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

Error in Rethinking the Gospel Sources, Volume 2, The Unity and Plurality of Q, by D R Burkett?

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    On page 7 of the above book (this link can be used: http://books.google.com/books?id=JvO4rj3NOoAC
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 2, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      On page 7 of the above book (this link can be used: http://books.google.com/books?id=JvO4rj3NOoAC
      <http://books.google.com/books?id=JvO4rj3NOoAC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6#v=onepage&q&f=false> &pg=PA6&lpg=PA6#v=onepage&q&f=false
      ), Burkett uses his Table 1 to provide an argument against Mark Goodacre. However, I think his table is incorrect. He
      has Mk 3:29a as a parallel to Mt 12:31b. However, Mk 3:29a is actually a parallel to Mt 12:32b, so that, after the
      table, Burkett is incorrect when he says that Luke "includes only the material that Matthew would have added to Mark
      (Matt 12:32ab)." Therefore, aLk is not, as he suggests, just following "Matthew's additions." Could someone please
      check/confirm?

      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

      https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Ronald Price
      ... David, Certainly Throckmorton s Gospel Parallels agrees with you here. However I m not so sure. Matthew has a near-duplication in Mt 12:31a and 12:32a,
      Message 2 of 4 , Jul 3, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        David Inglis wrote:

        > ... Mk 3:29a is actually a parallel to Mt 12:32b, so that, after the
        > table, Burkett is incorrect when he says that Luke "includes only the material
        > that Matthew would have added to Mark (Matt 12:32ab)." Therefore, aLk is not,
        > as he suggests, just following "Matthew's additions." Could someone please
        > check/confirm?

        David,

        Certainly Throckmorton's "Gospel Parallels" agrees with you here.
        However I'm not so sure. Matthew has a near-duplication in Mt 12:31a and
        12:32a, and I think it more likely that Mk 3:29a parallels the former
        because they both include 'blaspheme', 'spirit' and 'no forgiveness'.

        Nevertheless I don't understand Burkett's case. Why shouldn't Luke
        occasionally pick out and copy texts from Matthew that were not derived from
        Mark?

        Thanks for the google book reference. I note that Burkett posits *two*
        unattested documents, namely Q and proto-Mark. Also he tries to explain the
        MAs by assuming they were present in proto-Mark. But even if he could
        justify the existence of proto-Mark, it is highly unlikely that Mark would
        have gone to the trouble of changing the MAs, if only because that would in
        many cases involve replacing good Greek by somewhat cruder Greek.

        Ron Price,

        Derbyshire, UK

        http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: Synoptic In Response To: Ron Price On: Proto-Mark From: Bruce Ron recently remarked, in rejecting a theory of Mark as a descendant of a more linguistically
        Message 3 of 4 , Jul 5, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          To: Synoptic
          In Response To: Ron Price
          On: Proto-Mark
          From: Bruce

          Ron recently remarked, in rejecting a theory of Mark as a descendant of a
          more linguistically normal proto-Mark,

          "if only because that would in many cases involve replacing good Greek by
          somewhat cruder Greek."

          Exactly. The Matthean Prioritists sometimes explain this by saying that Mark
          intentionally wrote down to a vulgar audience, and for this purpose used
          inferior Greek. That is, Mark is a street version of Matthew. The street
          preachers among us can say if they find themselves doing this. Assuming that
          they do (that in informal situations in Hawaii, for example, they would
          lapse into pidgin), it remains to be convincingly demonstrated that the text
          of Mark is aimed at a subliterate audience.

          I find that unlikely. What I do seem to see, taking Mark by itself for the
          moment, is the intrusion of vulgar elements (popular elements) into an
          originally less vulgar Gospel. One possibility that occurs to me is the
          Story of the Pigs (the exorcism frame story is almost an excuse to hang the
          Pigs on). The Pigs looks to me like the kind of thing you could look up in a
          folklore motif index, and find more of. I can just hear Peter recounting it
          with relish.

          I would class it as a Comeuppance Tale. Are there others in the literature
          of that period? Stories where the seemingly superior party is fooled by his
          own cleverness? I think I can see one or two in the late Apocryphal Gospels
          and Acts. There are also exact parallels in, say, the 04c Dzwo Jwan (a very
          long and well written classical Chinese text), all of which champion
          socially lower persons against their murderers or oppressors, certain
          socially higher persons.

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks
          Warring States Project
          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        • David Mealand
          Not so sure it is an error: Mark has a then b Matthew has a then d then c then b Luke has c then d (need to watch sons of men / son of man to follow this one).
          Message 4 of 4 , Jul 8, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Not so sure it is an error:

            Mark has a then b

            Matthew has a then d then c then b

            Luke has c then d


            (need to watch sons of men / son of man
            to follow this one).


            ---------
            David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


            --
            The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
            Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.