materials which most interpret (and, under
limited conditions, I am willing to concede) as supporting Markan priority.
My original reservation regarding even this concession should however be
recalled: I said that one must ignore what I called "text-pragmatic"
considerations in order for this argument to have any real validity. Without
using this term, Thomas Longstaff, in response to Stephen's posting, has now
developed this idea in a way that can hardly be improved upon.
I am still willing to affirm, however, that macro-considerations of Synoptic
materials -- on balance, and without regard to text-pragmatic considerations
-- yield something of an argument in favor of Markan priority.

[Stephen]
  << Among those who have compared the gospels in Greek, Mark's relatively
  poorer Greek appears to those people as being cleaned up by Matthew
  and Luke rather than Matthew's and/or Luke's Greek was brought down a
  notch or two in quality.  (I suppose this is the micro consideration
  for your part C.)>>

It will enter into part C, but is not its major constitutive element. This
argument too has now been treated effectively by Thomas Longstaff. But I
agree with both him and you that the argument is important for a lot of
people -- even though I also strongly concur with the reservations regarding
its validity expressed by Thomas. This feature is also indirectly related to
"text-pragmatic" considerations that I have allowed myself to prescind from
for the moment in order to achieve some level of consensus.

Leonard Maluf

At 07:12 PM 11/6/99 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
>Stephen Carlson wrote -
> >
> >I think that there are a number of factors that explains why most
> >people hold to Markan priority.  The simplest reason for most folks is
> >that it seems, on first blush, improbable that anyone would want to
> >copy Matthew and omit the Sermon on the Mount and the infancy of Jesus.
>
>Thomas Longstaff replied -
> >
> >... So, in my view, these two arguments, although one continues to hear
> >them  frequently, offer little support for the two document hypothesis.
> >
>
>I think the (subconscious?) assumption above by Thomas Longstaff that
>the two document hypothesis is the sum-total of Markan priority, points
>to the real reason why most people think they hold to Markan priority.
>The two document hypothesis (not "Markan priority") is the synoptic
>hypothesis most people were first taught, and the hypothesis with which
>they subconsciously compare all other attempts at solving the Synoptic
>Problem. Basically, most people understand "Markan priority" in terms of
>the two document hypothesis, and equate these.

Well, who knows? Perhaps it was my subconscious. I'll leave psychoanalysis
to those more skilled in it than I.

More seriously, Brian makes a good point. Of course Markan priority and the
two document hypothesis are not synonymous and it may have been careless of
me not to make that separation more clearly than I did in my responses. I
trust that those who know more of my work (which may not be very many
people) will not think that I don't know any better.

In context, I intended to respond to what I understood to be comments about
the "majority view." Stephen Carlson wrote, "I think that there are a
number of factors that explains why most
people hold to Markan priority." I had no quarrel with that statement and
since (as Brian seems to agree) most of the people who hold to Markan
priority do so in the context of the two document hypothesis my comments
were directed against that widely held view.

But I accept Brian's correction, so let me agree that my comments were a
critique of arguments frequently offered in support of Markan priority. My
criticism of these arguments is a criticism of the two document hypothesis
only to the degree that the criticism is directed against what I take to be
the essential first step of the two document hypothesis, namely the
conclusion that Mark is the earliest gospel and that Matthew and Luke have
used Mark as a source.

So, let me be more precise: what I should have said was this: "So, in my
view, these two arguments, although one continues to
hear  them  frequently, offer little support for the priority of Mark and,
therefore, little support for the widely held two document hypothesis
either." I hope that this is helpful to those who did not understand the
gist of my critique of the arguments so frequently used in support of
Markan priority.

I apologize if people thought that I was making a blanket attack on the two
document hypothesis. I wasn't. I was criticizing arguments frequently used
in support of what I take to be the one of the weakest points in that
synoptic solution, namely the use of such arguments for the priority of
Mark. Brian is correct. To the degree that my criticism is valid, it weighs
against other views which include the priority of Mark as well.

Thomas R. W. Longstaff
Crawford Family Professor of Religious Studies
Director, African-American Studies
Colby College
Waterville, ME 04901 USA

Apologies if I posted something similar to this before, but I'd be
interested in knowing who among Synoptic-L members (apart from MarkG and
StephenC) will be attending the upcoming SBL in Boston. Please reply to
me **off-list**.

Yours,

Jeffrey
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...