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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Error in Rethinking the Gospel Sources, Volume 2, The Unity and Plurality of Q, by D R Burkett?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.