## Mk 3:39a = Mt 12:31b, or = Mt 12:32b?

Expand Messages
• It appears to me that Mk 3:39a has two parallels, at Mt 12:31b and Mt 12:32b. The first of these two is closer to Mk, because both Mk 3:39a and Mt 12:31b refer
Message 1 of 12 , Aug 14, 2013
It appears to me that Mk 3:39a has two parallels, at Mt 12:31b and Mt 12:32b. The first of these two is closer to Mk,
because both Mk 3:39a and Mt 12:31b refer to blasphemy. It then looks as though aMt has added a second passage,
paralleling Mt 12:31, but referring to speaking against instead of blasphemy, in Mt 12:32. aLk has then taken just Mt
12:32, and allows mere 'speaking against' the Holy Ghost by changing Mt 12:32b to blaspheming. Does this seem a
reasonable explanation, or does anyone see a need for an additional source here to explain why Mt has both 12:31 and
12:32?

David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• ... David, Assuming we replace Mk 3:39a by Mk 3:29a (!), this seems to me an entirely reasonable explanation. Indeed you have provided a clearer explanation of
Message 2 of 12 , Aug 15, 2013
David Inglis wrote:

> It appears to me that Mk 3:39a has two parallels, at Mt 12:31b and Mt 12:32b.
> The first of these two is closer to Mk, because both Mk 3:39a and Mt 12:31b
> refer to blasphemy. It then looks as though aMt has added a second passage,
> paralleling Mt 12:31, but referring to speaking against instead of blasphemy,
> in Mt 12:32. aLk has then taken just Mt 12:32, and allows mere 'speaking
> against' the Holy Ghost by changing Mt 12:32b to blaspheming. Does this seem a
> reasonable explanation, or does anyone see a need for an additional source
> here to explain why Mt has both 12:31 and 2:32?

David,

Assuming we replace Mk 3:39a by Mk 3:29a (!), this seems to me an entirely
reasonable explanation. Indeed you have provided a clearer explanation of
what I was trying to suggest on this list a few months ago.

Ron Price,

Derbyshire, UK

http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Why should one suppose that there is such a difference between erei/eiphi logon eis/kata and blasfhmia/ blasfhmhsanti ? The sequence in Matthew is hard
Message 3 of 12 , Aug 15, 2013
Why should one suppose that there is such a difference between

erei/eiphi logon eis/kata

and

blasfhmia/ blasfhmhsanti ?

The sequence in Matthew is hard to explain if there is
such a difference, as what the explanation offers as the
lesser offence gets the harshest penalty.

There are other problems about the explanation, but that
would take us back to the barnasha issue, and for that I
will simply refer to Casey, Solution (area around p.141).
Hard going I admit, but close attention to the Aramaic
and its Greek translations can't be avoided.

For what it is worth I will just add that I think there are
reasons for concluding the version which appears in Luke is
closest to the original except for its context.

Mt 12.31 and 12.32 are a mosaic of bits from two versions
of the saying. Confronted with two versions Matthew conflated
and rearranged, Luke chose what is in the main the version
closer to the original except for its context.

David M.

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

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
• Apologies for the typos! The verses in question are of course Mk 3:28-29, Mt 12:31-32, and Lk 12:10. David Inglis From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Message 4 of 12 , Aug 15, 2013
Apologies for the typos! The verses in question are of course Mk 3:28-29, Mt 12:31-32, and Lk 12:10.

David Inglis

From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Inglis
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:11 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Synoptic-L] Mk 3:39a = Mt 12:31b, or = Mt 12:32b?

It appears to me that Mk 3:39a has two parallels, at Mt 12:31b and Mt 12:32b. The first of these two is closer to Mk,
because both Mk 3:39a and Mt 12:31b refer to blasphemy. It then looks as though aMt has added a second passage,
paralleling Mt 12:31, but referring to speaking against instead of blasphemy, in Mt 12:32. aLk has then taken just Mt
12:32, and allows mere 'speaking against' the Holy Ghost by changing Mt 12:32b to blaspheming. Does this seem a
reasonable explanation, or does anyone see a need for an additional source here to explain why Mt has both 12:31 and
12:32?

David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• ... David, Perhaps no great difference, but other things being equal, an editor who has any respect the original is more likely to retain a word with the same
Message 5 of 12 , Aug 15, 2013
David Mealand wrote:

> Why should one suppose that there is such a difference between
>
> erei/eiphi logon eis/kata
>
> and
>
> blasfhmia/ blasfhmhsanti ?

David,

Perhaps no great difference, but other things being equal, an editor who has
any respect the original is more likely to retain a word with the same root
than to alter it to a word with a different root.

> The sequence in Matthew is hard to explain if there is
> such a difference, as what the explanation offers as the
> lesser offence gets the harshest penalty.

I don't see a harsher penalty, but rather a penalty for which the time limit
is (as Matthew might have seen it) clarified.

> There are other problems about the explanation, but that
> would take us back to the barnasha issue, and for that I
> will simply refer to Casey, Solution (area around p.141).

Casey sees the unforgivable sin saying in Matthew as a translation from the
Aramaic. Yet at the same time he sees its Sitz im Leben in the dispute over
Jesus' exorcisms. But the latter (with which I agree) is surely
inconsistent with the former, for the exorcism controversy in Greek Matthew
is based on Greek Mark. The UIOS TOU ANQRWPOU is here far removed from its
Aramaic origins.

> Hard going I admit, but close attention to the Aramaic
> and its Greek translations can't be avoided.

Surely it can here, for there was no translation involved in the expansion
of Mark reflected in Mt 12:31-32. Even in the prevailing 2ST it was based on
Greek Mark and Greek Q (which was not Aramaic even in the original according
to Kloppenborg).

However I have to agree in wishing more people would pay close attention to
Aramaic where the Greek is demonstrably a direct translation of the Aramaic.
The mistranslations in Mt 5:13 // Lk 14:34, Mt 7:6, Lk 11:41 and 11:48 cry
out for an Aramaic original. In each of these cases, and based on the work
of scholars such as Matthew Black, my reconstruction of the logia includes
an English version of the Aramaic word mistranslated by the respective
synoptic writer, and the sense (and in the case of Mt 7:6, the Semitic
parallelism) is much improved. I am probably still the only person to have
posited a simple, coherent Aramaic sayings source which explains these
cases, and indeed covers all of the Double Tradition pericopes except those
where it can be demonstrated that Luke was most likely copying from Matthew.

For anyone who may doubt that Luke made use of Matthew, here is a snippet
quoted from the web page below (where the 11 cases mentioned are listed):

Excluding three special cases involving quotations from Isaiah 40, Psalm 118
and Psalm 110 respectively, there are 11 cases in the Triple Tradition where
Matthew and Luke have 10 or more consecutive identical words in the NA27
Greek text. The predominant synoptic theory would lead us to expect these 11
cases to be the result of both evangelists accurately copying Mark. Yet in
only 2 of them does Mark have the identical text.

This seems to me to constitute pretty strong evidence for a direct Mt/Lk
dependency.

Ron Price,

Derbyshire, UK

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

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Of course Matthew takes over Mark s use of an inferior Greek translation of the logion. But then Matthew and Luke each have a somewhat better translation
Message 6 of 12 , Aug 15, 2013
Of course Matthew takes over Mark's use of an inferior
Greek translation of the logion. But then Matthew and
Luke each have a somewhat better translation presumably from a
non-Markan context. Matthew conflates the two in a Markan
context. Luke omits the inferior version there, and
deploys the better one in a different context later in his
narrative.

In other words I would accept Casey's argument that the
saying found in Mark is a mangled version in the right context
of what Luke has in a better version but in another context.
We agree that Matthew has retained most of what Mark has, but
he also (by whatever route) has an equivalent to what Luke
has, and conflates the two versions.

Casey thinks there are three different translations of the
saying - the one in Luke, the one in Mark, and the other one in
Matthew's duplicated conflation. I am not so sure about a third
translation, but it does seem right that Mark's plural is wrong,
where Luke has a straight equivalent for barnasha.

I suspect that this allows a number of views about transmission
between Matthew and Luke, or lack of it, in this passage, but of
these I think it less likely that Luke's clear version
was derived from Matthew's conflation. I think it more likely
either that, in this passage at least, Luke and Matthew are independently
using a common source, or that Matthew got the better version of this
saying from Luke.

I am not wishing to use the above to claim that Luke cannot have
used Matthew, simply that in this instance I don't think that is
the best explanation of this passage.

If the evidence all pointed one way there would be no problem,
but it ain't like that.

David M.

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

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
• ... David, My explanation here has the advantage of not assuming any hypothetical source. In your explanation, you do not appear to have indicated either the
Message 7 of 12 , Aug 16, 2013
David Mealand wrote:
>
> Of course Matthew takes over Mark's use of an inferior
> Greek translation of the logion. But then Matthew and
> Luke each have a somewhat better translation presumably from a
> non-Markan context .....

David,

My explanation here has the advantage of not assuming any hypothetical
source. In your explanation, you do not appear to have indicated either the
nature or extent of the Aramaic source you are positing. Besides, we surely
already have a plausible *Markan* context for the original - in Mark's
Beelzebul story, which contains all the elements needed to trigger the
developments in Matthew and Luke.

As for Casey, he does make a tentative attempt to delineate his posited
sources (An Aramaic Approach to Q, p.189). They comprise four Greek sources
plus at least two Aramaic sources, though their respective extents are far
from clear.

It's all very well positing hypothetical sources, but the more that are
posited, the less likely it is (by Occam's razor) that they will bear any
resemblance to historical reality.

Ron Price,

Derbyshire, UK

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

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Ron wrote ... Mark s Beelzebul story ... contains all the elements needed to trigger the developments in Matthew and Luke. ... Really? David M. ... David
Message 8 of 12 , Aug 17, 2013
Ron wrote
---------
Mark's Beelzebul story ... contains all the elements
needed to trigger the developments in Matthew and Luke.
---------

Really?

David M.

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

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
• ... David, Let s concentrate on Mt 12:31-32 and Lk 12:10 for now, for these were the primary verses in dispute. There follows a list of elements as I see them:
Message 9 of 12 , Aug 17, 2013

> Mark's Beelzebul story ... contains all the elements
> needed to trigger the developments in Matthew and Luke.

David Mealand replied:

> Really?

David,

Let's concentrate on Mt 12:31-32 and Lk 12:10 for now, for these were the
primary verses in dispute. There follows a list of elements as I see them:

Mt 12:31 This verse refers back to vv. 24 and 28 of the Beelzebul story

I tell you verbatim in Mark
men probably an abbreviation of Mark's "sons of men"
forgiven verbatim in Mark
sin "sins" in Mark
blasphemy plural in Mark
Spirit Holy Spirit in Mark
no forgiveness similar wording in Mark

Mt 12:32 Matthew puts the previous verse into more poetic form

speaks a word against a replacement for 'blasphemes'
Son of Man triggered by "sons of men" in Mark (?!)
forgiven verbatim in Mark
speaks against slightly varying the wording as in Semitic poetry
Holy Spirit verbatim in Mark
not ... forgiven similar wording in Mark
in this age or ... expansion of Mark's "eternal"

Lk 12:10 based on Matthew, and indirectly on Mark

Ron Price,

Derbyshire, UK

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

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Apologies for resending this message. The formatting of the previous one was altered in transit, and the resulting (lack of) spacing made it difficult to read.
Message 10 of 12 , Aug 17, 2013
Apologies for resending this message. The formatting of the previous one was
altered in transit, and the resulting (lack of) spacing made it difficult to

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> Mark's Beelzebul story ... contains all the elements
> needed to trigger the developments in Matthew and Luke.

David Mealand replied:

> Really?

David,

Let's concentrate on Mt 12:31-32 and Lk 12:10 for now, for these were the
primary verses in dispute. There follows a list of elements as I see them:

Mt 12:31 This verse refers back to vv. 24 and 28 of the Beelzebul story

I tell you --- verbatim in Mark
men --- probably an abbreviation of Mark's "sons of men"
forgiven --- verbatim in Mark
sin --- "sins" in Mark
blasphemy --- plural in Mark
Spirit --- Holy Spirit in Mark
no forgiveness --- similar wording in Mark

Mt 12:32 Matthew puts the previous verse into more poetic form

speaks a word against --- a replacement for 'blasphemes'
Son of Man --- triggered by "sons of men" in Mark (?!)
forgiven --- verbatim in Mark
speaks against --- slightly varying the wording as in Semitic poetry
Holy Spirit --- verbatim in Mark
not ... forgiven --- similar wording in Mark
in this age or ... --- expansion of Mark's "eternal"

Lk 12:10 based on Matthew, and indirectly on Mark

Ron Price,

Derbyshire, UK

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

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Interesting. So do you think that Matthew (at stage 3b) used tou uiou tou anqrwpou in the same way as stage 1 of the tradition used barnasha? David M. ...
Message 11 of 12 , Aug 17, 2013
Interesting.

So do you think that Matthew (at stage 3b) used
tou 'uiou tou anqrwpou in the same way as
stage 1 of the tradition used barnasha?

David M.

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

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
• ... David, Not quite sure what you mean by these stages. Let me assume you are referring to the meaning of Son of Man in Mt 12:32 as contrasted with the
Message 12 of 12 , Aug 17, 2013
David Mealand wrote:

> Interesting.
>
> So do you think that Matthew (at stage 3b) used
> tou 'uiou tou anqrwpou in the same way as
> stage 1 of the tradition used barnasha?

David,

Not quite sure what you mean by these stages. Let me assume you are
referring to the meaning of 'Son of Man' in Mt 12:32 as contrasted with the
meaning of some much earlier Aramaic context (such as the logia?!). If so,
then I don't understand the relevance of the question. If the whole Beezebul
controversy (Mt 12:22-32) is basically triple tradition, then on any
understanding of direct textual influence (e.g. Mark --> Matt --> Luke), it
is only in the Greek where a development of meaning can occur.

My initial reaction is that there is no significant development in the use
of 'Son of Man' between its use in Mark and its use in Matthew, and Mt 12:32
seems to me to be part of a Matthean expansion of a Markan text.

However, on my radical version of the 3ST, Matthew has translated several
occurrences of 'Son of Man' directly from the Aramaic logia, and I suppose
it is possible that some of these may have influenced Matthew's
understanding of the phrase in the Triple Tradition material.

Ron Price,

Derbyshire, UK

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

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