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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Mk 3:29a = Mt 12:31b, or = Mt 12:32b?

Expand Messages
  • David Mealand
    Ron wrote ... Mark s Beelzebul story ... contains all the elements needed to trigger the developments in Matthew and Luke. ... Really? David M. ... David
    Message 1 of 12 , Aug 17, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      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.
    • Ronald Price
      ... 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 2 of 12 , Aug 17, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        I had written:

        > 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]
      • Ronald Price
        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 3 of 12 , Aug 17, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          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.

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

          I had written:

          > 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]
        • David Mealand
          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 4 of 12 , Aug 17, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            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.
          • Ronald Price
            ... 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 5 of 12 , Aug 17, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              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.