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

MEN...DE and Markan Priority, Matthean Dependency

Expand Messages
  • Ted Weeden
    To Listers: This post is a lengthy essay in response to a reply by Leonard Maluf on the Synoptic_L list to my essay-post, Sleeping Disciples: Apostasy in
    Message 1 of 34 , Jun 24, 2001
      To Listers:

      This post is a lengthy essay in response to a reply by Leonard Maluf on the
      Synoptic_L list to my essay-post, "Sleeping Disciples: Apostasy in
      Gethsemane," which I also posted to XTalk and Kata Markon on 6/12 and 6/13.
      I share my reply to Leonard here as well as Synoptic_L and Kata Markon
      because it may be of interest to other listers. In this present essay I
      respond to Leonard by arguing that analysis of the use of the adversative,
      correlative conjunction MEN...DE, and related correlative constructions, in
      the Synoptic Tradition, contra Leonard, provides evidence that significantly
      supports the theory of Markan priority, as well as the theory of Matthean
      and Lukan dependency on Mark. I have divided my essay into four sections:
      I. Correlative Conjunctions and Stylistic Habits of Gospel Writers; II.
      Adversative, Correlative Conjunctions among Synoptic Parallels;
      III. Observations; IV. Conclusion.

      Any feedback by any of you to this essay or to my earlier essay, "Sleeping
      Disciples: Apostasy in Gethsemane," would be of immense help to me in
      refining and improving upon my interpretation of Mark, as I work toward
      publication. I apologize for the length of the essay, but I could not make
      my case otherwise. I respect the fact that some of you may not want to plow
      through the extensive and comprehensive character of my argument. But
      those of you who will take the time to do so, I would greatly benefit from
      your critique. Thank you.

      Ted Weeden

      In a post of June 14, 2001 at 6:17 PM on Synoptic_L, Leonard Maluf produced
      this snippet from my post-essay, "Sleeping Disciples: Apostasy in
      Gethsemane:"

      << Fourth, these three terms or concepts [PEIRASMOS, PNEUMA, SARX] appear
      nowhere else in close proximity to each other in the NT except in Mt. 26:41,
      in which case Matthew renders Mk.14:38 almost verbatim (substituting only
      EISELQHTE for Mark's ELQHTE). So the evidence is quite convincing that Mark
      has drawn upon the LXX: Ps. 77:39-41 for constructing Jesus' admonition to
      the disciples in 14:38. >>

      To this Leonard responded:

      <Only, of course, if you think Mark wrote before Matthew. The second part
      of Matt 26:41 contains what could be described as a Mattheanism in Mark.
      Mark never has a MEN ... DE construction on his own (without a clear
      parallel in Matthew), and he even leaves off the DE in a couple of these
      constructions which he (partially) borrows from Matthew (cf. 4:4 and 9:12).
      On the other hand, the construction is used repeatedly by Matthew, even in
      special Matthew material, and always with the complete, balanced
      construction MEN ... DE (which Mark picks up a few times).>

      And now my response:

      Leonard, you are correct in stating that the MEN ... DE "construction is
      used repeatedly by Matthew." It is that repetitive use by Matthew, along
      with Mark, Luke and John's use of that adversative, correlative
      construction, as well as other correlative constructions, that I wish to
      address in response to your post. For your post has forced me, for which I
      am indebted, to look more carefully at how Matthew and the other Synoptic
      authors, as well as John, use such adversative, conjunctive constructions.
      As a result of taking such a careful look, I have discovered that an
      analysis of the use of adversative, correlative conjunctions in the Synoptic
      Tradition and John sheds significant light on both the issue of priority and
      the issue of dependency within the Synoptic Tradition, issues which we each
      account for differently. I maintain Markan priority and that Matthew and
      Luke were dependent upon Mark, along with Q. As I understand it, from your
      other posts, you maintain Matthean priority, with Mark and Luke dependent
      upon Mark, and you reject the existence of Q. My suggestion is that
      understanding how adversative, correlative conjunctions, and related
      constructions, are used, not used, or infrequently used by respective
      authors in the Synoptic Tradition and John offers insight with respect to
      which Gospel is prior to which, as well as whom is dependent upon whom
      within the Synoptic Tradition. To explain what I mean by this, I share now
      my analysis of the ways in which the various canonical authors use the
      adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE and related constructions. I
      begin with an examination of their stylistic habits with respect to such
      constructions.

      I. Correlative Conjunctions and Stylistic Habits of Gospel Writers

      With respect to Matthew's stylistic habits, Matthew uses the adversative,
      correlative conjunction MEN...DE twenty times in his Gospel. That is more
      than twice as many times as the construction occurs in within the entire
      Synoptic Tradition and John, where the construction occurs a total of
      thirty-five times. The breakdown of the distribution of the use of the
      MEN...DE construction within the Synoptic Tradition and John is as follows:
      Matthew (20); Mark (3), Luke (7), John (5). It is important to note at
      this point, as F. Blass and A. Debrunner state (_The Greek Grammar of the
      New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature_, trans. R. Funk, 447:2),
      that "the correlative use of MEN and DE," although "greatly reduced in the
      NT" is "so basically characteristic of classical style." Matthew, who, I
      submit, seems to follow this classical style in using the adversative,
      correlative conjunction MEN...DE, never uses any other adversative,
      correlative conjunction in his Gospel, although, as we shall see, the other
      Synoptic authors do use alternative adversative, correlative conjunctions.
      Moreover, Matthew never uses MEN except in a correlative relationship with
      DE, although, as Blass and Debrunner also point out (447:4), the use of the
      particle MEN without DE can also be an indicator of "good classical usage."
      Other New Testament writers, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, for example, use MEN
      without DE. Nor does Matthew use the resumptive construction MEN OUN...DE
      (see Blass and Debrunner, 447:3; 451:1), as does Luke (see below), John
      (e.g. 20:30f.) and Paul (e.g., Phil. 2:23).

      With respect to Mark's stylistic habits, Mark only uses the adversative,
      correlative conjunction MEN...DE three times (12:5; 14:21, 38). Unlike
      Matthew, he uses the particle MEN without its correlative DE once (4:4).
      In one instance Mark uses another adversative, correlative conjunction,
      MEN...ALLA (9:12). Blass and Debrunner (447:6) make a point of noting
      that in the New Testamen the particle MEN is also correlated with the
      adversatives ALLA and PLHN to create other, but far less prevalent, forms
      of an adversative, correlative conjunctions.

      Mark never uses the resumptive, correlative conjunction MEN OUN...DE (though
      the so-called "Longer Ending of Mark" does: 16:19). With regard to the
      Johannine stylistic habits (I consider John to be dependent upon Mark for
      some of his material, and thus John's stylistic habits are relevant to the
      issue before us), John uses the adversative, correlative construction
      MEN...DE five times (7:12; 10:41; 16:9f., 22; 19:32). He uses the
      resumptive, correlative construction MEN OUN...DE twice (19:24f.; 20:30f.).
      John, like Mark, uses the particle MEN without the correlative DE once
      (11:6). None of these Johannine uses of the constructions are in texts
      that have parallels to Synoptic texts.

      Luke's stylistic habits with respect to the MEN...DE construction are rather
      unusual. While in his Gospel Luke only uses the adversative, correlative
      conjunction MEN...DE seven times (3:16; 10:2; 11:48; 13:9, 23:33, 41; 56f.),
      in Acts, he uses it seventeen times (1:5; 3:13f., 22f.; 9:7; 11:16; 13:36f.;
      14:4; 17:32; 18:14f.; 19:15; 21:39; 22:9; 23:8; 27:41, 44; 28:22f., 24).
      One would have thought that he would have used the construction in
      essentially equal amounts in both of his works. Luke uses the particle
      MEN once in his Gospel without the correlative DE (8:5). But in Acts he
      uses MEN four times without DE (1:1; 3:21; 4:16; 27:21), which, as was noted
      above, can be considered good classical style, something we would expect
      from Luke. Luke also uses another adversative, correlative conjunction,
      MEN...PLHN, once in his Gospel (22:22), but he never uses the adversative,
      correlative conjunction MEN...ALLA, as Mark does. Moreover, with respect
      to the resumptive construction MEN OUN...DE, Luke uses it once in his Gospel
      (3:18), but it occurs in Acts twenty-three times (1:6f.; 2:41f.; 5:41ff.
      8:4f., 25f.; 9:31f.; 11:19f.; 12:5f.; 13:4ff.; 14:3f.; 15:3f., 30f.; 16:5f.;
      17:12f., 17f., 30ff.; 19:32f., 38f.; 23:18f.,31f.; 25:4,11; 28:5f.), the
      greatest usage of that construction by any New Testament writer. Luke also
      uses the resumptive conjunction MEN OUN without DE four times in Acts
      (1:18; 23:22; 26:4, 9), but never in his Gospel..

      The upshot of this analysis of the stylistic habits of the four evangelists
      is that Matthew, of all of them, is clearly the most liberal in the copious
      use of the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE throughout his
      Gospel. But Matthew is, on the other hand, the most conservative of all in
      sticking strictly to the MEN...DE construction and not deviating to use any
      other alternative adversative, correlative conjunction, as well as never
      using the resumptive construction MEN OUN...DE, or ever permitting the
      particle MEN to appear in his text without its correlative DE. The other
      striking phenomena revealed by this analysis are (1) Luke's very
      conservative use of the MEN...DE construction in his Gospel, in contrast to
      his copious use of it in Acts, and (2) Luke's rare use of the resumptive
      construction MEN OUN...DE in his Gospel, in contrast to his copious use of
      it in Acts. The significance of these Matthean and Lukan stylistic phenomena
      is that, in my judgment, they help to shed light upon which way the vectors
      of dependency flow with respect to the respective Synoptic Gospels. I
      shall return below to elucidate what I have in mind in making this claim.

      With regard to the other evangelists, Mark and John, unlike Matthew and Luke
      in Acts, do not seem to be wedded to using the MEN...DE construction, as is
      characteristic of good classical Greek style. This fact in itself is not
      surprising since neither Gospel rises to the level of good classical Greek
      rhetoric.

      But before I draw upon the insights that emerge from this stylistic analysis
      regarding the nature of dependency of one Synoptic Gospel on another, I need
      to first turn to an examination of the parallel usage or lack of usage of
      the MEN...DE construction and related constructions among the Synoptic
      writers to expose important clues both with regard to the issue of Synoptic
      priority and the issue of Synoptic dependency. The focus of such an
      examination begins with the parallels shared in common by Matthew, Mark and
      Luke, specifically parallels in which at least one of them--- and as it
      turns out Matthew --- uses the MEN...DE and related constructions..

      Since Matthew contains the greatest number of the adversative, correlative
      conjunction MEN...DE to be found in the Synoptic Tradition and John, and
      since you, Leonard, advocate Matthean priority, along with Markan and Lukan
      dependency upon Matthew, I will use Matthew as the comparative base against
      which the use or lack of use of the MEN...DE construction, and related
      correlative, conjunctive constructions, in the rest of the Synoptic
      Tradition and John will be analyzed. The analysis will help to determine
      which way the vector of dependency flows with respect to the respective
      Gospels and where, as a result, priority with regard to the Synoptic
      Tradition should be attributed.

      In establishing this Matthean base of comparison, it should be noted at the
      outset that of the twenty Matthean occurrences of the MEN...DE construction
      (3:11; 9:37; 10:13; 13:4, 8, 23, 32; 16:3, 14; 17:11; 20:23; 21:35; 22:5, 8;
      23:27, 28; 25:15, 33; 26:24, 41), seven (13:4, 8, 23, 32; 16:14; 21:35;
      26:24) are found in Matthean passages which are parallel to or embedded in
      contexts which are parallel to Markan and Lukan material (Mt. 13:4/Mk.
      4:4/Lk. 8:5; Mt. 13:8/Mk. 4:8/Lk. 8:8; Mt. 13:23/Mk. 4:23/Lk. 8:15; Mt.
      13:32/Mk. 4:31/Lk. 13:19; Mt. 16:14/Mk. 8:28/Lk. 9:19; Mt. 21:35/Mk. 12:3
      (5)/Lk. 20:10; Mt. 26:24/Mk. 14:21/Lk. 22:22). There are eight Matthean
      uses of the MEN...DE construction in Matthean passages (3:11; 9:37; 10:13;
      16:3; 22:5, 8; 23:27; 25:15) which are parallel to or embedded in contexts
      which are parallel to Lukan texts (3:16; 10:2, 6; 12:56; 14:18, 21; 11:44f.;
      19:13, respectively). There are three Matthean uses of the MEN...DE
      construction in Matthean passages (17:11; 20:23; 26:41) which have parallels
      in Mark (9:12; 10:39; 26:41, respectively) but not in Luke. There is one
      Matthean passage which contains the adversative, correlative conjunction
      MEN...DE (23:28) for which there is no Lukan parallel, though the Matthean
      passage is embedded in a larger Matthean context, some of which (23:23-36)
      is parallel to a corresponding Lukan context (11:42-51). And there is
      one Matthean passage which contains the adversative, correlative conjunction
      MEN...DE (25:33) for which there is no parallel in either the Synoptic
      Tradition or John. That passage is found in the Matthean context of the
      so-called "Parable of the Last Judgment" (Mt. 25:31-46).

      II. Adversative, Correlative Conjunctions among Synoptic Parallels
      A. Matthean, Markan and Lukan Parallels

      I turn to examine the seven Matthean passages, containing the adversative,
      correlative conjunction MEN...DE (13:4, 8, 23, 32; 16:14; 21:35; 26:24)
      which have parallels or possible parallels in passages found in both Mark
      and Luke (Mt. 13:4/Mk. 4:4/Lk. 8:5; Mt. 13:8/Mk. 4:8/Lk. 8:8; Mt. 13:23/Mk.
      4:20/Lk. 8:15; Mt. 13:32/Mk. 4:31/Lk. 13:19; Mt. 16:14/Mk. 8:28/Lk. 9:19;
      Mt. 21:35/Mk. 12:3 (5)/Lk. 20:10). In the case of five of these Markan and
      Lukan parallels to Matthean passages (Mt. 13:4/Mk. 4:4/Lk. 8:5; Mt. 13:8/Mk.
      4:8/Lk. 8:8; Mt. 13:23/Mk. 4:20/Lk. 8:15; Mt. 13:32/Mk. 4:31/Lk. 13:19; Mt.
      16:14/Mk. 8:28/Lk. 9:19; Mt. 26:24/Mk. 14:21/Lk. 22:22), neither Mark nor
      Luke uses the MEN...DE construction, in contrast to Matthew. However, in
      one (Mt. 13:4/Mk. 4:4/Lk. 8:5) of these five parallels, it should be noted,
      Mark and Luke do use the particle MEN where Matthew uses it. But they
      agree together against Matthew in not using its correlative DE which is
      found in the Matthean text. I shall address the significance of this
      Markan and Lukan agreement against Matthew in detail below.

      In the case of one of the seven aforementioned parallels, Mt. 21:35/Mk. 12:3
      (5)/Lk. 20:10, it is clear that Luke is not in agreement with the use of the
      adversative, correlative conjunction in his parallel text (Lk. 20:10).
      Whether Mark and Matthew are in actual agreement with each other in the use
      of the MEN...DE construction is more difficult to determine. At first
      blush, it would appear that both Matthew and Mark do use the MEN...DE
      construction but not exactly at the same point in the narrative of the
      parallel texts. The context, in which these Matthean and Markan texts with
      MEN...DE construction appear, is the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Mt.
      21:33-46/Mk. 12:1-12/Lk. 20:9-19), a parable which in itself creates all
      kinds of knotty problems for assessing which of the Gospels' different'
      versions is closest to the original way the parable was told. Many
      commentators have argued that the original parable can best be recovered
      from Mark. John Dominic Crossan (_In Parables_, 89-94) makes a strong case
      for the version in the Gospel of Thomas (65) being closest to the original.
      Still others have suggested that the Lukan version of the parable shows
      signs of drawing upon a parabolic source independent of all its cousins (cf.
      Brandon Scott, _Hear Then the Parable_, 237-253, for a discussion of the
      multitude of hermeneutical problems facing any interpreter of the parable).

      In the section of the parable which concerns us here, the section in which
      Matthew and Mark both introduce the adversative, correlative conjunction
      MEN...DE (Mt. 21:34-36/Mk. 12:2-5/Lk. 20:10-12), but position it differently
      in the weave of the narrative (Mt. 21:35; Mk. 12:5), there is strong
      evidence, in my judgment, that at this point of the parable Mark's version
      is closer to the structure and much of the content of the original parable
      than is Matthew's. Mark describes three sendings of single servants
      (12:2-5), who are respectively beaten, (12:3) wounded in the head (a Markan
      redactional allusion to John the Baptist: see Crossan, _Parables_, 85),
      treated shamefully (12:4), and killed.(12:5a). Then Mark concludes this
      section of the parable, about tenant mistreatment of three of the vineyard
      owners' servants, with a general summary statement about mistreatment of
      others, a summary statement in which Mark employs the adversative,
      correlative conjunction MEN...DE (12:5b): KAI POLLOUS ALLOUS, OUS MEN
      DEPONTES, OUS DE APOKTENNONTES ("And many others, some of whom they beat and
      some they killed").

      In the Matthean section (21:35f.), which is a counterpart to the Markan
      passage, 12:3-5, Matthew states that the owner of the vineyard "sent
      servants to the tenants to get his fruit." Then Matthew follows with this
      passage which contains the MEN...DE construction: KAI LABONTES hOI GEWRGOI
      TOUS DOULOUS AUTOU ON MEN EDEIRAN, ON DE APEKTEINAN ON DE ELIQOBOLHSAN
      ("And the tenants seized his servants, one they beat and another they killed
      and another they stoned"). In the Matthean version, rather than the three
      separate sendings of three respective, individual servants, as is the case
      in the Markan (12:3-5) and also Lukan (20:10-12) versions, Matthew offers
      what might be regarded as a general summarry statement of the response of
      the tenants toward particular servants sent to get the fruit. Thus, unlike
      Mark and Luke, Matthew does not narrate the tenants' response in three
      discrete narrative units which describe the ill-fate suffered by three
      individual servants at the hands of the tenants on three separate occasions.

      Two factors suggest to me that the Matthean version is secondary to the
      Markan. First, as Brandon Scott reminds us, the sending of "a single
      servant [at a time] is more realistic, and three sendings follow the
      [folkloric] law of three common to parables" (cf. also Crossan,_In
      Parables_, 91). Luke (Lk. 12:10-12) and Thomas (65:2-5) also use this
      structural pattern, Scott speaks of, by narrating individual sequences of
      single servants being sent to the vineyard multiple times. Luke, like
      Mark, adopts the folkloric pattern of threesome by narrating three separate
      sendings of the servants. Thomas also uses the same folkloric pattern of
      three, but his threesome consists of sending single servants twice (65:2-5),
      followed by the sending of the son in the parable's finale (65:6-7). Thus,
      as far as the elements of the parabolic structure and narrative episodes are
      concerned, Mark, Luke and Thomas agree with each other more than any one of
      them agrees with Matthew against another. The evidence is very strong for
      making the case that of the four versions of the parable, Matthew's version
      appears to be secondary in its development when compared to the other three.
      And, consequently, with respect to whom is dependent on whom, Mark on
      Matthew or Matthew on Mark, Matthew clearly seems to be dependent upon Mark
      in this case.

      The second factor which suggests that Matthew's version is secondary to
      Mark, and thus dependent upon Mark, is this: Matthew seems to have a
      different agenda with respect to the hermeneutical spin being imposed on the
      parable from that of Mark, a spin which, I suggest, led Matthew to reshape
      and condense the Markan material. As Crossan points out (_In Parables_,
      86), Matthew's version--- in which the sending of "servants" as a group in
      the initial scene (vs. Mark's three scenes of three sendings of a different
      single servant), is followed by a sending of another group of "servants" in
      a second scene (21:35f.)--- represents Matthew's reorganization of the
      sendings for his own allegorical purposes. Namely, in Matthew's
      allegorical construct "the first group of servants [represent] the early
      prophets and the second group [represent] the later ones" (Crossan, _In
      Parables_, 86). Once again, Matthew's version appears secondary to the
      Markan version as a result of Matthew having devised two separate groups of
      servants from the Markan material in order to make his allegorical point.

      Since Matthew's version is secondary to Mark, and consequently---- with
      respect to the issue of dependency--- Matthew must be dependent upon Mark,
      then Matthew must have been dependent upon Mark for the Markan MEN...DE
      construction in Mk. 12:5. I submit that Matthew adopted that MEN...DE
      construction from Mark in Matthew's rewrite of the parable and included it
      in the sending of the first group of prophets (21:35), rather than using the
      MEN...DE construction in its original position in Mark, where it is found in
      a summary description following the three sendings. The MEN...DE
      construction serves, in my judgment, a similar function in both Gospels.
      The adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE helps facilitate the
      summation point being made by both Mark and Matthew, in the respective
      contexts, with regard to the tenants' general treatment of the servants sent
      by the vineyard owner.

      Before leaving this matter regarding whom is dependent on whom for the use
      of the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE in the Parable of the
      Wicked Husbandmen, the question remains to be addressed, namely: why did
      Luke not also adopt the MEN...DE construction from, depending upon the Lukan
      vector of dependency, his Markan or Matthean source? To answer this
      question requires a closer look at what Luke is about in his parallel
      version. Luke, in his version of the third sending of a single servant,
      supplies a different fate for that servant ("wounded and cast out," 12:12)
      from that given by Mark to the third servant ("him they killed," 12:5). In
      this instance Luke appears to possess, perhaps, a different version of the
      parable, or perhaps he has reworked the Markan parable to make the third
      rather than the second servant's fate that of being wounded (Lk. 20:11-12
      vis-a-vis Mk. 12:4-5). In any case, Luke does not conclude this section of
      his parable with a summation point, as does Mark (12:5b) or Matthew, earlier
      on, for that matter (21:35). Perhaps in the interest of economy of words
      and terse, dramatic movement, Luke decided not to include the summary
      statement about the tenants' general treatment of the vineyard owner's
      servants, which Luke found in his Synoptic source. Luke's decision against
      using such a summary statement, which contained the MEN...DE construction in
      both the Matthean and Markan versions, meant that Luke did not need to
      incorporate the MEN...DE construction into his version of the parable.

      To return now, to the examination of the seven Matthean passages containing
      the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE, passages which have
      parallels found in Mark and Luke, I give attention to the last of the seven
      parallels. The parallel, Mt. 26:24/Mk. 14:21/Lk. 22:22, is a parallel in
      which it is clear that Mark and Matthew agree together against Luke. Or to
      put it another way, a parallel in which it is clear that Luke disagrees with
      Mark and Matthew. And in this instance Luke's disagreement with them is
      not just a case of deciding not to use the MEN...DE construction, as was the
      case in the parallel I just examined. No, in this case Luke, like Matthew
      and Mark, does, in fact, use an adversative, correlative conjunction in his
      parallel (22:22) to the Matthean and Markan passages, but it is not
      MEN...DE. The adversative, correlative conjunction Luke chooses to use at
      this point is MEN...PLHN, which turns out to be a *hapax* construction not
      only for Luke but also the entire the New Testament.

      Luke's unusual departure from using the MEN... DE construction in Lk.
      22:22--- as both Matthew and Mark do--- to choosing to use MEN...PLHN as an
      adversative, correlative conjunction can, however, be easily explained.
      First of all Luke's recourse to PLHN as the second term of the correlative
      instead of DE is not a case of Luke forsaking the familiar particle DE for a
      rare adversative. On the contrary, PLHN is one of Luke's favorite
      adversatives. He uses it fifteen times in his Gospel (6:24, 35; 10:11,
      14, 20; 11:14; 12:31; 13:33; 17:1; 18:8; 19:27; 22:21, 22, 42; 23:8), only
      four times less than the nineteen times he uses the adversative ALLA (1:60;
      5:14, 31, 32, 38; 6:27; 7:7, 25, 26; 8:52; 11:42; 12:7; 16:21; 20:38; 22:36,
      42; 24:6, 21, 22). In comparison Matthew uses PLHN five times (11:22, 24;
      18:7; 26:39, 64) vs. the twenty-five times he utilizes ALLA as an
      adversative (5:17; 6:13, 18; 8:4, 8; 9:13, 17, 18, 24; 10:20, 34; 11:8, 9;
      13:21; 15:11; 16:12, 23; 17:12; 18:22, 30; 19:6; 20:28; 21:21; 22:32;
      27:24). Mark uses PLHN only once (12:32) vs. the twenty-seven times he
      employs ALLA as an adversative (1:44; 2:17, 22; 3:26, 29; 4:17; 5:19, 26,
      39; 6:9; 7:5, 15; 8:33; 9:8, 13, 37; 10:8, 45; 11:23, 32; 12:27; 13:11, 20,
      24; 14: 28, 36; 16:7). Moreover, of the thirty-one uses of PLHN in the
      New Testament (in addition to the twenty-five in Matthew, Mark and Luke-Acts
      cited here, six uses are found in I Cor. 11:11; Eph. 5:33; Phil. 1:18; 3:16;
      4:14; Rev. 2:25) almost exactly half are found in Luke's Gospel and another
      four (8:1; 15:28; 20:23; 27:22) are found in Acts. Luke likes the
      adversative PLHN.

      Luke uses the adversative PLHN when he wants to create a very strong and
      emphatic contrast. That is why he uses PLHN in both Lk. 22:22, the verse
      paralleling Mt. 26:24 and Mk. 14:21 (which are virtual textual twins), and
      the preceding verse, Lk. 22:21. As Joseph Fitzmyer points out, (_The
      Gospel of Luke X-XXIV_, 1409), Luke's use of PLHN twice at this point in his
      narrative is intended to draw a sharp contrast between two episodes: (1) the
      episode of Jesus administering the bread and cup of the last supper, and (2)
      the episode of Jesus identifying his betrayer. As the Lukan Jesus'
      attention shifts from the administering the bread and cup to his betrayer,
      Luke has Jesus express his condemnation of the betrayer in these excoriating
      words (22:21f.): PLHN IDOU hH CEIR TOU PARADIDONTOS ME MET' EMOU EPI THS
      TRAPEZHS. hOTI h UIOS MEN TOU ANQPWPOU KATA TO hWRISMENON POREUTEI,
      PLHN OUAI TW ANQRWPW EKEINW DI' OU PARADIDOTAI ("But behold the hand of
      him who betrays me is with me on the table. For the Son of the Human goes
      as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!").
      Luke, I submit, at this point wanted to dramatize in the most emphatic way
      the contrast between the sharing of the bread and cup, and its theological
      meaning, with the gravity of the offense of the betrayer, and its
      theological meaning. The adversative, correlative conjunction with OUAI,
      namely, MEN...OUAI DE, in my judgment, was just too "wimpish" to achieve
      the dramatic effect Luke wanted. So he substituted his own construction
      MEN...PLHN OUAI for the construction MEN...OUAI DE which he found in his
      source. I refrain for a moment from identifying which was his source,
      Matthew or Mark, until I have completed my analysis of the parallel
      relationships among the three Gospels.

      Not only was this Luke's rhetorical choice for dramatizing emphatic impact,
      but also, in keeping with driving home the theological point regarding the
      heinous crime of the betrayer, PLHN was precisely the adversative he needed
      to introduce the woe against the betrayer. For PLHN is precisely the
      adversative that Luke uses elsewhere in his Gospel to drive home the
      theological gravity of what is damnable. Luke uses this same exclamatory
      declaration PLHN OUAI to introduce the damning woes against the rich, the
      full, those who can laugh now, and those who have high public-opinion-poll
      ratings (6:24f.) and the damning woes against those who are tempted ---
      tempted, particularly, to sin against a fellow Christian (17:1-3) So it is
      that, in my judgment, Luke felt the woe against Judas could only be
      sufficiently and emphatically stated, if when he appropriated the
      adversative, correlative conjunction found in his source, it was altered by
      substituting PLHN OUAI for the source's OUAI DE. And what again was Luke's
      Synoptic source? It is to the summation of this analysis of parallel texts
      shared in common among the three Synoptics, in which the Matthean parallel
      at least contained the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE, that I
      turn now to answer that question.

      In sum, this examination of the seven Synoptic parallels has, in effect,
      shown that in five instances in which there is an MEN...DE construction in
      Matthean passages which have parallels in Markan and Lukan texts (Mt.
      13:4/Mk. 4:4/Lk. 8:5; Mt. 13:8/Mk. 4:8/Lk. 8:8; Mt. 13:23/Mk. 4:20/Lk. 8:15;
      Mt. 13:32/Mk. 4:31/Lk. 13:19; Mt. 16:14/Mk. 8:28/Lk. 9:19), Mark and Luke
      clearly agree against Matthew in Matthew's use of the adversative,
      correlative conjunction. In those instances, moreover, Luke gives every
      appearance of manifesting a strong dependency upon Mark. In those five
      instances Luke shows no substantial evidence of dependency upon Matthew. .

      In the two cases where Matthew and Mark appear to agree against Luke, I have
      shown that in one (Mt. 21:35/Mk. 12:3 (5)/Lk. 20:10), at least, Matthew was
      dependent upon Mark. With regard to the other (Mt. 26:24/Mk. 14:21/Lk.
      22:22), the vector of dependency could be read to flow either way, from
      Matthew to Mark or Mark to Matthew. But, in at least six out of the seven
      parallels, the evidence points more strongly to a Matthean dependency upon
      Mark than a Markan dependency on Matthew. In my judgment the examination
      of these parallels in "the triple tradition" makes a very strong case for
      both Markan priority and Matthean and Lukan dependency on Mark.

      If it is true that an analysis of the aforementioned parallels of "the
      triple tradition," provide strong evidence for the support of the theory of
      Markan priorty and for the theory of Matthean and Lukan dependency upon
      Mark, then what about the parallels between Matthew and Luke with respect to
      the use of the adversative correlative conjunctive MEN...DE in those
      passages for which there are no Markan parallels? What evidence do they
      provide with respect to the issues of Synoptic priority and Synoptic
      dependency? It is to those passages that I now turn.

      B. Matthean and Lukan Parallels, sans Markan Parallel

      There are eight Matthean uses of the MEN...DE construction in Matthean
      passages (3:11; 9:37; 10:13; 16:3; 22:5, 8: 23:27; 25:15) which might have
      possible parallels in Lukan texts (3:16; 10:2, 6; 12:56; 14:18, 21; 11:44;
      19:13, respectively) but not in Markan texts. In the case of two of these
      Matthean texts, Mt. 3:11 and 9:37, there are clear Lukan parallels, Lk. 3:16
      and 10:2, respectively, parallels in which Luke agrees with Matthew in the
      use of the MEN...DE construction. In the case of two other of these eight
      Matthean texts, Mt, 10:13 and 16:3, again there are Lukan parallels, Lk.
      10:6 and 12:56, respectively, but in those Lukan parallels Luke does not use
      the MEN...DE construction, as Matthew does in his texts.

      With respect to the four remaining Matthean texts, can an argument be made
      for there being possible parallels in Lukan texts according to the following
      alignment of the Matthean texts and corresponding Lukan texts: namely, Mt.
      22:5/Lk. 14:18; Mt. 22:8/Lk. 14:21; Mt. 25:15/Lk. 19:13; Mt.23:27/Lk. 11:44
      ? In the case of two of the possible parallels, Mt. 22:5/Lk. 14:18 and
      Mt. 22:8/Lk. 14:21, while the larger contexts are obviously two different
      versions of the same parable, the Parable of the Great Banquet ( Mt.
      22:2-14/Lk. 14:16-24), the particular segments of the parable represented by
      Mt. 22:5/Lk. 14:18 and Mt. 22:8/Lk. 14:21 have such significant differences
      in content that, in my judgment, the respective Matthean and Lukan texts are
      not actually parallel to one another. If it is argued that Luke is
      dependent upon Matthew,, then Luke has performed a substantial rewrite of
      these particular Matthean texts and in doing so did not include the Matthean
      MEN...DE constructions in either text in his rewrite.

      The same can be said for the proposed parallel, Mt. 25:15/Lk. 19:13.
      Again, the specific Matthean and Lukan texts are found in the larger
      contexts of two different versions of the same parable, the Parable of the
      Entrusted Money (Mt. 25:14-30/Lk.19:12-27), but the texts of Mt. 25:15 and
      Lk. 19:13 differ so radically in content that they are not themselves, in my
      judgment, parallel to one another. Once more, if Luke is dependent upon
      Matthew, then Luke has engaged in a substantial rewrite of this particular
      Matthean text, and in doing so did not include the Matthean MEN...DE
      construction in his rewrite of the Matthean text.

      As far as the possibility that Mt.23:27 may have a parallel in Lk. 11:44, it
      is possible that the Matthean woe against the Pharisees (23:27), in which
      the Pharisees are likened to "whitewashed tombs," is analogous and therefore
      parallel to the Lukan woe against the Pharisees (11:44), in which the
      Pharisees are likened to "graves which are not seen." But I find it a
      tremendous logical stretch to identify those two passages as parallel to one
      another. If it is argued that Luke has taken the woe from Matthew and
      reworked its imagery, then Luke did so without any interest in including
      Matthew's MEN...DE construction in his imagistic syntax.

      Thus what has emerged from an analysis of possible Matthean and Lukan
      parallels, sans Mark, in which the adversative, correlative conjunction
      MEN...DE occurs in the Matthean text is this. There are two clear Matthean
      and Lukan parallels in which Luke agrees with Matthew in using the
      adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE (Mt. 3:11/Lk. 3:16 and Mt.
      9:37/Lk. 10:2). In the case of six other possible parallels, there is
      either no substantial evidence that actual parallels exist or if parallels
      do exist, the Lukan parallel does not agree with the Matthean text in the
      use of the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE.

      As far as dependency is concerned, two of the cases where there is agreement
      between Matthew and Luke with respect to the use of the adversative,
      correlative conjunction MEN...DE (Mt. 3:11/Lk.3:16; Mt. 9:37/Lk. 10:2),
      could be used as evidence that Luke is dependent upon Matthew. Similarly,
      it could be argued in yet two more cases, Mt.10:13/Lk. 10:6 and Mt. 16:3/Lk.
      12:56, that parallels exists between the Matthean and Lukan texts, and,
      therefore, that Luke is dependent upon Matthew in those instances. But
      then one would have to explain why it is that Luke did not follow suit with
      Matthew and use the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE in his
      texts which are parallel to the Matthean texts. In the case of four other
      instances of possible parallels which were explored, since it was found that
      there are no parallels existing between the respective Matthean and Lukan
      texts, then those four instances way heavily against the cause for Lukan
      dependency upon Matthew. I will return below to offer an explanation for
      why Matthew and Luke agree with each other in the use of the MEN...DE
      conjunction in the case of the Matthean and Lukan parallels, Mt. 3:11/Lk.
      3:16 and Mt. 9:37/Lk. 10:2, in contrast with their disagreement with its use
      in other parallels..

      C. Matthean and Markan Parallels, sans Lukan Parallels

      There are three Matthean uses of the MEN...DE construction in Matthean
      passages (17:11; 20:23; 26:41) that have parallels in Mark (9:12; 10:39;
      26:41, respectively) but not in Luke. In only one of these Markan
      parallels (14:38) does Mark agree with Matthew in using the MEN...DE
      construction. In one of the parallels Mark does use an adversative,
      correlative conjunction, namely MEN...ALLA (9:12)--- a *hapax* in Mark and
      the Gospels--- where the MEN...DE construction appears in Matthew (17:11).

      D. Other Stylistic Indicators

      To complete this analysis, it should be noted (1) that Luke does use the
      MEN...DE construction in four passages (13:9, 23: 33, 41) which have no
      parallels in the Synoptic Tradition, (2) that John, as noted earlier, uses
      the MEN...DE construction in five passages (7:12; 10:41; 16:9f., 22;
      19:32f.) which have no parallels in the Synoptic Tradition, and (3) that
      Luke uses the resumptive conjunction MEN OUN...DE, a favorite of his in
      Acts, only once in his Gospel (3:18), its only occurrence in the entire
      Synoptic Tradition----though John uses it twice (19:24; 20:30f.).

      III. Observations

      Now what observations can be drawn from this foregoing analysis? I offer
      the following:

      (1) Given the fact that Luke so favors the use of the MEN...DE construction
      in Acts, it is strange that he uses it so infrequently in his Gospel. In
      fact, in his Gospel he uses it over twice as much in his special material
      (11:48; 13:9; 23:33, 41, 56-24:1) as he does in passages having Synoptic
      parallels; and those parallels, two of them, are found only in Matthean
      texts (Mt. 3:11/Lk. 3:16; Mt. 9:37/Lk. 10:2). If it is argued that Luke
      is dependent upon Matthew and not on Mark it is strange that Luke would not
      have followed suit with Matthew and incorporated more of the adversative,
      correlative conjunction MEN...DE when he found it in his Matthean source.
      However, if Luke was dependent upon Mark, the scarcity of MEN...DE
      constructions in his Gospel can be explained by the fact that the Markan
      texts Luke appropriated did not contain an adversative, correlative
      conjunction for him to appropriate. Moreover, for whatever the reasons,
      three of the four Markan texts in which such a construction does appear (Mk.
      9:12; 12:5; 14:38), Luke chose not to use in his Gospel. In the case of
      the one Markan text with the MEN...DE construction which Luke did
      appropriate, Mk. 14:21, Luke chose to modify its adversative correlative
      conjunctive to MEN...ALLA to suit his own purposes, as I have argued above
      with respect to Lk. 22:22.

      (2) Given this Lukan rhetorical pattern, and in view of Luke's fondness for
      the MEN...DE construction in Acts, it is easier to explain why he so seldom
      uses the MEN...DE construction in his Gospel, as due to the fact that---- if
      Luke was dependent upon Mark--- his Markan source did not contain the
      construction when he appropriated from it, than it is to explain why --- if
      Luke was dependent upon Matthew--- he would have chosen to incorporate the
      MEN...DE construction on only two occasions he found it in his Matthean
      texts (Mt. 3:11/Lk. 3:16; Mt. 9:37/Lk. 10:2) and passed up sixteen other
      opportunities he had to appropriate the construction from Matthean passages
      (Mt. 10:13/Lk. 10:6; Mt. 16:3/Lk. 12:56; Mt. 22:5/Lk. 14:18; Mt.
      22:8/Lk.14:21; Mt. 23:27/Lk. 11:44; Mt. 25:15/Lk. 19:13). In my judgment,
      the two occasions in which Luke is in agreement with Matthew with respect to
      using the MEN...DE construction is not because Luke is using Matthew as a
      source. But rather Luke is using Q as a source Again in my judgment, Q
      3:16 and Q 10:2 contained the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE
      (see the IPQ reconstruction of Q, as set forth by James Robinson, Paul
      Hoffman and John Kloppenborg, _The Critical Edition of Q_
      [henceforth:_CEQ_], 14, 160). When Luke copied those two Q texts, he
      appropriated their adversative, correlative conjunctions. Likewise,
      Matthew, when he copied the Q texts, did the same. That is why there is
      agreement between Matthew and Luke with respect to their respective uses of
      the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE in the two passages in
      which they do not share parallel material in common with Mark (Mt. 3:11/Lk.
      3:16; Mt. 9:37/Lk. 10:2). Parenthetically, the number of uses Q makes of
      the adversative, correlative conjunction (2) approximates closely the number
      of uses that Mark (3) and John (5) make of the same adversative
      construction, particularly when consideration is given to the fact that the
      Gospels of Mark and John are much larger documents than is the reconstructed

      Q.

      (3) It is clear that Luke is not reluctant to use the MEN...DE construction
      in his Gospel (11:48; 13:9; 23:33, 41, 56-24:1), as well as the resumptive
      construction MEN OUN...DE (3:18), both favorites of his in Acts, when
      incorporating his own special material. Yet, despite Luke's penchant for
      the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE and the resumptive,
      correlative construction MEN OUN...DE in Acts, he appears to introduce them
      in his Gospel only if his sources contained them in material he chose to
      appropriate or when he introduces them on his own via his own special
      material. Thus, I submit, with respect to Luke's use of these constructions
      in his Gospel, that Luke followed a pattern of only using the constructions
      if his sources contained them in material he chose to appropriate or if he
      was producing material unrelated to his sources. This pattern leads me
      further to conclude that Luke was not using Matthew as a source. Rather, I
      am convinced that Luke was dependent upon Mark and Q.

      Consequently both this Lukan practice which I have just described and Luke's
      dependency upon Mark, as well as Matthew's dependency upon Mark, are all
      confirmed by an analysis of the use of the particle MEN without its
      correlative DE by Mark and Luke in their respective versions of the Parable
      of the Sower (Mk.4:4; Lk. 8:5) vis-a-vis Matthew's use of the adversative,
      correlative conjunction MEN...DE twice in his version of that parable
      (13:4f., 8). Earlier, I drew attention to the fact that Mark's use of the
      particle MEN without its correlative particle DE in this parabolic text is
      the only occasion in which Mark uses the particle MEN without DE in his
      Gospel. I also noted that, in the case of the material parallels existing
      among Matthew, Mark and Luke in Mt. 13:4f/Mk, 4:4/Lk. 8:5, this was one of
      those instances in which Luke clearly agrees with Mark against Matthew in
      using the particle MEN without its correlative DE. I noted also that it
      was not unusual for Luke in Acts to use the particle MEN without DE. So
      the fact that Luke follows the Markan suit of using MEN without DE in this
      particular passage in the Parable of the Sower should not lead one to the
      judgment that this stylistic anomaly is "unLukan."

      What is surprising, as I have also pointed out, is that--- if Luke was
      dependent upon Matthew --- he did not follow Matthew in appropriating the
      Matthean MEN...DE construction when he found it in the parable in its two
      Matthean textual locations (Mt. 13:4f., 8). It is particularly
      surprising --- if again Luke was independent upon Matthew --- that Luke in
      8:15 would have chosen only to appropriate the particle MEN from Matthew,
      rather than the entire Matthean adversative, correlative conjunction from
      Mt. 13:8, given his preference for the MEN...DE construction in Acts, which
      far exceeds, in number of occurrences, his use of the particle MEN without
      DE (see above).

      So a preliminary assessment of Lukan agreement with Mark over against
      Matthew, with respect to the use of the adversative, correlative conjunction
      MEN...DE in the Parable of the Sower, suggests that Luke is indeed dependent
      upon Mark, at least in the case of this particular parable. That
      preliminary assessment is verified by the evidence that can be extrapolated
      from an exploration of the history of the evolution of the different
      versions of the Parable of the Sower as they are reflected in Matthew
      (13:3-8), Mark (8:3-8), Luke (8:5-8) and the Gospel of Thomas (9). Many
      commentators consider the Markan version, when stripped of secondary
      emendations, to be closest to the way in which Jesus told the parable
      originally (I have provided an argument for a reconstruction of the parable
      in its original form in my "Recovering the Parabolic Intent in the Parable
      of the Sower," _JAAR_, 1979:97-106). John Dominic Crossan has argued for
      the Gospel of Thomas as having the version of the parable closest to its
      original state, and Crossan offers a different reconstruction of the
      original parable (see _Cliffs of Fall_, 25-64). Whether the Gospel of
      Thomas or Mark hold the key to the original need not occupy attention here.

      But it is clear from my analysis of the different Synoptic versions of the
      parable, as well as Crossan's, that among the Synoptic versions, Mark is the
      source for both the Matthean and Lukan versions. It is not possible to
      rehearse all the argument here for that conclusion. But let me cite one
      facet of that argument as it addresses the respective Matthean, Markan and
      Lukan endings of the parable. The productivity of the seeds sown on good
      ground is variously stated by the three Synoptic evangelists. Matthew
      tells us, with the help of his adversative, correlative conjunction
      MEN...DE, that the seeds produced "some (hO MEN) a hundredfold, some (hO DE)
      sixty, some thirty" (13:8). Luke tells us that the seeds "yielded a
      hundredfold" (8:8), and Mark records that the seeds yielded "thirtyfold and
      sixtyfold and a hundredfold" (4:8).

      It is clear that, of the three versions of the parabolic ending, the Markan
      version ends with the most dramatic, the most positive and the most
      triumphal finale, a finale made even more dramatic in that it follows upon
      three tragic defeats experienced in agricultural failure (4:4-7). By
      citing the increasing yield of the seed sown on good ground according to a
      scale of ever-escalating, extraordinary abundance, an upward spiraling to
      higher and higher quantities (30-60-100), Mark (better: the historical
      Jesus) effectively and triumphantly reverses the defeat experienced in the
      downward spiral of agricultural failure in the instances of sowing on the
      path, rocky ground and among thorns (4:4-7). By comparison, Luke's simple
      conclusion that the seed "grew and yielded a hundredfold" (8:8) seems rather
      prosaic and limp. And Matthew's ending, which depicts the grain as
      producing in an order of decreasing magnitude, namely, "one hundredfold,
      sixtyfold and thirtyfold" (13:8), actually brings the parable to an end on a
      downward spiral of diminishing returns, which in some ways leaves the hearer
      in a "downer" rather than on an "upper," as Mark's ending does. It is hard
      to believe that Matthew's ending could ever have been the original end of
      the parable. Furthermore, the numerical sequence Matthew uses, thirty,
      sixty, one hundred, which is the reverse of Mark's numerical sequencing, in
      my judgment, could only have been appropriated from Mark's ending, which in
      Matthew's hands, for some inexplicable reason, was turned on its head.

      But that is not the most significant thing about the differences in the
      sequential enumeration among the three versions of the parable's ending.
      What is most significant is that Matthew and Luke's versions, in effect,
      eliminate or seriously reduce, the parabolic jolt which is the signature of
      Jesus' parabolic methodology. Jesus incorporated into all his parables a
      parabolic jolt whose purpose was to shock his hearers into an existential
      encounter with a parable's message. Through the use of the parabolic jolt,
      Jesus' hearers were forced to do a "double take" on the parable's message,
      as that message challenged the conventional way of seeing or experiencing
      life. In the case of the Parable of the Sower the parabolic jolt which
      produces the "double take" lies in the numerical sequencing of the yield of
      the seed sown in good soil.

      Mark's, and I would suggest the historical Jesus', numerical sequencing
      creates an arithmetic and/or geometric dissonance which the mind tends to
      both reject and at the same time, like Brer Rabbit with Tar Baby (Joel
      Chandler Harris' Uncle Remus story), cannot let go of, at least until the
      dissonance is resolved. What I mean by this is that the mind, when it is
      given a series of three numbers, as in the case with this parable, seeks for
      a normative arithmetic or geometric pattern of sequencing that explains the
      relationship which exists between the numbers and accounts for the logic of
      their order. Thus in the case of the numerical sequencing in Markan ending
      of the Parable of the Sower, the sequence of the first two numbers, 30 and
      60 in that order, would suggest normally that the arithmetic progression
      that should define the proportionally increased value of the third number in
      the sequence is the difference between the first and second number, namely
      30. So the logic of conventional arithmetic patterning would suggest that
      the third number, which is the value of the second number (60) plus 30,
      would be 90, and not 100, as the Markan parabolic ending stipulates.
      (Parenthetically, a different logic would be employed if the cognitive
      dissonance created by the numerical sequence were resolved geometrically, e.
      g. 30-60-120, which is the direction that the Gospel of Thomas [9] partially
      takes in its attempt to eliminate the dissonance of 30-60-100 in the
      original ending of the parable. The Gospel of Thomas' depiction of the
      seeds' productivity is that they "yielded sixty per measure and one hundred
      and twenty per measure.")

      According to normative or conventional arithmetic patterning, then, the
      numerical sequencing in the Markan parable, 30-60-100, does not "make
      sense." So the mind is forced to wrestle with that sequencing to try to
      make sense out of that which makes no sense. By causing the mind to grapple
      with the cognitive dissonance created by the arithmetic non-sequitur of
      30-60-100, with respect to the seeds' production, the parabler hooks the
      mind into doing a "double take" on the unconventional reality which the
      parable itself espouses. That in turn challenges the hearer to decide
      whether he/she can accept the fact that there could be such a world, and, in
      fact, *is* such a world as the domain of God, where the abundance of
      goodness far exceeds the devastation of the tragic.

      Thus, of the three endings of the Synoptic versions of the Parable of the
      Sower, the Markan ending scores the point of the parable the best. The
      Lukan ending, which states only that the yield from the good ground was a
      hundredfold, effectively robs the parable of the parabolic jolt embedded in
      the nonsensical order of 30-60-100. And the effect of Matthew reversing
      the sequence in his ending to create 100-60-30 has the similar effect of at
      least minimizing the jolt. For while one could certainly argue that the
      Matthean patterning also creates a jolt by virtue of its arithmetic
      dissonance, what the reversal effectively does is put a damper on the
      message of the parable. It does so because the numerical sequencing
      Matthew employs, which leaves the impression that productivity diminishes by
      the order of 100 to 60 to 30, tends to cast the shadow of the old
      paradigmatic schema of life's tragic reversals (the parable's agricultural
      failures) upon the new paradigmatic vision of future good fortune (the
      extraordinary productivity of seed sown on good ground).

      In sum, if the effectiveness of the various versions of the Sower's
      parabolic ending is measured (1) by how well a given ending achieves the
      greatest dramatic impact and (2) by how well it generates a parabolic jolt
      which will force the hearer to confront the new reality of the domain of
      God, then, in my judgment, the Markan parabolic ending far exceeds the
      Matthean, Lukan, and even the Thomistic, endings in achieving such parabolic
      effectiveness on both accounts.
      Furthermore, I submit, on the basis of this analysis of the effectiveness of
      the Markan ending of the Parable of the Sower, (1) that the Markan version
      of the ending is closest to the original ending of Jesus' parable, (2) that
      Matthew and Luke were both dependent upon Mark for their versions of the
      Parable of the Sower, and (3) that in their versions Matthew and Luke
      altered the Markan ending, for whatever reason, and in doing so essentially
      emasculated the original parable's parabolic impact.

      Furthermore, I submit, that, in appropriating the Markan version of the
      Parable of the Sower, Matthew, upon finding the particle MEN in Mk. 4:4,
      linked it with DE to create his preferred adversative, correlative
      conjunction MEN...DE. Moreover, I also submit that Matthew introduced yet
      another MEN...DE construction into his conclusion to his Markan adopted
      parable (13:8). On the other hand, Luke, who was also dependent upon
      Mark for his version of the parable, chose to follow Mark's lead when he
      came to the Markan MEN in Mk. 4:4, and unlike Matthew, adopted the Markan
      MEN (8:5) without alteration. In following suit with Mark at this point,
      Luke pursued a practice that appears to be his whenever he appropriates a
      source into his Gospel composition. Luke treats the source's syntactical
      use of adversative, correlative conjunction conservatively, and, if a
      correlative conjunction, such as the adversative, correlative conjunction
      MEN...DE or the resumptive conjunction MEN OUN...DE is not in his source, he
      does not try to insert such a construction in his appropriation of the
      source, even though he generally favors the use of such constructions when
      it comes to the syntactical formulation of his own material in Luke and
      Acts.

      IV. Conclusion

      Finally what conclusions can be drawn from this study of the use of the
      adversative, correlative conjunction, and related conjunctive constructions,
      in the Synoptic tradition and John. First with respect to stylistic habits,
      it is clear that Matthew has a strong preference for the use of the
      adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE. It is the only correlative
      conjunction that he employs in his Gospel. His copious use of it, more
      than twice as much as all the uses of the construction among all the
      canonical authors, is an almost indisputable sign of Matthean DNA, although
      the use of the MEN...DE construction in the Synoptic Tradition does not
      originate with Matthew.

      In the case of Luke it is quite evident that when he is engaged in his own
      creativity, as in Acts and his special material in his Gospel, Luke has a
      strong penchant for the use of the adversative, correlative conjunction
      MEN...DE and also the resumptive, correlative conjunction MEN OUN...DE.
      Yet, when it comes to adopting material from his sources, Mark in
      particular, Luke seems to have followed a conservative approach with respect
      to the use of these correlative conjunctions. If Luke did not find such
      constructions in his source, he was not inclined to introduce the
      constructions into his Gospel composition. In the case of the stylistic
      habits of John and Mark, they have minimal interest in using such
      correlative conjunctions. When John does use those constructions, he
      restricts himself to the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE and
      the resumptive, correlative conjunction MEN OUN...DE. Mark never uses the
      resumptive , correlative construction and while on occasion he does use the
      adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE, he is not bound to it. In
      one instance at least he chose another adversative, correlative
      construction, namely, MEN...ALLA (9:12).

      Second with respect to the issue of Synoptic priority, the results of the
      examination of the "triple tradition" parallels as well as other parallel
      comparisons offer strong evidence for the theory of Markan priority and the
      theory of Matthean and Lukan dependency upon Mark.

      Third, with respect to the Synoptic material held in common by Matthew and
      Luke but not by Mark, the examination conducted of the various possible
      Matthean and Lukan parallels offers some supportive evidence --- based upon
      the stylistic habits of Matthew and Luke, just addressed, as well as the
      dependency of Matthew and Luke on Mark --- for the existence of Q as the
      best explanation for the source of both Matthew and Luke when they manifest
      material held in common and which is not found in Mark. I have in mind,
      among the texts which were investigated, Q 3:16 (Lk. 3:16/Mt. 3:11), Q10:2
      (Lk. 10:2/Mt. 9:37); Q 10:6 (Lk. 10:6/Mt. 10:13) and Q 12:56 (Lk. 12:56/Mt.
      16:13). (see _CEQ_, 14f., 160f., 168f., 390f.) With respect to the other
      possible parallels between Matthew and Luke (Mt. 22:5 vis-a-vis Lk. 14:8;
      Mt. 22:8 vis-a-vis Lk. 14:21; Mt. 23:27 vis-a-vis Lk. 11:44; Mt. 25:15
      vis-a-vis Lk. 19:13), _CEQ_ argues that Lk. 11: 44; Lk.14:21 and Lk. 19:13
      are, for the most part, Q 11:44; 14:21 and 19:13 , respectively. But the
      none of the content of the Matthean texts which we have looked at as
      possible parallels to the Lukan texts--- with the exception to the reference
      to the Pharisees in Mt. 23:27, the reference to the master's servant in Mt.
      22:8 are Matthean terminology which has parallel in the Q texts--- including
      Matthean content containing the adversative, correlative conjunction
      MEN...DE, has any parallel in Q, according to _CEQ_ (see 160f., 168., 390f).
      In every instance _CEQ_ rejects the Matthean clauses in which the
      adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE is found as in any way
      Matthean representations of Q. With respect to Mt. 22:5 vis-a-vis Lk. 14:8
      as having been derived from Q, _CEQ_ does not attribute either the Matthean
      or Lukan text to Q (see 428-430).

      Fourth, with respect to Q's use of the adversative, correlative conjunction
      MEN...DE, given Luke's tendency not to introduce the MEN...DE construction
      or any other adversative, correlative conjunction when his adopted source
      Mark had not used such a construction, I surmise that Luke pursued the same
      conservative approach in appropriating Q material as he did with
      appropriating Markan material. Consequently, if the Q material Luke adopted
      had the adversative, correlative conjunction in it, Luke appropriated it
      also. If the Q material he adopted did not have adversative, correlative
      conjunction within it, Luke did not insert it. Thus in the two Q passages
      Luke adopted in which Luke uses the adversative, correlative conjunction
      MEN...DE in his text of those passages (Lk. 3:16 and Lk. 10:2), the
      construction MEN...DE must have been in those Q passages to begin with. In
      fact, _CEQ_ does accept the adversative, correlative conjunction found in
      the Matthean and Lukan parallels, Mt. 3:11/Lk. 3:16 and Mt. 9:37/Lk. 10:2,
      as having been derived by both evangelists from the Q texts, Q 3:16 and
      10:2, respectively (see _CEQ_, 14f., 160f.). Conversely, in my view, in
      material that Matthew and Luke have independently adopted from Q, in which
      the Matthean version of the adopted Q text contains the adversative,
      correlative conjunction MEN...DE and the same Q text which Luke has adopted
      does not exhibit that conjunction in the Lukan text, then Matthew, I
      conclude, has added the MEN...DE construction on his own in his
      appropriating of Q. The construction was not originally in the Q text.
      As I noted above that is also the judgment of _CEQ_.

      Fifth, given Matthew's dependency upon Mark and Q, and given the fact that
      Matthew uses his favored adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE in
      his texts which are clearly dependent upon Mark and Q, when the originating
      text did not have such a construction, Matthew is evidently responsible for
      incorporating it into his adopted material. Where Matthew's source
      material did contain the MEN...DE construction, given Matthew's
      predisposition to that construction, it is logical to assume that Matthew
      just appropriated the MEN...DE construction from his source for use in his
      own composition.

      This, then, is how I would account for the presence of the twenty instances
      of the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE in the Matthean
      Gospel. In the case of Markan material, Matthew found the MEN...DE
      construction in Mk. 12:5, 14:21 and 38. When Matthew adopted those Markan
      verses for his own use, he appropriated the Markan MEN...DE construction
      into his own text in Mt. 21:35; 26:24, 41, respectively. Matthew also
      found the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE in Mk. 9:12, but
      when he adopted that Markan text for his own purpose, he altered the Markan
      adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...ALLA to his preferred MEN...DE
      construction (17:11). Matthew also inserted his favored MEN...DE
      conjunctive construction into certain other texts he appropriated from Mark,
      namely Mk. 4:4 (linking the correlative DE with Mark's MEN, Mt. 13:4); Mk.
      4:8 (Mt. 13:8); Mk. 4:20 (Mt.13:23); Mk. 4:31 (Mt. 13:32); Mk. 16:14 (Mt.
      8:28); Mk. 10:39f (Mt. 20:23).

      In the case of Q related material, Matthew found the MEN...DE construction
      in Q 3:16 and 10:2 and incorporated it into his Gospel in 3:11 and 9:37.
      However, having not found the construction in Q 10:6 and 12:56, Matthew
      inserted his own MEN...DE into his incorporation of those Q texts in 10:13
      and 16:3, respectively. The other occurrences of the Matthean use of the
      adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE (Mt. 22:5, 8; 23:27
      [possibility Q], 28; 25:15, 33) can be accounted for in at least two
      different ways. The MEN...DE constructons are either (1), a part of his
      own redaction appended to and or inserted into material that he derived
      from Q, as in the case of the woes against the Pharisees (Q 11:39-51: the
      Matthean redaction including 23:28 and, perhaps, 23:27, if it is not Q) and
      the parables of the Great Banquet (Mt. 22:2-10/Lk. 14:16-24: the Matthean
      redaction including 22:5 and 8) and the Entrusted Money (Mt. 25:14-30/Lk.
      19:12-27: the Matthean redaction including 25:15). Or the MEN...DE
      constructions are (2), a part of his own redactional work as he reformulated
      or appended to other independent sources which he had access to, such as an
      independent version of the parables of the Great Banquet (Mt. 22:2-10/Lk.
      14:16-24: the Matthean redaction again including 22:5 and 8) and the
      Entrusted Money (Mt. 25:14-30/Lk. 19:12-27: the Matthean redaction again
      including 25:15). It is clear, in the case of Matthew's use of the
      adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE in 25:33, that Matthew either
      found the MEN...DE construction already in the so-called "Parable of the
      Last Judgment," which has no parallel among the canonical Gospels, or he
      edited the story by inserting the MEN...DE construction into the narrative.
    • David C. Hindley
      ... seeds.
      Message 34 of 34 , Jul 2, 2001
        William said:

        >>I don't follow what is meant by a 2-5x return on planting grain
        seeds.<<

        In ancient times, and even recently in regions where subsistence
        (i.e., relatively unmechanized) farming is common, the yield is not
        represented as volume of grain but by the volume of grain returned
        divided by the volume of grain sown. If you sow a bushel of wheat
        (using modern US measure), you expect (maybe pray for) 5 bushels
        reaped. The yield seems to have varied between 4x and 6x, according to
        the Turkish study (circa 1950, and using relatively primitive farming
        techniques resembling that of 1st century Palestine) mentioned in an
        earlier post.

        Respectfully,

        Dave Hindley
        Cleveland, Ohio, USA
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.