I appreciate the literary analysis of the short note from David Peabody. It
exactly the kind of control of texts that I think leads to understanding
relationships and useful exchange of perspectives.
PALIN and KAT IDIAN turn out to be signature words that help distinguish
our synoptic writers.
PALIN, first of all, is a Marcanism, 27 times in the Mark, depending on
who is counting. Recognizing and tracing literary idiosyncrasies is an
important piece of the synoptic data.
As Peabody would agree, it is remarkable that Luke uses
PALIN 3xx in the gospel and 5xx in Acts, but never once parallel to Mark.
was not against using PALIN but none of Mark's 27 occurrences carried over
to Luke, even in contexts where he has a parallel sentence (Lk 8:40//Mk
Lk 18:31//Mk 10:32 [otherwise tight], Lk 20:1//Mk 11:27, Lk 20:11//Mk 12:4
has a blatant Hebraism here, but with Greek word order! (so much for the
imitation of LXX' hypothesis, and if unskillful, then who is pulling whose
Lk 22:58//Mk 14:70, Lk 23:21//Mk 15:13)
Matthew on the other hand has 16 PALIN of which 5 are shared with Mark.
(Mt 19:24//Mk 10:24, Mt 21:36//Mk 12:4 [close wording], Mt 26:42//Mk 14:39
[close wording], Mt 26:43//Mk 14:40 [close wording], Mt 26:72//14:70 [close
The closely worded overlaps raise the perennial question, who
is copying whom? Peabody's case is suggestive, here, because in five more
cases where the wording is close and either Matthew or Mark have PALIN,
but not both, it is Mark 4 times with PALIN and Matthew once
(Marcan PALIN with close wording: Mk 7:14//Mt 15:10, Mk 10:32//Mt 20:17,
Mk 11:3//Mt 21:3 [additionally Mt has Mk's EUQUS here!], Mk 14:70//26:73.
Mt PALIN with close wording: Mt 27:50//Mk 15:37). Either Mark is adding or
Matt is dropping.
Assuming that an author would not want to delete PALIN where the wording
was otherwise being retained, it might appear that Mark is the one adding
PALIN to Mt, doing that in places where literary copying is going on.
Unfortunately, nine against six in closely worded contexts, is not
to show who is initially introducing PALIN to these synoptic texts.
(Yes, one could delete the 5 shared PALIN and produce a
statistic of Mark 4 against Matthew 1.) Did Mt drop four PALIN or did Mark
drop 1? When placed against the bigger picture of either Mark dropping
11 of Mt's 16, or Matthew dropping 22 of Mark's 27, both are intrinsically
possible/probable. Both authors did drop alot of PALIN.
Both authors have uniquely added PALIN but Mark's is stylistically
more dominant. His 27 is closer to 42* in comparing raw frequency
with Matthew. That is, PALIN is more a Marcanism than a
Mattheanism and the five shared occurrences can be hypothesized to
be Mark's with the 4 closely worded Matthean deletions being attributed
to the Matthew's general reducing of 22 out of 27 Marcan PALIN. Thus,
Marcan influence on Matthew with PALIN is still a good hypothesis, though
not diagnostic by itself. NB: the Marcan EUQUS, which turns up in one of
the texts above, is diagnostic of the influence flowing from Mark to
Matthew. EUQUS is a strong Marcanism and never occurs in Matthew
except where parallel with Mark. (Mt writes EUQEWS on his own.)
Luke is the odd man out in the above discussion. Luke never has a PALIN
from either Mark or Matthew, though one of Luke's PALIN is triple tradition
(Lk 6:43) and the other two are double (Lk 13:20, 23:20).
A very satisfying hypothesis for this data would be that Luke used a
source(s) with few PALIN, thus he did not use either Mark nor Matthew.
Mark then used either that same source as Luke, or Luke, and added
many Marcan PALIN. Matthew used both Mark and this shared source
with Luke (and Mark), keeping 5/27 of Mark's PALIN but adding some
more PALIN (11) at a rate 2 and 1/2 times less than Mark.
(I personally think that Mark and Luke shared a long gospel source.
I don't know which number this is on Carlson's number grid, but I don't
remember seeing this listed among his current theories. It would be a
of the Lindsey-Flusser Lucan priority, i.e., a Lucan independence,
chronologically prior if Luke = 60-62 CE and Mark = 64-70 CE.)
[[The above hypothesis could be rewritten: Luke; then Matthew sharing the
source, adding 16 PALIN; Mark then sharing source plus Mt, keeping 5/16
PALIN and adding 22 more, at a rate 2 1/2 more than Mt himself. Relatively
plausible for the PALIN data only, and not exhaustive. I still haven't
sure Lucanisms in Mark, or vice versa. But there are Marcanisms in Matthew
and Mattheanisms lacking in Mark. In any case, neither Streeter nor Farrar
would be congruent with the PALIN, both would need to ignore as 'static'.]]
Randall Buth, PhD
Director, Biblical Language Center
Director, Biblical Studies in Israel
Hebrew University, Rothberg International School
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...