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

A new problem with the Farrer Theory?

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    In a recent thread I mentioned the diagram or model of the FT. Afterwards, on examining it further, it led me to what might be a new discovery. It s
    Message 1 of 18 , Feb 26, 2010
      In a recent thread I mentioned the diagram or 'model' of the FT. Afterwards,
      on examining it further, it led me to what might be a new discovery.

      It's difficult to draw the model neatly in an email, but it consists of
      elements such as the following:

      Mark --> Matthew

      by which we mean that the writer of the gospel of Matthew has copied or
      adapted some material he has taken from the gospel of Mark.

      The FT model has only the following elements to explain the similarities of
      the synoptic texts:

      Mark --> Matthew
      Mark --> Luke
      Matthew --> Luke

      Here are two predictions from this model:

      (1) In items common to Matthew and Luke only, the latter will never contain
      the more primitive version.
      (2) In items common to Mark and Matthew, the latter will never contain the
      more primitive version.

      The first of these involves what is sometimes known as 'alternating
      primitivity', which has been discussed recently. The relevant data includes
      at least the ten examples set out on the web page below under "Occasional
      Lukan Originality". I have never found any written mention of the second,
      nor any source which has defined 'alternating primitivity' or the like in
      such a way as to include the second.

      Detailed comparison shows that there are at least 35 examples of aphorisms
      in Matthew which have parallels in Mark. In most cases the version in
      Matthew looks as if it is more primitive than the version in Mark. (In "Q: A
      Reconstruction and Commentary", p.182, Fleddermann claims that everywhere in
      the Mark/Q overlap texts, Mark is secondary to Q. This is a different but
      fairly closely related claim.) Examples of Matthew's greater originality are
      the following:
      Mk 9:50 // Mt 5:13 : In Matthew the salt "is thrown out".
      Mk 6:8-9 // Mt 10:10 : In Matthew, wearing sandals and carrying a staff are
      prohibited.
      Mk 10:15 // Mt 18:3 : In Mark, the saying is softened. Matthew's version
      looks more primitive (Davies & Allison).

      Even if the usual definition of 'alternating primitivity' were broadened to
      include the text common to Mark and Matthew, the impact on the FT remains
      significant, for it increases considerably the number of cases which need to
      be explained away by oral tradition.

      If the FT synoptic model were to be shown in a way which truly represented
      the arguments of its present adherents, it would probably be as follows
      (using the convention outlined above):

      Oral_trad --> Mark
      Oral_trad --> Matthew
      Oral_trad --> Luke
      Mark --> Matthew
      Mark --> Luke
      Matthew --> Luke

      where 'Oral_trad' includes the many aphorisms which exhibit more primitive
      elements in a later gospel than in any earlier gospel.

      This of course is none other than the 3ST model with its written source (the
      'logia') replaced by oral tradition.

      It would justly put the FT and the 3ST on a level playing field as regards
      complexity, focussing the debate between us onto the question of whether the
      source of aphorisms was written or oral. The point here is that in comparing
      the standard FT model with the 3ST model, we are not comparing like with
      like, for the latter has demonstrably more explanatory power than the former
      in relation to aphorisms.

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_LkMt.html
    • Graham Budd
      I just finished reading Hultgren s challenging monograph on the narrative elements in q, which collects together various such lines of evidence, for example
      Message 2 of 18 , Feb 26, 2010
        I just finished reading Hultgren's challenging monograph on the
        narrative elements in q, which collects together various such lines of
        evidence, for example suggesting that the traditional order of the
        gospels (e.g. the Rejection at Nazareth, the Day in Capernaum) is
        better preserved in Luke and or Matthew (and John!) than in Mark. In
        other words, there may be structural as well as linguistic indicators
        of such primitivity.

        Graham


        On 26 feb 2010, at 14.51, Ron Price wrote:

        > In a recent thread I mentioned the diagram or 'model' of the FT.
        > Afterwards,
        > on examining it further, it led me to what might be a new discovery.
        >
        > It's difficult to draw the model neatly in an email, but it consists
        > of
        > elements such as the following:
        >
        > Mark --> Matthew
        >
        > by which we mean that the writer of the gospel of Matthew has copied
        > or
        > adapted some material he has taken from the gospel of Mark.
        >
        > The FT model has only the following elements to explain the
        > similarities of
        > the synoptic texts:
        >
        > Mark --> Matthew
        > Mark --> Luke
        > Matthew --> Luke
        >
        > Here are two predictions from this model:
        >
        > (1) In items common to Matthew and Luke only, the latter will never
        > contain
        > the more primitive version.
        > (2) In items common to Mark and Matthew, the latter will never
        > contain the
        > more primitive version.
        >
        > The first of these involves what is sometimes known as 'alternating
        > primitivity', which has been discussed recently. The relevant data
        > includes
        > at least the ten examples set out on the web page below under
        > "Occasional
        > Lukan Originality". I have never found any written mention of the
        > second,
        > nor any source which has defined 'alternating primitivity' or the
        > like in
        > such a way as to include the second.
        >
        > Detailed comparison shows that there are at least 35 examples of
        > aphorisms
        > in Matthew which have parallels in Mark. In most cases the version in
        > Matthew looks as if it is more primitive than the version in Mark.
        > (In "Q: A
        > Reconstruction and Commentary", p.182, Fleddermann claims that
        > everywhere in
        > the Mark/Q overlap texts, Mark is secondary to Q. This is a
        > different but
        > fairly closely related claim.) Examples of Matthew's greater
        > originality are
        > the following:
        > Mk 9:50 // Mt 5:13 : In Matthew the salt "is thrown out".
        > Mk 6:8-9 // Mt 10:10 : In Matthew, wearing sandals and carrying a
        > staff are
        > prohibited.
        > Mk 10:15 // Mt 18:3 : In Mark, the saying is softened. Matthew's
        > version
        > looks more primitive (Davies & Allison).
        >
        > Even if the usual definition of 'alternating primitivity' were
        > broadened to
        > include the text common to Mark and Matthew, the impact on the FT
        > remains
        > significant, for it increases considerably the number of cases which
        > need to
        > be explained away by oral tradition.
        >
        > If the FT synoptic model were to be shown in a way which truly
        > represented
        > the arguments of its present adherents, it would probably be as
        > follows
        > (using the convention outlined above):
        >
        > Oral_trad --> Mark
        > Oral_trad --> Matthew
        > Oral_trad --> Luke
        > Mark --> Matthew
        > Mark --> Luke
        > Matthew --> Luke
        >
        > where 'Oral_trad' includes the many aphorisms which exhibit more
        > primitive
        > elements in a later gospel than in any earlier gospel.
        >
        > This of course is none other than the 3ST model with its written
        > source (the
        > 'logia') replaced by oral tradition.
        >
        > It would justly put the FT and the 3ST on a level playing field as
        > regards
        > complexity, focussing the debate between us onto the question of
        > whether the
        > source of aphorisms was written or oral. The point here is that in
        > comparing
        > the standard FT model with the 3ST model, we are not comparing like
        > with
        > like, for the latter has demonstrably more explanatory power than
        > the former
        > in relation to aphorisms.
        >
        > Ron Price
        >
        > Derbyshire, UK
        >
        > http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_LkMt.html
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Chuck Jones
        Ron, Very interesting.  At a fundamental level, another thing that makes 3ST preferrable is the nature of the synoptic problem itself:  these documents
        Message 3 of 18 , Feb 26, 2010
          Ron,


          Very interesting.  At a fundamental level, another thing that makes 3ST preferrable is the nature of the synoptic problem itself:  these documents clearly have a *written* relationship with each other.  That observation is what started source theories in the first place.


          Chuck


          Chuck Jones
          Interim Executive Director
          Westar Institute
          The Jesus Seminar
          _____________________
          Ron Price wrote:


          In a recent thread I mentioned the diagram or 'model' of the FT. Afterwards,

          on examining it further, it led me to what might be a new discovery.



          It's difficult to draw the model neatly in an email, but it consists of

          elements such as the following:



          Mark --> Matthew



          by which we mean that the writer of the gospel of Matthew has copied or

          adapted some material he has taken from the gospel of Mark.



          The FT model has only the following elements to explain the similarities of

          the synoptic texts:



          Mark --> Matthew

          Mark --> Luke

          Matthew --> Luke



          Here are two predictions from this model:



          (1) In items common to Matthew and Luke only, the latter will never contain

          the more primitive version.

          (2) In items common to Mark and Matthew, the latter will never contain the

          more primitive version.



          The first of these involves what is sometimes known as 'alternating

          primitivity' , which has been discussed recently. The relevant data includes

          at least the ten examples set out on the web page below under "Occasional

          Lukan Originality" . I have never found any written mention of the second,

          nor any source which has defined 'alternating primitivity' or the like in

          such a way as to include the second.



          Detailed comparison shows that there are at least 35 examples of aphorisms

          in Matthew which have parallels in Mark. In most cases the version in

          Matthew looks as if it is more primitive than the version in Mark. (In "Q: A

          Reconstruction and Commentary", p.182, Fleddermann claims that everywhere in

          the Mark/Q overlap texts, Mark is secondary to Q. This is a different but

          fairly closely related claim.) Examples of Matthew's greater originality are

          the following:

          Mk 9:50 // Mt 5:13 : In Matthew the salt "is thrown out".

          Mk 6:8-9 // Mt 10:10 : In Matthew, wearing sandals and carrying a staff are

          prohibited.

          Mk 10:15 // Mt 18:3 : In Mark, the saying is softened. Matthew's version

          looks more primitive (Davies & Allison).



          Even if the usual definition of 'alternating primitivity' were broadened to

          include the text common to Mark and Matthew, the impact on the FT remains

          significant, for it increases considerably the number of cases which need to

          be explained away by oral tradition.



          If the FT synoptic model were to be shown in a way which truly represented

          the arguments of its present adherents, it would probably be as follows

          (using the convention outlined above):



          Oral_trad --> Mark

          Oral_trad --> Matthew

          Oral_trad --> Luke

          Mark --> Matthew

          Mark --> Luke

          Matthew --> Luke



          where 'Oral_trad' includes the many aphorisms which exhibit more primitive

          elements in a later gospel than in any earlier gospel.



          This of course is none other than the 3ST model with its written source (the

          'logia') replaced by oral tradition.



          It would justly put the FT and the 3ST on a level playing field as regards

          complexity, focussing the debate between us onto the question of whether the

          source of aphorisms was written or oral. The point here is that in comparing

          the standard FT model with the 3ST model, we are not comparing like with

          like, for the latter has demonstrably more explanatory power than the former

          in relation to aphorisms.



          Ron Price



          Derbyshire, UK






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jeff Peterson
          Ron, It seems to me that once we have a) allowed for each Evangelist s access to oral tradition (which, if we aren t persuaded by Gerhardsson, simply means
          Message 4 of 18 , Feb 26, 2010
            Ron,

            It seems to me that once we have a) allowed for each Evangelist's access to
            oral tradition (which, if we aren't persuaded by Gerhardsson, simply means
            "what the Evangelist heard a teacher ascribe to Jesus, found memorable, and
            perhaps repeated often in his own oral teaching ministry before taking up
            the pen"); and b) recognized that "primitivity" is an inescapably subjective
            judgment, often doubtful in its implications for tradition history (and
            especially so when we're assessing author like Luke, who has a fine sense
            for historical plausibility and an appreciation of different modes of
            expression), what you observe here turns out to be not much of a problem for
            FT.

            Jeff Peterson
            Austin Graduate School of Theology
            Austin, Texas

            On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:

            >
            >
            > In a recent thread I mentioned the diagram or 'model' of the FT.
            > Afterwards,
            > on examining it further, it led me to what might be a new discovery.
            >
            > It's difficult to draw the model neatly in an email, but it consists of
            > elements such as the following:
            >
            > Mark --> Matthew
            >
            > by which we mean that the writer of the gospel of Matthew has copied or
            > adapted some material he has taken from the gospel of Mark.
            >
            > The FT model has only the following elements to explain the similarities of
            > the synoptic texts:
            >
            > Mark --> Matthew
            > Mark --> Luke
            > Matthew --> Luke
            >
            > Here are two predictions from this model:
            >
            > (1) In items common to Matthew and Luke only, the latter will never contain
            > the more primitive version.
            > (2) In items common to Mark and Matthew, the latter will never contain the
            > more primitive version.
            >
            > The first of these involves what is sometimes known as 'alternating
            > primitivity', which has been discussed recently. The relevant data includes
            > at least the ten examples set out on the web page below under "Occasional
            > Lukan Originality". I have never found any written mention of the second,
            > nor any source which has defined 'alternating primitivity' or the like in
            > such a way as to include the second.
            >
            > Detailed comparison shows that there are at least 35 examples of aphorisms
            > in Matthew which have parallels in Mark. In most cases the version in
            > Matthew looks as if it is more primitive than the version in Mark. (In "Q:
            > A
            > Reconstruction and Commentary", p.182, Fleddermann claims that everywhere
            > in
            > the Mark/Q overlap texts, Mark is secondary to Q. This is a different but
            > fairly closely related claim.) Examples of Matthew's greater originality
            > are
            > the following:
            > Mk 9:50 // Mt 5:13 : In Matthew the salt "is thrown out".
            > Mk 6:8-9 // Mt 10:10 : In Matthew, wearing sandals and carrying a staff are
            > prohibited.
            > Mk 10:15 // Mt 18:3 : In Mark, the saying is softened. Matthew's version
            > looks more primitive (Davies & Allison).
            >
            > Even if the usual definition of 'alternating primitivity' were broadened to
            > include the text common to Mark and Matthew, the impact on the FT remains
            > significant, for it increases considerably the number of cases which need
            > to
            > be explained away by oral tradition.
            >
            > If the FT synoptic model were to be shown in a way which truly represented
            > the arguments of its present adherents, it would probably be as follows
            > (using the convention outlined above):
            >
            > Oral_trad --> Mark
            > Oral_trad --> Matthew
            > Oral_trad --> Luke
            > Mark --> Matthew
            > Mark --> Luke
            > Matthew --> Luke
            >
            > where 'Oral_trad' includes the many aphorisms which exhibit more primitive
            > elements in a later gospel than in any earlier gospel.
            >
            > This of course is none other than the 3ST model with its written source
            > (the
            > 'logia') replaced by oral tradition.
            >
            > It would justly put the FT and the 3ST on a level playing field as regards
            > complexity, focussing the debate between us onto the question of whether
            > the
            > source of aphorisms was written or oral. The point here is that in
            > comparing
            > the standard FT model with the 3ST model, we are not comparing like with
            > like, for the latter has demonstrably more explanatory power than the
            > former
            > in relation to aphorisms.
            >
            > Ron Price
            >
            > Derbyshire, UK
            >
            > http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_LkMt.html
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Steve Runge
            Ron, I think that there is merit in going back and re-evaluating what has been claimed as aphorisms. Presuppositions affect everyone in this debate, and most
            Message 5 of 18 , Feb 26, 2010
              Ron,

              I think that there is merit in going back and re-evaluating what has been claimed as aphorisms. Presuppositions affect everyone in this debate, and most theories seem to be a collection of interdependent assumptions. I can’t help but wonder if claims of aphorisms in passages like Mk 9:50//Mt 5:13 were partly a means of accounting for data that could not be reconciled with the scholar’s model.

              I have been looking at such changes in the double and triple tradition for some time, and truthfully would have argued the opposite in this case. To begin with, Mark has the saying as part of the temptation about sinning, casting off the thing that causes one to sin. In the present context, losing one's saltiness seems to be associated with the effects of sin, not in the sense of losing one's testimony as in Mt following the Beatitudes.

              Mark 9:49 Πᾶς γὰρ πυρὶ ἁλισθήσεται.
              Mark 9:50 καλὸν τὸ ἅλας· ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας ἄναλον γένηται, ἐν τίνι αὐτὸ ἀρτύσετε; ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἅλα καὶ εἰρηνεύετε ἐν ἀλλήλοις.

              What I find more striking is that Mark leaves the reading without an answer to the rhetorical question, to puzzle it out on their own. I cannot imagine him removing the answer found in Mt and Lk; thus I would (subjectively, yes I grant you) construe Mk's version as the more primitive.


              Both Matthew and Luke provide answers to the rhetorical question, but each places the saying in a different context.

              Matthew 5:12 χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, ὅτι ὁ μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολὺς ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· οὕτως γὰρ ἐδίωξαν τοὺς προφήτας τοὺς πρὸ ὑμῶν.
              Matthew 5:13 Ὑμεῖς ἐστε τὸ ἅλας τῆς γῆς· ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας μωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι ἁλισθήσεται; εἰς οὐδὲν ἰσχύει ἔτι εἰ μὴ βληθὲν ἔξω καταπατεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων.

              With Matthew placing the saying (whatever its origin) after the Beatitudes, it has the effect of commenting on the possible effects of not following through on the challenges laid out in the preceding context, i.e.:
              -What happens if you DON’T persevere when persecuted for righteousness?
              -What happens if you GET EVEN instead of rejoicing when you are insulted and persecuted?
              The implication seems to be that if they are salt and do not react as challenged above, they have lost their saltiness. Mt's version rhetorically overstates the uselessness of the salt ("good for nothing"). It really is good for something, and introducing that "something" in the εἰ μὴ clause has the effect of drawing more attention to what it is good for than simply coming out and saying it (see Luke's version). This is a pretty typical rhetorical device that adds prominence to the excepted element/proposition. In this case, it emphasizes the same point about worthlessness rather than introducing a positive alternative.

              Knowing that there is nothing that can be done to renew the saltiness would be a chilling encouragement to think before reacting in an unbecoming manner. It seems reasonable to (subjectively) conjecture that Mt added the answer, if nothing else for better balance with the "light of the world" saying.


              In Lk's version the saying is final point about counting the cost of discipleship. In the context, the analogy to salt would seem connected to the closing statement of v. 33 about renouncing one's possessions, perhaps the consequence of not renouncing them and nonetheless trying to be a disciple.

              Luke 14:34 Καλὸν οὖν τὸ ἅλας· ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τὸ ἅλας μωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι ἀρτυθήσεται;
              Luke 14:35 οὔτε εἰς γῆν οὔτε εἰς κοπρίαν εὔθετόν ἐστιν, ἔξω βάλλουσιν αὐτό. ὁ ἔχων ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω.

              Instead of using the rhetorical "It is good for nothing except...", Luke simply cites specific negative examples: "It is good for neither X nor Y." There is no αλλα to introduce ἔξω βάλλουσιν αὐτό, but simple asyndeton. Lk's version flattens out most of the rhetorical punch found in Mt, not unlike is done in other contexts to Mk's reading. As with Mt, it seems more reasonable to see Luke adding/adapting the answer to the rhetorical question than to see Mk deleting it.

              Presuppositions seems to drive much of the discussion about such matters. Taking a step back and reanalyzing discrepancies from scratch in the traditions could prove to be a useful way forward. I think determining primitivity is a lot more complicated than it sounds. I remain dubious about making such claims at this point, notwithstanding my respect for Davies and Allison.

              Regards,

              Steve

              Steven E. Runge, DLitt
              Scholar-in-Residence
              Logos Bible Software
              srunge@...
              www.logos.com
              www.ntdiscourse.org




              ________________________________________________________
              Detailed comparison shows that there are at least 35 examples of aphorisms
              in Matthew which have parallels in Mark. In most cases the version in
              Matthew looks as if it is more primitive than the version in Mark. (In "Q: A
              Reconstruction and Commentary", p.182, Fleddermann claims that everywhere in
              the Mark/Q overlap texts, Mark is secondary to Q. This is a different but
              fairly closely related claim.) Examples of Matthew's greater originality are
              the following:
              Mk 9:50 // Mt 5:13 : In Matthew the salt "is thrown out".
              Mk 6:8-9 // Mt 10:10 : In Matthew, wearing sandals and carrying a staff are
              prohibited.
              Mk 10:15 // Mt 18:3 : In Mark, the saying is softened. Matthew's version
              looks more primitive (Davies & Allison).

              Even if the usual definition of 'alternating primitivity' were broadened to
              include the text common to Mark and Matthew, the impact on the FT remains
              significant, for it increases considerably the number of cases which need to
              be explained away by oral tradition.

              If the FT synoptic model were to be shown in a way which truly represented
              the arguments of its present adherents, it would probably be as follows
              (using the convention outlined above):

              Oral_trad --> Mark
              Oral_trad --> Matthew
              Oral_trad --> Luke
              Mark --> Matthew
              Mark --> Luke
              Matthew --> Luke

              where 'Oral_trad' includes the many aphorisms which exhibit more primitive
              elements in a later gospel than in any earlier gospel.

              This of course is none other than the 3ST model with its written source (the
              'logia') replaced by oral tradition.

              It would justly put the FT and the 3ST on a level playing field as regards
              complexity, focussing the debate between us onto the question of whether the
              source of aphorisms was written or oral. The point here is that in comparing
              the standard FT model with the 3ST model, we are not comparing like with
              like, for the latter has demonstrably more explanatory power than the former
              in relation to aphorisms.

              Ron Price

              Derbyshire, UK

              http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_LkMt.html
            • Steve Runge
              The message did not go through on the first attempt, hopefully this will not be redudant. ... From: Steve Runge Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:15 PM To:
              Message 6 of 18 , Feb 26, 2010
                The message did not go through on the first attempt, hopefully this will not be redudant.

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Steve Runge
                Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:15 PM
                To: Synoptic-L elist
                Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] A new problem with the Farrer Theory?

                Ron,

                I think that there is merit in going back and re-evaluating what has been claimed as aphorisms. Presuppositions affect everyone in this debate, and most theories seem to be a collection of interdependent assumptions. I can’t help but wonder if claims of aphorisms in passages like Mk 9:50//Mt 5:13 were partly a means of accounting for data that could not be reconciled with the scholar’s model.

                I have been looking at such changes in the double and triple tradition for some time, and truthfully would have argued the opposite in this case. To begin with, Mark has the saying as part of the temptation about sinning, casting off the thing that causes one to sin. In the present context, losing one's saltiness seems to be associated with the effects of sin, not in the sense of losing one's testimony as in Mt following the Beatitudes.

                Mark 9:49 Πᾶς γὰρ πυρὶ ἁλισθήσεται.
                Mark 9:50 καλὸν τὸ ἅλας· ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας ἄναλον γένηται, ἐν τίνι αὐτὸ ἀρτύσετε; ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἅλα καὶ εἰρηνεύετε ἐν ἀλλήλοις.

                What I find more striking is that Mark leaves the reading without an answer to the rhetorical question, to puzzle it out on their own. I cannot imagine him removing the answer found in Mt and Lk; thus I would (subjectively, yes I grant you) construe Mk's version as the more primitive.


                Both Matthew and Luke provide answers to the rhetorical question, but each places the saying in a different context.

                Matthew 5:12 χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, ὅτι ὁ μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολὺς ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· οὕτως γὰρ ἐδίωξαν τοὺς προφήτας τοὺς πρὸ ὑμῶν.
                Matthew 5:13 Ὑμεῖς ἐστε τὸ ἅλας τῆς γῆς· ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας μωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι ἁλισθήσεται; εἰς οὐδὲν ἰσχύει ἔτι εἰ μὴ βληθὲν ἔξω καταπατεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων.

                With Matthew placing the saying (whatever its origin) after the Beatitudes, it has the effect of commenting on the possible effects of not following through on the challenges laid out in the preceding context, i.e.:
                -What happens if you DON’T persevere when persecuted for righteousness?
                -What happens if you GET EVEN instead of rejoicing when you are insulted and persecuted?
                The implication seems to be that if they are salt and do not react as challenged above, they have lost their saltiness. Mt's version rhetorically overstates the uselessness of the salt ("good for nothing"). It really is good for something, and introducing that "something" in the εἰ μὴ clause has the effect of drawing more attention to what it is good for than simply coming out and saying it (see Luke's version). This is a pretty typical rhetorical device that adds prominence to the excepted element/proposition. In this case, it emphasizes the same point about worthlessness rather than introducing a positive alternative.

                Knowing that there is nothing that can be done to renew the saltiness would be a chilling encouragement to think before reacting in an unbecoming manner. It seems reasonable to (subjectively) conjecture that Mt added the answer, if nothing else for better balance with the "light of the world" saying.


                In Lk's version the saying is final point about counting the cost of discipleship. In the context, the analogy to salt would seem connected to the closing statement of v. 33 about renouncing one's possessions, perhaps the consequence of not renouncing them and nonetheless trying to be a disciple.

                Luke 14:34 Καλὸν οὖν τὸ ἅλας· ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τὸ ἅλας μωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι ἀρτυθήσεται;
                Luke 14:35 οὔτε εἰς γῆν οὔτε εἰς κοπρίαν εὔθετόν ἐστιν, ἔξω βάλλουσιν αὐτό. ὁ ἔχων ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω.

                Instead of using the rhetorical "It is good for nothing except...", Luke simply cites specific negative examples: "It is good for neither X nor Y." There is no αλλα to introduce ἔξω βάλλουσιν αὐτό, but simple asyndeton. Lk's version flattens out most of the rhetorical punch found in Mt, not unlike is done in other contexts to Mk's reading. As with Mt, it seems more reasonable to see Luke adding/adapting the answer to the rhetorical question than to see Mk deleting it.

                Presuppositions seems to drive much of the discussion about such matters. Taking a step back and reanalyzing discrepancies from scratch in the traditions could prove to be a useful way forward. I think determining primitivity is a lot more complicated than it sounds. I remain dubious about making such claims at this point, notwithstanding my respect for Davies and Allison.

                Regards,

                Steve

                Steven E. Runge, DLitt
                Scholar-in-Residence
                Logos Bible Software
                srunge@...
                www.logos.com
                www.ntdiscourse.org




                ________________________________________________________
                Detailed comparison shows that there are at least 35 examples of aphorisms
                in Matthew which have parallels in Mark. In most cases the version in
                Matthew looks as if it is more primitive than the version in Mark. (In "Q: A
                Reconstruction and Commentary", p.182, Fleddermann claims that everywhere in
                the Mark/Q overlap texts, Mark is secondary to Q. This is a different but
                fairly closely related claim.) Examples of Matthew's greater originality are
                the following:
                Mk 9:50 // Mt 5:13 : In Matthew the salt "is thrown out".
                Mk 6:8-9 // Mt 10:10 : In Matthew, wearing sandals and carrying a staff are
                prohibited.
                Mk 10:15 // Mt 18:3 : In Mark, the saying is softened. Matthew's version
                looks more primitive (Davies & Allison).

                Even if the usual definition of 'alternating primitivity' were broadened to
                include the text common to Mark and Matthew, the impact on the FT remains
                significant, for it increases considerably the number of cases which need to
                be explained away by oral tradition.

                If the FT synoptic model were to be shown in a way which truly represented
                the arguments of its present adherents, it would probably be as follows
                (using the convention outlined above):

                Oral_trad --> Mark
                Oral_trad --> Matthew
                Oral_trad --> Luke
                Mark --> Matthew
                Mark --> Luke
                Matthew --> Luke

                where 'Oral_trad' includes the many aphorisms which exhibit more primitive
                elements in a later gospel than in any earlier gospel.

                This of course is none other than the 3ST model with its written source (the
                'logia') replaced by oral tradition.

                It would justly put the FT and the 3ST on a level playing field as regards
                complexity, focussing the debate between us onto the question of whether the
                source of aphorisms was written or oral. The point here is that in comparing
                the standard FT model with the 3ST model, we are not comparing like with
                like, for the latter has demonstrably more explanatory power than the former
                in relation to aphorisms.

                Ron Price

                Derbyshire, UK

                http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_LkMt.html
              • Ron Price
                ... Jeff, Most NT studies involve a degree of subjectivity. But if there are many examples of a particular tendency, this is likely to reduce the damaging
                Message 7 of 18 , Feb 27, 2010
                  Jeff Peterson wrote:

                  > ..... "primitivity" is an inescapably subjective judgment,

                  Jeff,

                  Most NT studies involve a degree of subjectivity. But if there are many
                  examples of a particular tendency, this is likely to reduce the damaging
                  effect of subjectivity.

                  > ..... often doubtful in its implications for tradition history (and
                  > especially so when we're assessing author like Luke, who has a fine sense
                  > for historical plausibility and an appreciation of different modes of
                  > expression),

                  This may be so, but my email introducing this thread was pointing out an
                  apparently previously unseen problem relating to Matthew's use of Mark,
                  which problem has nothing to do with Luke.

                  > It seems to me that once we have a) allowed for each Evangelist's access to
                  > oral tradition (which, if we aren't persuaded by Gerhardsson, simply means
                  > "what the Evangelist heard a teacher ascribe to Jesus, found memorable, and
                  > perhaps repeated often in his own oral teaching ministry before taking up
                  > the pen");

                  If the environment in which Matthew wrote was awash with fairly reliable
                  oral tradition, as you seem to imply, how is it that it's very easy to find
                  aphorisms in Matthew which appear more primitive than their parallels in
                  Mark, and yet in spite of the fact that Mark consists mostly of narrative,
                  it's very difficult to find elements of narrative in Matthew which appear
                  more primitive than their parallels in Mark?

                  Ron Price

                  Derbyshire, UK

                  Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                • Graham E Budd
                  Two examples may be i) the Temptation; and ii) the Day in Capernaum, which in Mark is an artificial composition (cf. Mark 1:22-39 with Matthew s scattered
                  Message 8 of 18 , Feb 27, 2010
                    Two examples may be i) the Temptation; and ii) the Day in Capernaum,
                    which in Mark is an artificial composition (cf. Mark 1:22-39 with
                    Matthew's scattered parallels (thus Garboury))?

                    Graham
                    >
                    > ...and yet in spite of the fact that Mark consists mostly of narrative,
                    > it's very difficult to find elements of narrative in Matthew which appear
                    > more primitive than their parallels in Mark?
                    >
                    > Ron Price
                    >
                    > Derbyshire, UK
                    >
                    > Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                    >
                    >
                  • Ron Price
                    ... Steve Runge replied, ... Steve, I think that in part of the text Mark was more original here, and in part Matthew/Luke were more original. Both Mark and
                    Message 9 of 18 , Feb 27, 2010
                      I had written:

                      >> Examples of Matthew's greater originality are
                      >> the following:
                      >> Mk 9:50 // Mt 5:13 : In Matthew the salt "is thrown out".

                      Steve Runge replied,

                      > I have been looking at such changes in the double and triple tradition for
                      > some time, and truthfully would have argued the opposite in this case.
                      > .....
                      > What I find more striking is that Mark leaves the reading without an answer to
                      > the rhetorical question, to puzzle it out on their own. I cannot imagine him
                      > removing the answer found in Mt and Lk; thus I would (subjectively, yes I
                      > grant you) construe Mk's version as the more primitive.

                      Steve,

                      I think that in part of the text Mark was more original here, and in part
                      Matthew/Luke were more original. Both Mark and Matt/Luke follow up from the
                      rhetorical question, but Mark's follow-up is much more positive (9:50c). I
                      find it easy to see Mark as replacing the rejection sentence, because he
                      elsewhere tends to take a more positive line, e.g. in claiming "many" will
                      be saved (10:45) in contrast to the "few" of the 'two gates' saying, and in
                      altering the default in Mk 9:40. Admittedly these assertions ought perhaps
                      to be backed up by yet more reasoning, and this would probably become too
                      complicated for a short email ...

                      > Taking a step back and reanalyzing discrepancies from scratch in the
                      > traditions could prove to be a useful way forward. I think determining
                      > primitivity is a lot more complicated than it sounds.

                      ... which is another way of saying that I agree with your assessment here!

                      Ron Price

                      Derbyshire, UK

                      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                    • Matson, Mark (Academic)
                      On a criteria of primitivity, I think E.P. Sanders in his dissertation demonstrated the weakness of using this. His conclusion is that many of these criteria
                      Message 10 of 18 , Feb 27, 2010
                        On a criteria of primitivity, I think E.P. Sanders in his dissertation demonstrated the weakness of using this.

                        His conclusion is that many of these criteria just don't stand up to testing.

                        See his Tendencies in the Synoptic Tradition.


                        Mark A. Matson
                        Academic Dean
                        Milligan College
                        http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm


                        > -----Original Message-----
                        > From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On
                        > Behalf Of Ron Price
                        > Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 7:01 AM
                        > To: Synoptic-L elist
                        > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A new problem with the Farrer Theory?
                        >
                        > Jeff Peterson wrote:
                        >
                        > > ..... "primitivity" is an inescapably subjective judgment,
                        >
                        > Jeff,
                        >
                        > Most NT studies involve a degree of subjectivity. But if there are many
                        > examples of a particular tendency, this is likely to reduce the
                        > damaging
                        > effect of subjectivity.
                        >
                        > > ..... often doubtful in its implications for tradition history (and
                        > > especially so when we're assessing author like Luke, who has a fine
                        > sense
                        > > for historical plausibility and an appreciation of different modes of
                        > > expression),
                        >
                        > This may be so, but my email introducing this thread was pointing out
                        > an
                        > apparently previously unseen problem relating to Matthew's use of Mark,
                        > which problem has nothing to do with Luke.
                        >
                        > > It seems to me that once we have a) allowed for each Evangelist's
                        > access to
                        > > oral tradition (which, if we aren't persuaded by Gerhardsson, simply
                        > means
                        > > "what the Evangelist heard a teacher ascribe to Jesus, found
                        > memorable, and
                        > > perhaps repeated often in his own oral teaching ministry before
                        > taking up
                        > > the pen");
                        >
                        > If the environment in which Matthew wrote was awash with fairly
                        > reliable
                        > oral tradition, as you seem to imply, how is it that it's very easy to
                        > find
                        > aphorisms in Matthew which appear more primitive than their parallels
                        > in
                        > Mark, and yet in spite of the fact that Mark consists mostly of
                        > narrative,
                        > it's very difficult to find elements of narrative in Matthew which
                        > appear
                        > more primitive than their parallels in Mark?
                        >
                        > Ron Price
                        >
                        > Derbyshire, UK
                        >
                        > Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------
                        >
                        > Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • Matson, Mark (Academic)
                        On a criteria of primitivity, I think E.P. Sanders in his dissertation demonstrated the weakness of using this. His conclusion is that many of these criteria
                        Message 11 of 18 , Feb 27, 2010
                          On a criteria of primitivity, I think E.P. Sanders in his dissertation demonstrated the weakness of using this.

                          His conclusion is that many of these criteria just don't stand up to testing.

                          See his Tendencies in the Synoptic Tradition.


                          Mark A. Matson
                          Academic Dean
                          Milligan College
                          http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm


                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On
                          > Behalf Of Ron Price
                          > Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 7:01 AM
                          > To: Synoptic-L elist
                          > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A new problem with the Farrer Theory?
                          >
                          > Jeff Peterson wrote:
                          >
                          > > ..... "primitivity" is an inescapably subjective judgment,
                          >
                          > Jeff,
                          >
                          > Most NT studies involve a degree of subjectivity. But if there are many
                          > examples of a particular tendency, this is likely to reduce the
                          > damaging
                          > effect of subjectivity.
                          >
                          > > ..... often doubtful in its implications for tradition history (and
                          > > especially so when we're assessing author like Luke, who has a fine
                          > sense
                          > > for historical plausibility and an appreciation of different modes of
                          > > expression),
                          >
                          > This may be so, but my email introducing this thread was pointing out
                          > an
                          > apparently previously unseen problem relating to Matthew's use of Mark,
                          > which problem has nothing to do with Luke.
                          >
                          > > It seems to me that once we have a) allowed for each Evangelist's
                          > access to
                          > > oral tradition (which, if we aren't persuaded by Gerhardsson, simply
                          > means
                          > > "what the Evangelist heard a teacher ascribe to Jesus, found
                          > memorable, and
                          > > perhaps repeated often in his own oral teaching ministry before
                          > taking up
                          > > the pen");
                          >
                          > If the environment in which Matthew wrote was awash with fairly
                          > reliable
                          > oral tradition, as you seem to imply, how is it that it's very easy to
                          > find
                          > aphorisms in Matthew which appear more primitive than their parallels
                          > in
                          > Mark, and yet in spite of the fact that Mark consists mostly of
                          > narrative,
                          > it's very difficult to find elements of narrative in Matthew which
                          > appear
                          > more primitive than their parallels in Mark?
                          >
                          > Ron Price
                          >
                          > Derbyshire, UK
                          >
                          > Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------
                          >
                          > Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        • Ron Price
                          ... Graham, Thanks for the suggested contrary examples. I wouldn t challenge the artificiality of the Day in Capernaum in Mark. The central part, Mk 1:29-34
                          Message 12 of 18 , Feb 28, 2010
                            I had written:

                            >> ...and yet in spite of the fact that Mark consists mostly of narrative,
                            >> it's very difficult to find elements of narrative in Matthew which appear
                            >> more primitive than their parallels in Mark

                            Graham Budd replied:

                            > Two examples may be i) the Temptation; and ii) the Day in Capernaum,
                            > which in Mark is an artificial composition (cf. Mark 1:22-39 with
                            > Matthew's scattered parallels (thus Garboury))?

                            Graham,

                            Thanks for the suggested contrary examples.

                            I wouldn't challenge the artificiality of the 'Day in Capernaum' in Mark.
                            The central part, Mk 1:29-34 // Mt 8:14-17 appears to have most of the
                            directionality clues. I haven't read Garboury, but Davies & Allison make
                            what seems to me like a convincing case concerning Mk 1:29-31 // Mt 8:14-15.
                            They point to Matthew's habit of abbreviating healing stories, his making
                            all the attention focus on Jesus, and his (artificial) arrangement of two
                            triads with three main verbs in each (8:14a, 14b, 15a and 8:15b, 15c, 15d).
                            In Mk 1:32-34 // Mt 8:16-17, Mt 8:17 looks like a typically Matthean
                            scripture fulfilment insertion.

                            The Temptation story also includes a typically Matthean reference to
                            fulfilment. Fenton observes the remarkable suitability of the story for this
                            point in Matthew's sequence of events, suggesting composition by Matthew
                            himself (J.C.Fenton, "Saint Matthew", 62-63). This seems to me extremely
                            likely.

                            Ron Price

                            Derbyshire, UK

                            Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                          • Graham E Budd
                            On the q Temptation, Hultgren points out provocative links between it and the crucifixion. Note the allusions: the repeated references to ?if you are the Son
                            Message 13 of 18 , Feb 28, 2010
                              On the q Temptation, Hultgren points out provocative links between it
                              and the crucifixion.

                              Note the allusions: the repeated references to ?if you are the Son of
                              God? in both, and the triple parallels of the refusal to turn stones
                              to bread//refuses the bitter wine (a food reference); the reference to
                              the kingdoms of the world//the ironic ?Jesus King of the Jews?
                              superscription; and the reference to the temple and coming
                              down//casting himself down. These allusions are also present, somewhat
                              less clearly, in Luke; recall that although Mark?s crucifixion is
                              similar (but not quite identical) to that of Matthew and Luke, he has
                              a radically shorter Temptation with no three-fold temptation at all.

                              At the very least, this suggests that whoever the author of this chunk
                              of q was, they were aware of a passion narrative.

                              The question that is unanswered by this is whether or not the q
                              Temptation is the work of Matthew. Hultgren suggests that the
                              temptation played an ancient role articulating between the Baptism and
                              the Crucifixion; a connection that Mark also makes (e.g. Mark
                              10:35-40; cf Romans 6:3-4). And at least one can suggest that the q
                              temtpation and the Mark version draw on the same exegetical tradition,
                              e.g. of Psalm 91 - note:

                              11 For he will command his angels concerning you
                              to guard you in all your ways;

                              12 they will lift you up in their hands,
                              so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.

                              13 You will tread upon the lion and the cobra;
                              you will trample the great lion and the serpent.

                              - Mark's wild animals make a cameo appearance straight after Matthew's
                              quotation! So I am not convinced that the temptation is wholly the
                              work of Matthew - there may be an exegetical tradition lying behind
                              the q version that Mark was also aware of.

                              Graham



                              Quoting Ron Price <ron.price@...>:

                              > I had written:
                              >
                              >>> ...and yet in spite of the fact that Mark consists mostly of narrative,
                              >>> it's very difficult to find elements of narrative in Matthew which appear
                              >>> more primitive than their parallels in Mark
                              >
                              > Graham Budd replied:
                              >
                              >> Two examples may be i) the Temptation; and ii) the Day in Capernaum,
                              >> which in Mark is an artificial composition (cf. Mark 1:22-39 with
                              >> Matthew's scattered parallels (thus Garboury))?
                              >
                              > Graham,
                              >
                              > Thanks for the suggested contrary examples.
                              >
                              > I wouldn't challenge the artificiality of the 'Day in Capernaum' in Mark.
                              > The central part, Mk 1:29-34 // Mt 8:14-17 appears to have most of the
                              > directionality clues. I haven't read Garboury, but Davies & Allison make
                              > what seems to me like a convincing case concerning Mk 1:29-31 // Mt 8:14-15.
                              > They point to Matthew's habit of abbreviating healing stories, his making
                              > all the attention focus on Jesus, and his (artificial) arrangement of two
                              > triads with three main verbs in each (8:14a, 14b, 15a and 8:15b, 15c, 15d).
                              > In Mk 1:32-34 // Mt 8:16-17, Mt 8:17 looks like a typically Matthean
                              > scripture fulfilment insertion.
                              >
                              > The Temptation story also includes a typically Matthean reference to
                              > fulfilment. Fenton observes the remarkable suitability of the story for this
                              > point in Matthew's sequence of events, suggesting composition by Matthew
                              > himself (J.C.Fenton, "Saint Matthew", 62-63). This seems to me extremely
                              > likely.
                              >
                              > Ron Price
                              >
                              > Derbyshire, UK
                              >
                              > Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                              >
                              >
                            • Maluflen@aol.com
                              Ron wrote: I wouldn t challenge the artificiality of the Day in Capernaum in Mark. he central part, Mk 1:29-34 // Mt 8:14-17 appears to have most of the
                              Message 14 of 18 , Mar 1, 2010
                                Ron wrote:


                                I wouldn't challenge the artificiality of the 'Day in Capernaum' in Mark.
                                he central part, Mk 1:29-34 // Mt 8:14-17 appears to have most of the
                                irectionality clues. I haven't read Garboury, but Davies & Allison make
                                hat seems to me like a convincing case concerning Mk 1:29-31 // Mt 8:14-15.
                                hey point to Matthew's habit of abbreviating healing stories, his making
                                ll the attention focus on Jesus,


                                First of all, before this gets out of hand, it is (Antonio) Gaboury, not Garboury.
                                More to the point, these are examples of extremely subjective criteria used by Davies and Allison, to the extent that they are intended to bolster Markan priority. "Matthew's habit of abbreviating healing stories" can just as easily be interpreted as Mark's habit of expanding healing stories. In fact more easily, if one considers that Luke's healing stories are generally expanded, compared to Matthew's, and John's healing stories are generally expanded, compared to their Synoptic equivalents (if not parallels). The focusing of attention on Jesus by Matthew only argues for Matthean posteriority if the Markan versions are viewed by the negative criterion of focusing less on Jesus. If one looks, however, at what is positively implied by the same relationship, one could argue that Mark is relatively late because it has a stronger ecclesiological focus to his story (focus on the characters in the narrative other than Jesus, seen as representative of catechumens or Christian believers, in their approach to Jesus for healing). There is no clear directionality indicated by these criteria: a late gospel could expand a more primitive account either by means of a stronger Christological focus (John by comparison with the Synoptics), or through a stronger ecclesiological focus (Mark, compared to Matthew and often Luke). Or, the late Gospel could contract an earlier healing account, for a great variety of reasons, including perhaps Christological focus.

                                Leonard Maluf
                                Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                                Weston, MA





                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Ron Price <ron.price@...>
                                To: Synoptic-L elist <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Sun, Feb 28, 2010 4:41 am
                                Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A new problem with the Farrer Theory?


                                I had written:
                                >> ...and yet in spite of the fact that Mark consists mostly of narrative,
                                > it's very difficult to find elements of narrative in Matthew which appear
                                > more primitive than their parallels in Mark
                                Graham Budd replied:
                                > Two examples may be i) the Temptation; and ii) the Day in Capernaum,
                                which in Mark is an artificial composition (cf. Mark 1:22-39 with
                                Matthew's scattered parallels (thus Garboury))?

                                raham,
                                Thanks for the suggested contrary examples.
                                I wouldn't challenge the artificiality of the 'Day in Capernaum' in Mark.
                                he central part, Mk 1:29-34 // Mt 8:14-17 appears to have most of the
                                irectionality clues. I haven't read Garboury, but Davies & Allison make
                                hat seems to me like a convincing case concerning Mk 1:29-31 // Mt 8:14-15.
                                hey point to Matthew's habit of abbreviating healing stories, his making
                                ll the attention focus on Jesus, and his (artificial) arrangement of two
                                riads with three main verbs in each (8:14a, 14b, 15a and 8:15b, 15c, 15d).
                                n Mk 1:32-34 // Mt 8:16-17, Mt 8:17 looks like a typically Matthean
                                cripture fulfilment insertion.
                                The Temptation story also includes a typically Matthean reference to
                                ulfilment. Fenton observes the remarkable suitability of the story for this
                                oint in Matthew's sequence of events, suggesting composition by Matthew
                                imself (J.C.Fenton, "Saint Matthew", 62-63). This seems to me extremely
                                ikely.
                                Ron Price
                                Derbyshire, UK
                                Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                                ------------------------------------
                                Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
                                Individual Email | Traditional
                                http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Maluflen@aol.com
                                Ron wrote: I wouldn t challenge the artificiality of the Day in Capernaum in Mark. he central part, Mk 1:29-34 // Mt 8:14-17 appears to have most of the
                                Message 15 of 18 , Mar 1, 2010
                                  Ron wrote:


                                  I wouldn't challenge the artificiality of the 'Day in Capernaum' in Mark.
                                  he central part, Mk 1:29-34 // Mt 8:14-17 appears to have most of the
                                  irectionality clues. I haven't read Garboury, but Davies & Allison make
                                  hat seems to me like a convincing case concerning Mk 1:29-31 // Mt 8:14-15.
                                  hey point to Matthew's habit of abbreviating healing stories, his making
                                  ll the attention focus on Jesus,


                                  First of all, before this gets out of hand, it is (Antonio) Gaboury, not Garboury.
                                  More to the point, these are examples of extremely subjective criteria used by Davies and Allison, to the extent that they are intended to bolster Markan priority. "Matthew's habit of abbreviating healing stories" can just as easily be interpreted as Mark's habit of expanding healing stories. In fact more easily, if one considers that Luke's healing stories are generally expanded, compared to Matthew's, and John's healing stories are generally expanded, compared to their Synoptic equivalents (if not parallels). The focusing of attention on Jesus by Matthew only argues for Matthean posteriority if the Markan versions are viewed by the negative criterion of focusing less on Jesus. If one looks, however, at what is positively implied by the same relationship, one could argue that Mark is relatively late because it has a stronger ecclesiological focus to his story (focus on the characters in the narrative other than Jesus, seen as representative of catechumens or Christian believers, in their approach to Jesus for healing). There is no clear directionality indicated by these criteria: a late gospel could expand a more primitive account either by means of a stronger Christological focus (John by comparison with the Synoptics), or through a stronger ecclesiological focus (Mark, compared to Matthew and often Luke). Or, the late Gospel could contract an earlier healing account, for a great variety of reasons, including perhaps Christological focus.

                                  Leonard Maluf
                                  Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                                  Weston, MA





                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: Ron Price <ron.price@...>
                                  To: Synoptic-L elist <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Sun, Feb 28, 2010 4:41 am
                                  Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A new problem with the Farrer Theory?


                                  I had written:
                                  >> ...and yet in spite of the fact that Mark consists mostly of narrative,
                                  > it's very difficult to find elements of narrative in Matthew which appear
                                  > more primitive than their parallels in Mark
                                  Graham Budd replied:
                                  > Two examples may be i) the Temptation; and ii) the Day in Capernaum,
                                  which in Mark is an artificial composition (cf. Mark 1:22-39 with
                                  Matthew's scattered parallels (thus Garboury))?

                                  raham,
                                  Thanks for the suggested contrary examples.
                                  I wouldn't challenge the artificiality of the 'Day in Capernaum' in Mark.
                                  he central part, Mk 1:29-34 // Mt 8:14-17 appears to have most of the
                                  irectionality clues. I haven't read Garboury, but Davies & Allison make
                                  hat seems to me like a convincing case concerning Mk 1:29-31 // Mt 8:14-15.
                                  hey point to Matthew's habit of abbreviating healing stories, his making
                                  ll the attention focus on Jesus, and his (artificial) arrangement of two
                                  riads with three main verbs in each (8:14a, 14b, 15a and 8:15b, 15c, 15d).
                                  n Mk 1:32-34 // Mt 8:16-17, Mt 8:17 looks like a typically Matthean
                                  cripture fulfilment insertion.
                                  The Temptation story also includes a typically Matthean reference to
                                  ulfilment. Fenton observes the remarkable suitability of the story for this
                                  oint in Matthew's sequence of events, suggesting composition by Matthew
                                  imself (J.C.Fenton, "Saint Matthew", 62-63). This seems to me extremely
                                  ikely.
                                  Ron Price
                                  Derbyshire, UK
                                  Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                                  ------------------------------------
                                  Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
                                  Individual Email | Traditional
                                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Ron Price
                                  ... Graham, To me this suggests that Matthew composed the Temptation story as well as the Matthean additions to Mark s passion narrative, and Luke copied from
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Mar 1, 2010
                                    Graham Budd wrote:

                                    > On the q Temptation, Hultgren points out provocative links between it
                                    > and the crucifixion.
                                    >
                                    > Note the allusions: the repeated references to ?if you are the Son of
                                    > God? in both, and the triple parallels of the refusal to turn stones
                                    > to bread//refuses the bitter wine (a food reference); the reference to
                                    > the kingdoms of the world//the ironic ?Jesus King of the Jews?
                                    > superscription; and the reference to the temple and coming
                                    > down//casting himself down. These allusions are also present, somewhat
                                    > less clearly, in Luke; recall that although Mark?s crucifixion is
                                    > similar (but not quite identical) to that of Matthew and Luke, he has
                                    > a radically shorter Temptation with no three-fold temptation at all.
                                    >
                                    > At the very least, this suggests that whoever the author of this chunk
                                    > of q was, they were aware of a passion narrative.

                                    Graham,

                                    To me this suggests that Matthew composed the Temptation story as well as
                                    the Matthean additions to Mark's passion narrative, and Luke copied from
                                    each whatever suited his purposes.

                                    The problem with Hultgren ("Narrative Elements..."), Sanders & Davies
                                    ("Studying the Synoptic Gospels") and Casey ("An Aramaic Approach to Q") is
                                    that they have all rejected Q in its standard form without working out
                                    exactly what should replace it. Casey is the clearest regarding replacement,
                                    but even he has a long way to go as regards the detail. In Hultgren's case,
                                    he rejects the idea of "a single Q document", which seems to imply that he
                                    would posit multiple documents. Yet I couldn't find any indication of a
                                    list, let alone a delineation of them. His synoptic theory , if he has one,
                                    appears to be a work in progress, and as such it's difficult to assess,
                                    though it will probably end up far too complicated.

                                    Ron Price

                                    Derbyshire, UK

                                    Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                                  • Ron Price
                                    ... Leonard, Thanks for pointing this out. I need to be a little more careful in interpreting the comments in Davies & Allison, so let me rephrase what I think
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Mar 3, 2010
                                      Leonard Maluf wrote:

                                      > "Matthew's habit of abbreviating healing stories" can just as easily
                                      > be interpreted as Mark's habit of expanding healing stories.

                                      Leonard,

                                      Thanks for pointing this out.

                                      I need to be a little more careful in interpreting the comments in Davies &
                                      Allison, so let me rephrase what I think is their argument relating to
                                      Mark/Matthew directionality.

                                      They have studied the whole of Matthew in great detail. They have observed
                                      many significant directional pointers (and the clues as to which they think
                                      are significant can be found in the wording of the comments). In other
                                      places where the clues are not so significant, they are often content to
                                      show that the differences are *compatible* with the directionality indicated
                                      by the significant pointers. This appears to be the case here in regard to
                                      the posited abbreviation of a healing story and the posited increased focus
                                      of attention on Jesus. The direction Mark --> Matthew is plausible in Mt
                                      8:14-15, and therefore the evidence from these particular verses is
                                      consistent with the *probable* conclusion they reach from evidence
                                      elsewhere.

                                      Ron Price

                                      Derbyshire, UK

                                      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                                    • ekyucel
                                      Dear Ron, For what it s worth, I find Couchoud s reconstruction (L evangile de Marc a ete ecrit en Latin) based on surviving Latin and Greek manuscripts (for
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Mar 8, 2010
                                        Dear Ron,

                                        For what it's worth, I find Couchoud's reconstruction (L'evangile de Marc a ete ecrit en Latin) based on surviving Latin and Greek manuscripts (for this purpose one does not need to be convinced by his argument that the original text was in Latin) that there was no mention of salt in verse 50 in the original text.

                                        --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > I had written:
                                        >
                                        > >> Examples of Matthew's greater originality are
                                        > >> the following:
                                        > >> Mk 9:50 // Mt 5:13 : In Matthew the salt "is thrown out".
                                        >
                                        > Steve Runge replied,
                                        >
                                        > > I have been looking at such changes in the double and triple tradition for
                                        > > some time, and truthfully would have argued the opposite in this case.
                                        > > .....
                                        > > What I find more striking is that Mark leaves the reading without an answer to
                                        > > the rhetorical question, to puzzle it out on their own. I cannot imagine him
                                        > > removing the answer found in Mt and Lk; thus I would (subjectively, yes I
                                        > > grant you) construe Mk's version as the more primitive.
                                        >
                                        > Steve,
                                        >
                                        > I think that in part of the text Mark was more original here, and in part
                                        > Matthew/Luke were more original. Both Mark and Matt/Luke follow up from the
                                        > rhetorical question, but Mark's follow-up is much more positive (9:50c). I
                                        > find it easy to see Mark as replacing the rejection sentence, because he
                                        > elsewhere tends to take a more positive line, e.g. in claiming "many" will
                                        > be saved (10:45) in contrast to the "few" of the 'two gates' saying, and in
                                        > altering the default in Mk 9:40. Admittedly these assertions ought perhaps
                                        > to be backed up by yet more reasoning, and this would probably become too
                                        > complicated for a short email ...
                                        >
                                        > > Taking a step back and reanalyzing discrepancies from scratch in the
                                        > > traditions could prove to be a useful way forward. I think determining
                                        > > primitivity is a lot more complicated than it sounds.
                                        >
                                        > ... which is another way of saying that I agree with your assessment here!
                                        >
                                        > Ron Price
                                        >
                                        > Derbyshire, UK
                                        >
                                        > Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                                        >
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.