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

Re: [Synoptic-L] A new problem with the Farrer Theory?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 18 , Mar 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 18 , Mar 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 18 , Mar 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 18 , Mar 3, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 18 , Mar 8, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              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.