Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] Re: [Synoptic-L] On The Earliest Markan Narrative

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    Bruce: And in the Markan story, or its oldest archaeological layer, Herod also sees Jesus as a serious (political) threat; Mk 6:14 King Herod heard of
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 21, 2009
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Bruce:
      And in the Markan story, or its oldest archaeological layer, Herod also sees
      Jesus as a serious (political) threat; Mk 6:14 "King Herod heard
      of it[Jesus's preaching around the countryside], for Jesus's name had
      become known." In Matthew, that Markan theme persists. Matthew respected
      Mark as the authority text, and though he was concerned to improve it,
      he also incorporated it.



      Leonard:
      In Matt 2, Matthew is not “incorporating” Markan text; he is gratuitously
      constructing text heavy with a perspective that is fundamental for
      his Gospel, and thus of extreme importance both to him and to his audience.
      The perspective in question is that the rubrics King/Shepherd/Ruler of
      Israel express the theological essence of Jesus’ earthly mission. Moreover,
      Mark 6:14 is referring to a different Herod, who was not in fact a king.
      It is likely in compensation for his omission of the Herod-the-King story
      known from Matt 2 that Mark gives Herod Antipas the title of “king” here,
      just as Mark (alone) has the “Herodians” conspiring with the Pharisees
      in 3:6 to put Jesus to death. It is likewise Mark’s omission of Matt 2
      that has necessitated Mark’s (unique) reference to Nazareth as Jesus’
      place of origin in 1:9. The argumentative essence of Matt 2
      (cf. Stendahl’s Quis et unde?) is thus scattered through the opening
      chapters of Mark, who chooses to begin with the Baptism of Jesus a
      Gospel which will end with his death-p
      lus-hint-of-resurrection, in line
      with good Pauline sacramental paraenesis (cf. Rom 6:3-4), for his
      Roman audience.



      Bruce:
      Hence we get these Davidic Messiah themes alongside more obviously
      transcendent Messianic ideas. Matthew is a mixed text, and must be
      read patiently, respecting all elements of the mixture (his successors,
      Luke and then John, get the new message with increasing clarity, and
      with increasingly less textual interference from inherited material).



      Leonard:
      It is truly (and literally) preposterous to try to make the case
      that Jesus as Messianic ruler of Israel in the Gospel of Matthew
      is a left-over perspective from the earliest layer of Mark. The opposite
      is clearly the case. Matthew is making his own, very deliberate case for
      Jesus as acting Messiah of Israel during his ministry. Mark’s text,
      written for Gentiles who are much more impressed with the idea that
      Jesus is “Son of God,” (cf. 1:1, in some manuscripts, but in any case 1:11)
      retains some traces of Matthew’s project. If Matthew is also concerned
      to stress that Jesus is a certain kind of Jewish Messiah, as opposed to other
      available conceptions – a kind that was also predicted in prophecy
      (cf. Matt 12:15-20; 21:4-5) — this is because he, and he alone of the
      Evangelists, thinks very realistically about Jesus as earthly ruler of Israel.

      Although it is true that Jesus’ human genealogy becomes less and
      less relevant for Christian Gospel audiences as time=2
      0progresses,
      one should not dismiss too cavalierly the genealogy of Jesus as
      given by Matthew. It would have been nice for the first-century
      author of Hebrews, and his argument that Jesus is High Priest,
      if Jesus could have been artificially endowed with genealogical
      descent from Levi (Aaron). Nevertheless, it was PRODHLON to this
      author that Jesus was in fact descended from Judah (7:14). Either
      this was known to be in fact the case (already Rom 1:3; and later,
      2 Tim 2:8), historically, or an already authoritative New Testament
      Genesis (BIBLOS GENESEWS) said so on its very first page, in a way
      that could not be missed (PRODHLON).



      Leonard Maluf
      Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
      Weston, MA

       

       



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • E Bruce Brooks
      To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Leonard On: Earliest Matthean Narrative From: Bruce LEONARD: In Matt 2, Matthew is not “incorporating” Markan text; he
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 21, 2009
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        To: Synoptic
        Cc: GPG
        In Response To: Leonard
        On: Earliest Matthean Narrative
        From: Bruce

        LEONARD: In Matt 2, Matthew is not “incorporating” Markan text; he is gratuitously
        constructing text heavy with a perspective that is fundamental for his Gospel, and thus of extreme importance both to him and to his audience.

        BRUCE: All that could be true without changing the implication of the evidence, both macro and micro, that Matthew comes after Mark, and that the differences between Matthew and Mark are most readily understood as adjustments of Matthew to Mark (when they share common text) or as places where Matthew moves on beyond Mark into new areas (such as the Virgin Birth, where Matthew has no precedent in Mark). Repeated question: If we have two videotapes, one showing Jesus entering Jerusalem riding on ONE animal, and the other showing Jesus entering Jerusalem riding on TWO animals, which tape is likely to be the original version? If we have one transcript reporting the exorcism of ONE demoniac, and another transcript of even date reporting the simultaneous exorcism of TWO demoniacs? which transcript is likely to be the original version? And comparing the answers to these two questions, can we say anything useful about the authorial proclivities of Matthew?

        LEONARD: The perspective in question is that the rubrics King/Shepherd/Ruler of Israel express the theological essence of Jesus’ earthly mission.

        BRUCE: Sure. That is very true of Matthew. To put it in a way that takes in the larger context, Matthew is pushing a spiritualized version of that portion of Mark which seems to record a strictly earthly mission: namely, to restore political sovereignty to Israel. Are there evidences elsewhere in Matthew that Matthew likes to spiritualize material that appears in more quotidian form elsewhere? Yes, many. For instance: Of two blessings, one on the poor and the other on the "poor in spirit," which is likely to be the original? Of two blessings, one on the hungry and the other on "those who hunger after righteousness," which is likely to be the original? I think so too. Then the Matthean tendency to spiritualize things which occur in more mundane form elsewhere in the Synoptic literature is established. It seems we have detected another authority proclivity in Matthew. Wow! Wow! Who knows how far we might get with the question of Synoptic relations, if we kept on in this way for, oh, twenty or thirty minutes? I ask you.

        LEONARD: Moreover, Mark 6:14 is referring to a different Herod, who was not in fact a king.
        It is likely in compensation for his omission of the Herod-the-King story known from Matt 2 that Mark gives Herod Antipas the title of “king” here, just as Mark (alone) has the “Herodians” conspiring with the Pharisees in 3:6 to put Jesus to death.

        BRUCE: Mark's mistakes of fact, whether of royal terminology or of priestly tenure or of geographical propinquity, don't mean that Mark is not the earliest of the four Gospels; they merely mean that he is careless. Again a directionality question: Of two parallel texts, one of which gets a fact wrong and the other of which gets it right, which is the earlier? Answer: In all normal human probability, the one that got it wrong. And why? Because it is reasonable to suppose that some later and learned author has in a spirit of good fellowship corrected the error of a beloved earlier colleague, but it is not so reasonable to suppose that a later copyist, with the right fact by definition sitting there in front of him, has introduced an error into his accurate original. Mark's errors (I do not here include the weird travel and crowd complications, some of which are due to incompatibility between earlier layers and later textual layers in Mark) convict him of carelessness. But at the same time, they also tend to attest him as being the first in the field.

        LEONARD: It is likewise Mark’s omission of Matt 2 that has necessitated Mark’s (unique) reference to Nazareth as Jesus’ place of origin in 1:9.

        BRUCE: Unique? Unique? Let's take a look at the file.

        Mk 1:9 "In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee."
        Mk 1:24 "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth?"
        Mk 10:47 "He heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth"
        Mk 16:6 "You seek Jesus of Nazareth"

        We have here (1) the Markan narrator, (2) a blind beggar, (3) a demon, and (4) someone who looks and talks an awful lot like an angel, all without exception agreeing to associate Jesus with Nazareth. Nobody in Mark, whether in earlier or later layers of that text - nobody at all - ever associates Jesus with Bethlehem. In fact, nobody in Mark ever so much as mentions Bethlehem.

        Now we take Matthew:

        Mt 2:23 [Joseph] "went and dwelt in Nazareth"
        Mt 2:23 [prophecy]: "He shall be called a Nazarene"
        Mt 21:11 [crowds]: "The prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee"
        Mt 26:71 "This man was with Jesus of Nazareth"

        The latter two are much the same as everything in Mark: Jesus is generally associated with Nazareth. Now ask the question the other way round. How about people in Nazareth, who think that Jesus is associated with them?

        Mk 6:1-4 || Mt 13:53-57. These passages more or less identically describe Jesus's visit to "his own country" [narrator] where the inhabitants were familiar with his father and his family, and where his sisters were still living; in commenting on their lack of belief in him, Jesus remarks (in both texts) that "a prophet is not without honor except in his own country." So now we have the witness of Jesus, that Nazareth is indeed "his own country," the place he grew up, the place he was from, the place with which everyone else identified him.

        In these two Gospels, it is only in the miraculous story of Mt 2, where Jesus is identified to Eastern Kings by one set of miracles, and where Joseph is warned what to do next by a second set of miracles, does Bethlehem at all come into the picture, solely to assert Joseph's descent from David (see previous note for the David Trajectory). The story then goes to considerable lengths, again with supernatural guidance, to locate Joseph in Nazareth. The two Gospels roughly agree, over their whole course, except where the Matthean story is guided not by its narrator but by outside supernatural intervention. I join others in thinking that the secondary part of these two parallel accounts is the supernatural intervention elements in one of them.

        But suppose we waive that. Take a larger question which includes it: the Mt 1-2 material itself. If Mark had come to his Gospel task with a copy of Matthew in front of him, would he have omitted these episodes, durably attractive as they have proven to be? Let's at once admit that this is at least a possibility. Mark (so the theory goes) is out to write a shortened version of Matthew, and anyway, everybody already knows the Miraculous Birth sequence, so no harm in omitting it. OK, let's adopt that view of the matter. So far so good.

        What is hard to explain on these assumptions, however, is why Mark should introduce material, wholly without warrant in his source, which is actually hostile to Jesus's mother (and brothers), and indeed shows him as rejecting them, his natural family. We have here no mandate of concision, no Reader's Digest guidelines to conform to. We have here the opposite, a space-taking addition, which not only departs from Mark's Matthean Vorlage, but does so in ways drastically opposed to the whole spirit of that Vorlage.

        Warum?

        Bruce

        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
        University of Massachusetts at Amherst

        [As for Stendhal: Sorry, but no. Neither the 5th century (last message) nor the 19th [this one] has any cogency for me. If the world had to wait hundreds of years for poets, or thousands of years for novelists, to solve their problems for them, then the problems themselves must be unreal in the extreme, and not after all worth bothering with].


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        BRUCE: All that could be true without changing the implication of the evidence, both macro and micro, that Matthew comes after Mark, and that the differences
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 21, 2009
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          BRUCE: All that could be true without changing the implication of the evidence,
          both macro and micro, that Matthew comes after Mark, and that the differences
          between Matthew and Mark are most readily understood as adjustments of Matthew
          to Mark (when they share common text) or as places where Matthew moves on
          beyond Mark into new areas (such as the Virgin Birth, where Matthew has
          no precedent in Mark). Repeated question: If we have two videotapes, one
          showing Jesus entering Jerusalem riding on ONE animal, and the other showing
          Jesus entering Jerusalem riding on TWO animals, which tape is likely to be
          the original version? If we have one transcript reporting the exorcism of
          ONE demoniac, and another transcript of even date reporting the simultaneous
          exorcism of TWO demoniacs? which transcript is likely to be the original version?

          LEONARD:
          Your rhetorical question regarding videotapes indeed speaks for itself
          (thus, the rhetorical question is justified), but it disproves your
          larger point, I am afraid. Of course the videotape of Jesus entering
          Jerusalem on ONE animal is a secondary, visual improvement over Matthew’s
          awkward scene, pedantically understood. And the idea that two as opposed
          to one demoniac need be the later version of a demoniac healing narrative reflects
          a naïve Western, rational prejudice, that quantitative considerations trump
          any others. The evidence of secondary editing in Mk 5:1-20 with respect to
          the Matthean parallel(8:28-34) is so overwhelmingly obvious that its d
          enial
          defies rational response.



          BRUCE: Sure. That is very true of Matthew. To put it in a way that takes
          in the larger context, Matthew is pushing a spiritualized version of that
          portion of Mark which seems to record a strictly earthly mission: namely,
          to restore political sovereignty to Israel. Are there evidences elsewhere
          in Matthew that Matthew likes to spiritualize material that appears in more
          quotidian form elsewhere?



          LEONARD:
          Your introduction of the notion of “spiritualization” here is obfuscating.
          The real issue is whether Jesus’ role as shepherd, ruler, king of Israel,
          which is real, pervasive and fundamental in Matthew, retains any realistic
          vitality where it is reflected secondarily in Mark. Answer: not really;
          Jesus is presented in Mark as “Son of God in power,” anticipating
          his resurrection status, among people whose Israelite
          identity is not usually alluded to or stressed by Mark, leaving open
          easy application of Jesus’ mighty deeds to the members of his mostly
          Gentile, non-elite audience. Those whose authority in Israel Jesus
          replaces or threatens have simply become the well-known bad guys
          in the Jesus drama in Mark. “The scribes” for instance; nowhere
          in Mark do you find an expression where the author shows clear
          understanding of the social role of the scribe in Israel, such as
          Matt 2:4: “the scribes of the people.”



          BRUCE:
          Mark's mistakes of fact, whether of royal terminology or=2
          0of priestly
          tenure or of geographical propinquity, don't mean that Mark is not the
          earliest of the four Gospels; they merely mean that he is careless.
          Again a directionality question: Of two parallel texts, one of which
          gets a fact wrong and the other of which gets it right, which is the
          earlier? Answer: In all normal human probability, the one that got it
          wrong. And why? Because it is reasonable to suppose that some later
          and learned author has in a spirit of good fellowship corrected the
          error of a beloved earlier colleague, but it is not so reasonable to
          suppose that a later copyist, with the right fact by definition sitting
          there in front of him, has introduced an error into his accurate original.

          LEONARD:
          Actually, that is exactly what Mark has patently done on the theory of
          Markan priority. 1 Sam 20:2,7 etc. refer explicitly to Abimelech the priest,
          which Mark carelessly renders Abiathar. By your logic, the later text here
          should have been 1 Sam 20:2 whose author, in the spirit of good fellowship,
          of course, was kind enough to correct the mistake in Mark! On my
          hypothesis, the “right fact” was not sitting there in front of Mark,
          because Matthew’s text doesn’t mention Abimelech. Mark was going by
          memory, and simply got it wrong.


          I had written: It is likewise Mark’s omission of Matt 2 that has
          necessitated Mark’s(unique) reference to Nazareth as Jesus’ place of origin in 1:9.

          BRUCE: Unique? Unique? L
          et's take a look at the file.

          LEONARD:
          No, you missed my meaning here. I meant that Mark’s reference to Jesus’
          Nazareth origin is unique at this point in the triple tradition. Thus,
          my point stands, for your continued edification.




          Leonard  Maluf
          Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
          Weston, MA



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • E Bruce Brooks
          To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Leonard On: The Earliest Markan Narrative From: Bruce LEONARD: Of course the videotape of Jesus entering Jerusalem on ONE
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 21, 2009
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            To: Synoptic
            Cc: GPG
            In Response To: Leonard
            On: The Earliest Markan Narrative
            From: Bruce

            LEONARD: Of course the videotape of Jesus entering Jerusalem on ONE animal
            is a secondary, visual improvement over Matthew’s awkward scene,
            pedantically understood.

            BRUCE: Not "of course" for me. Why is it out of the question to think that a
            naturalistic early story (one still credible as an event, whether or not it
            was actually historical) has been transformed by slavish verbal adherence to
            the controlling OT text into one which is physically impossible, and can
            only be construed symbolically?

            Has anybody present ever tried to ride two animals simultaneously? In
            midstream or otherwise? If so, what was the result? We need some empirical
            input here.

            THE QUANTITATIVE ISSUE AS A CULTURAL ISSUE

            LEONARD: And the idea that two as opposed to one demoniac need be the later
            version of a demoniac healing narrative reflects a naïve Western, rational
            prejudice, that quantitative considerations trump any others.

            BRUCE: Not naïve, not specifically Western neither. Observe: We have two
            ancient Christian documents, Mk and Mt, both from the first Christian
            century. In one of them there is one demoniac, in the other there are two
            demoniacs. All other details which are parallel at all in the demoniac
            story, closely agree. The two versions are then clearly related. No matter
            which way the directionality between them may run, SOME effect must have
            been intended by the second one, that was not achieved by the first one,
            otherwise it would presumably have been incorporated intact (and that intact
            incorporation was a real and viable option is shown by many exact parallels
            in Mt/Mk). The only real difference in what is left of the story is the
            quantitative difference. Then the quantitative change, whether from two to
            one or from one to two, had value for a 1st century Christian audience. QED.

            So much for quantitative considerations in the Ancient Near East. Now try
            the Ancient Far East. The protégés of Confucius who figure in the early
            layers of the most authoritative source for Confucius, namely the early
            Analects (05c), number about two dozen, some of them not very impressive
            (Confucius impatiently hits one of them on the shin with a stick). The names
            on a family tradition list from the 04th century number about 68, and
            include some probably genuine but completely unknown ones. For merely
            symbolic reasons, this number was increased to 70 (or 72, amusingly, we have
            exactly the same 70/72 problem with Confucius as Luke does with his second
            band of Apostles) in expansions of this list known from the early Empire.
            And even this not being enough (Confucius by Empire times had become an icon
            of the whole culture), it was further claimed that these 70 (or 72)
            disciples were only the cream, the esoteric core, of a larger number of
            3,000 disciples. Again the fascination with numbers per se, and again the
            sense that bigger numbers convey more grandeur than small ones. QE2D.

            So not only are numbers demonstrably important to all ancient traditions
            known to me, and thus evidently also to the audiences for the stories told
            in those cultures, but the general tendency is for the numbers to grow over
            time, as part of the general aggrandizing process. The presumption, then, if
            there should be any general presumption at all, is that of two stories with
            numbers, the story with the bigger numbers is the later story. Because it
            represents the tradition in a more aggrandized state.

            Recommended reading at this point: Dr Seuss: And To Think That I Saw It On
            Mulberry Street.

            SECONDARITY

            LEONARD: The evidence of secondary editing in Mk 5:1-20 with respect to the
            Matthean parallel(8:28-34) is so overwhelmingly obvious that its denial
            defies rational response.

            BRUCE: I deny it, and I herewith request a rational response. I appreciate,
            or anyway I am familiar with, the disinclination of the learned to stoop so
            low as to instruct the ignorant, but I would like to ask for an exception in
            this case. Not just for my benefit, but also for that of any persons in the
            crowd who may be less ready than myself to confess their ignorance in
            public. On their behalf and on my own, I thus venture to inquire: What is
            obviously secondary about Mk 5:1-20?

            Of course, one should try to reduce one's ignorance by one's own efforts,
            before troubling the counsels of the wise. And this now I proceed to do. I
            proceed by searching out printed books.

            Now, there are not that many Markan Posteriorist commentaries in print, but
            for a sample of this approach, I turn to C S Mann (1986), not yet superseded
            in Anchor until Joel Marcus's v2 comes out in a month or so. Does Mann say
            that Mk 5:1-20 is secondary to its Matthean counterpart? Well, yes and no,
            but not exactly. He says, and I quote, "In Matthew and Luke we have accounts
            which are terse, designed for easy memorization, whereas in Mark we have a
            narrative in which the evangelist has access to a far livelier and more
            dramatic narrative - in fact, so dramatic that he finds it imperative to
            insert v8 to relieve the confusion of detail. We can find some indications
            of the way in which the story developed from Matthew's version, where we
            have two men who are demon-possessed, in contrast with the one man of Mark
            and Luke. All of this seems to suggest to the present commentator that Mark
            had two versions of the story which Matthew had originally possessed, and
            telescoped into one. Mark used a combination of the terse and condensed
            Matthean account, together with his own "reminiscence source," and produced
            the present narrative."

            That is an overall statement, and it doesn't really say that Mark is
            posterior to Matthew. It says, or it can be construed as saying, that Mark
            made use of two prior sources, whereas Matthew made use of only one. Mann
            does not bother to indicate where, in the Markan conflate version, he things
            the traces of Markan conflation may be. He does not refer to any detail in
            the Markan or indeed the Matthean text, save v8. So now everything, except
            general statements and unproved assertions, is hanging on v8.

            OK. Always willing to learn, if necessarily at a slow pace, I turn to v8 in
            Mk:

            "For he had said to him, Come out of him, you unclean spirit."

            Big anticlimax, no? This line is a typical Markan aside, designed to provide
            a detail in the story which was narratively necessary, but which the
            narrator had forgotten to mention at the proper place. It is typical Mark,
            and it is also quintessential oral style (I blush to say that I do it myself
            when lecturing). This kind of thing does not result from copying a
            consecutive written version of a story, it results from following an actual
            teller's rendition of the story, including its catch-up parentheses. This
            alone permits the thought that Mark here is not necessarily following an
            earlier written version; he may be simply telling the story. In support of
            this "parenthesis" interpretation, I note that Mann himself renders v8 this
            way:

            [8] (For Jesus was already saying to him, Unclean spirit, come out of this
            man).

            That is, for Mann also the line is a parenthesis. Mt does not preserve the
            parenthesis. He does not preserve the line. In fact, he lacks any detail in
            which the demoniac either speaks or is spoken to. In Mt, the only voice from
            the demoniac direction is from the possessing demons, who are plural in Mt
            (one demon each for two demoniacs, or so the story at that point invites us
            to infer), and who are also plural in Mk (a self-described Legion of demons
            ["for we are many"] inhabiting one man).

            A FUNCTIONAL ARGUMENT

            As for v8 having been added, as Mann claims, to "relieve the confusion of
            detail," I don't see it. I think it leaves the details, whether confused or
            not (I would call them exuberant, but not narratively confused, in fact they
            are narratively consecutive), right where the surrounding narrative leaves
            them. So the functionalist explanation of Mk 5:8 does not function for me.

            Meaning, that Mann gives me no satisfaction about the nature of Mk 5:8.
            Which is the only detail to which he refers at all.

            NARRATIVE COHERENCE

            Anyway, we have in both cases more than one demon: seemingly two in Mt, and
            in Mk a very large number [the demons' own census report is: "many"]. Good.
            Now we can take up the question implicitly raised in the preceding
            paragraph: With which of these situations is the following story, which is
            closely parallel in Mt and Mk, more consistent? In both, the whole herd of
            demon-transferred swine rushes into the sea and is drowned. Mk specifies
            that there were two thousand of them, another of his slightly late
            informational parentheses, but even in Mt, there were "a herd of many swine"
            and "the whole herd" rushed into the sea. This detail, in effect common to
            both, would seem, on the face of it, to be more consistent with a story in
            which a large number of demons were involved, than with a story featuring
            only two demons. So by the Swine Test, it seems that the Markan story,
            fantastic as it is, at least makes sense with itself. It does not, as so far
            demonstrated (and Mann does not really attempt to demonstrate it), look like
            an ineffective combination of two contrasting prior texts. Whereas the
            Matthean story is, how to put it, numerically inconcinnitous. Two pigs would
            have sufficed Matthew nicely. One demon per man, and one pig per demon. The
            shift from the minimum requisite two pigs to "many" pigs in Mt seems to be
            symbolically unmotivated. In Mk, it is narratively consistent, "many" demons
            going into "many" pigs. No sign here of inconsistency introduced by
            conflating two prior accounts, whether or not one of the accounts was
            equivalent to our Matthew.

            One way to read this situation is that Mt has doubled the demoniacs, for the
            same reason that explains his doublings in other Markan stories, and indeed
            his frequent and notorious doubling of some Markan stories themselves,
            whence (in the minds of some) Q. In the process of doubling the Markan
            demoniacs, Matthew has implied a total of two possessing demons, but has
            unthinkingly retained the many pigs from Mark, the pigs which are almost
            necessary to the Markan story, but are narrative overkill in Matthew. Is
            there a more convincing way to read this difference? None has so far
            occurred to me. I see Matthew as abridging a Markan story, increasing its
            effectiveness (as he imagines) by doubling its protagonist, and
            inconsistently retaining from the Markan story the detail of the "many"
            swine.

            SOURCES

            Another thing Mann does not do is this: He does not seem to develop his
            theory of a prior Swine Source, the second source other than Mt from which
            he envisions Mk as working. That, I think, sufficiently identifies the Swine
            Source suggestion as gratuitous. The positing of an outside source, which
            has reality only for a paragraph or two of the commentary and then is
            jettisoned by the commentator, is one of the oldest tricks in the
            hermeneutical bag. A magic formula which one recites in order to get out of
            a difficulty, and then passes on. I find it irresponsible.

            So what would a responsible version of that suggestion look like? For one
            thing, it would make some attempt to say what else in this supposed source,
            if anything, was also used by Mark. If only this one detail in Mark relies
            on this source, then the Swine Source in fact contains only one Swine Story.
            It gets to look like a mere ad hoc demon ex machina. I think it carries no
            conviction, philological or otherwise.

            CONCLUSION

            So, all in all, I don't get any convincement out of Mann, and at this point
            I run out of library resources which might provide the light for which I
            asked above. Other light respectfully requested.

            Bruce

            E Bruce Brooks
            Warring States Project
            University of Massachusetts at Amherst
          • Maluflen@aol.com
            BRUCE: So, all in all, I don t get any convincement out of Mann, and at this point I run out of library resources which might provide the light for which I
            Message 5 of 14 , Jan 22, 2009
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              BRUCE:

              So, all in all, I don't get any convincement out of Mann, and at this point

              I run out of library resources which might provide the light for which I

              asked above. Other light respectfully requested.

               

              LEONARD:

              My sincere apologies, but I really don’t have time either to spell all this out now, or to commit myself to responding to your response to my spelling it all out. In short, I simply don’t have an indefinite amount of time at my disposal. I have written extensively on Mark 5 (I think) on this list in the past, and certainly have done so in three independent, monograph-size papers of my own (none of them yet entirely readied for publication).

               

              Of course the issue with this particular set of Synoptic parallels involves primarily Luke’s work with the text of Matthew, on the Two-Gospel Hypothesis. Mark follows, more or less, the significantly expanded version of the story as told in Luke, who has split up the two demoniacs of Matt 8 into two separate stories of one demoniac each, the first of which is found in Luke’s chapter 4 (this is why there is no parallel to this story of a demoniac in the Capernaum synagogue in Matthew, even though it exists in Mark; the story originated with Luke; and by the way, if two demoniacs are necessarily better than one demoniac, why, pray tell, are two demoniac STORIES not better than one demoniac story for Matthew, on the hypothesis of Markan priority?).

               

              I do believe that Mark=E
              2s version of the Gadarene demoniac is secondary even to Luke’s, but that is obviously a closer call. It does, however, seem extraordinarily clear to me that the Lk-Mk version of the story is secondary to the Matthean, by any recognized standards of historical/literary judgment. It is fine to describe Matthew’s story, on principle, as a drastically reduced version of the Markan account, but look for a moment at what is omitted by Matthew on this hypothesis. Do you really think that if you compared these two texts on their own merits, and independently of any overall Synoptic theory, you would make Mark’s the earlier version? I can’t quite fathom such an outcome; though, as I said, I don’t have the time now to walk you through the absurdity of such a conclusion. Ask me about it again some time in May. I readily admit that other parallels in the triple and even double tradition are far more difficult to call. But even at the risk of repeating past FBI follies, I would have to describe this particular set of parallels as a slam-dunk in terms of Matthean priority.

               

              By the way, I don’t read, or particularly like what I have read of Mann either. I hope tomorrow to at least take the time to read carefully through your summary of Mann’s argument. But the fact that he wouldn’t convince you doesn’t surprise.


              Leonard Maluf
              Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
              Weston, MA



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.