... David, Certainly Throckmorton s Gospel Parallels agrees with you here. However I m not so sure. Matthew has a near-duplication in Mt 12:31a and 12:32a,Message 1 of 4 , Jul 3View SourceDavid Inglis wrote:
> ... Mk 3:29a is actually a parallel to Mt 12:32b, so that, after theDavid,
> table, Burkett is incorrect when he says that Luke "includes only the material
> that Matthew would have added to Mark (Matt 12:32ab)." Therefore, aLk is not,
> as he suggests, just following "Matthew's additions." Could someone please
Certainly Throckmorton's "Gospel Parallels" agrees with you here.
However I'm not so sure. Matthew has a near-duplication in Mt 12:31a and
12:32a, and I think it more likely that Mk 3:29a parallels the former
because they both include 'blaspheme', 'spirit' and 'no forgiveness'.
Nevertheless I don't understand Burkett's case. Why shouldn't Luke
occasionally pick out and copy texts from Matthew that were not derived from
Thanks for the google book reference. I note that Burkett posits *two*
unattested documents, namely Q and proto-Mark. Also he tries to explain the
MAs by assuming they were present in proto-Mark. But even if he could
justify the existence of proto-Mark, it is highly unlikely that Mark would
have gone to the trouble of changing the MAs, if only because that would in
many cases involve replacing good Greek by somewhat cruder Greek.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To: Synoptic In Response To: Ron Price On: Proto-Mark From: Bruce Ron recently remarked, in rejecting a theory of Mark as a descendant of a more linguisticallyMessage 2 of 4 , Jul 5View SourceTo: Synoptic
In Response To: Ron Price
Ron recently remarked, in rejecting a theory of Mark as a descendant of a
more linguistically normal proto-Mark,
"if only because that would in many cases involve replacing good Greek by
somewhat cruder Greek."
Exactly. The Matthean Prioritists sometimes explain this by saying that Mark
intentionally wrote down to a vulgar audience, and for this purpose used
inferior Greek. That is, Mark is a street version of Matthew. The street
preachers among us can say if they find themselves doing this. Assuming that
they do (that in informal situations in Hawaii, for example, they would
lapse into pidgin), it remains to be convincingly demonstrated that the text
of Mark is aimed at a subliterate audience.
I find that unlikely. What I do seem to see, taking Mark by itself for the
moment, is the intrusion of vulgar elements (popular elements) into an
originally less vulgar Gospel. One possibility that occurs to me is the
Story of the Pigs (the exorcism frame story is almost an excuse to hang the
Pigs on). The Pigs looks to me like the kind of thing you could look up in a
folklore motif index, and find more of. I can just hear Peter recounting it
I would class it as a Comeuppance Tale. Are there others in the literature
of that period? Stories where the seemingly superior party is fooled by his
own cleverness? I think I can see one or two in the late Apocryphal Gospels
and Acts. There are also exact parallels in, say, the 04c Dzwo Jwan (a very
long and well written classical Chinese text), all of which champion
socially lower persons against their murderers or oppressors, certain
socially higher persons.
E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Not so sure it is an error: Mark has a then b Matthew has a then d then c then b Luke has c then d (need to watch sons of men / son of man to follow this one).Message 3 of 4 , Jul 8View SourceNot so sure it is an error:
Mark has a then b
Matthew has a then d then c then b
Luke has c then d
(need to watch sons of men / son of man
to follow this one).
David Mealand, University of Edinburgh
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.