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

Re: Markan Additions

Expand Messages
  • Jim Deardorff
    ... I haven t yet seen arguments expressed here against the above contention of Davies & Allison from the modified AH point of view. Their arguments apply to
    Message 1 of 29 , Sep 24, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      At 08:07 PM 9/23/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
      >I am currently working through standard arguments for Markan Priority and
      >would
      >be interested in any thoughts on the argument from supposed "Markan
      >additions",
      >expressed by Davies and Allison as follows:
      >
      > ". . . can one seriously envision [on the Neo-Griesbach (Two-Gospel)
      > Hypothesis] someone rewriting Matthew and Luke so as to omit the
      > miraculous birth of Jesus, the sermon on the mount, and the resurrection
      > appearances, while, on the other hand, adding the tale of the naked young
      > man, a healing miracle in which Jesus has trouble healing, and the remark
      > that Jesus' family thought him mad?" (_Matthew_, 1:109).
      >
      >In Farmer's recent paper (reproduced at
      >http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l/farmer.htm), he makes the following
      >comment on this:
      >
      > "At best this very misleading aggregative approach provides a nice
      > rhetorical question, and points to a consideration that needs to be
      > explained on the view of Mark being third, but it is difficult to see in
      > it any "compelling" reason for Marcan priority."
      >
      >Do others agree with Farmer, or is this a valuable argument for Markan
      >Priority?

      I haven't yet seen arguments expressed here against the above contention of
      Davies & Allison from the modified AH point of view. Their arguments apply
      to the AH as well as the 2SH/GH, upon eliminating "Luke" from the above.
      Although Leonard M. expressed his views why their argument does not preclude
      Matthean priority, he did not include the powerful motivational factors that
      are needed to explain the "why" of each gospel writer's editorial slants.

      For any who have tuned in to this List late, a key motivational factor in
      the modified AH is that Matthew's gospel, being written first and
      denigrating gentiles as it does, even denying that discipleship should be
      granted to any others than the "lost sheep of the house of Israel," would
      have been very offensive to the majority of would-be evangelists, who
      favored making disciples of all nations. That is, to AMk and ALk. In this
      regard, not only does Mt 28:18-19 appear to be a late addition, added only
      after Mark & Luke appeared, but also Mt 12:17-23, which includes the
      quotation from Isaiah that is favorable towards gentiles. I've now amplified
      upon this latter in my web site.

      Thus a plausible key reason why AMk omitted the Sermon on the Mount was its
      presence of anti-gentile statements, expressed at Mt 5:47, 6:7, 6:32 and
      7:6. (In the latter, "dogs" are plausibly interpreted as an allusion to
      gentiles just as in Mt 15:26.) In particular, the appearance of "And in
      praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do..." just prior to
      the Lord's Prayer plausibly caused AMk not to wish to extract that prayer
      for use at Mk 11:24-25 or anywhere else (this in reply to Mark G.'s response
      to Jeff of 11:34 GMT, 24 Sept.). Let's keep in mind that this issue -- that
      the first gospel out would treat gentiles as the scum of the earth and try
      to get away with it -- was a much more serious issue at the time in question
      than are any of our minor quibbles today about which Gospel came first or
      second or third. It is understandable, then, that evangelists' tempers would
      flare over that problem much more than do any of ours over issues on this
      list. It would be impossible for AMk, then, to keep from betraying his
      feelings against Matthew when copying from that gospel and forming his own.
      So his feelings on that can be deduced from both his omissions from Matthew
      and from some of his additions. A similar statement applies to ALk,
      regarding his placement of Matthean material omitted by AMk in improper
      context and order, his following of Markan order and content most closely
      where Mark *deviates* from Matthew's order, and his frequent contradiction
      of Matthean content. Yet, these evangelists could not expose their feelings
      too blatantly lest their written products appear too impious.

      This is one of the key points that requires the label "modified" be placed
      before this Augustinian hypothesis (AH). As one usually sees it, the AH
      attributes only the most honorable intentions to the Gospel writers, and
      usually assumes the Gospels were written by their kata's.

      This is not to say that there were not several secondary reasons for AMk's
      overall editorial behavior. He could not have wished his gospel to look like
      a mere abbreviation of Matthew and yet be judged favorably in its own light.
      So in order for it to look different from Hebraic Matthew, he wrote it in
      Greek and abbreviated Matthew heavily, especially abbreviating Judaistic
      content, and made very numerous minor changes for the sake of change,
      besides essentially eliminating Matthew's anti-gentile content. He did not
      favor that Christians keep a meek and humble attitude, and not be willing to
      defend their faith with a sword. Hence AMk was not favorably inclined
      towards the Sermon on the Mount from the start.

      Regarding AMk's omission of the nativity narrative (here obviously relative
      to Matthew and not also Luke), I believe AMk was uncomfortable with the idea
      that an angel would interfere with actual events of Jesus' infancy and life,
      even if only in dreams. However, he did not mind speaking in terms of angels
      more abstractly as long as angels stayed in heaven. (Mk 1:13b is the one
      exception to this; angels were apparently necessary there for Jesus to have
      survived his wilderness stay.) This is scarcely any different from a
      present-day view that it's quite OK for extraterrestrial intelligences to
      exist in the galaxy, as long as they don't show up on earth.

      Regarding AMk's omission of any post-crucifixion appearances, he had only
      Matthew to go by, not Luke or John (or proto-Matthew). For the reason just
      mentioned, AMk did not wish to copy Matthew's first appearance as it was,
      and so altered Matthew's angel into a young man. Plausibly, AMk noticed that
      Jesus could not have been there near the tomb if he had already headed for
      Galilee (Mt 28:7). Thus AMk would not logically replicate Matthew's
      illogical first appearance. And anyway Jesus didn't have anything more to
      say there, in Matthew, than what the angel had said.

      Jesus' second Matthean appearance had scarcely any content to it,
      considering that Mt 28:18-19 (and perhaps more?) had not been present in the
      original Hebraic Matthew ending available to AMk. There was thus no point in
      his replicating it, unless he could invent realistic discourse from a
      resurrected body; but AMk was not that creative.

      Considering the three additions mentioned by Davies & Allison, these need
      explanation just as much from a hypothesis of Markan priority as from the
      2GH or AH, an opinion I think I share with Leonard, and perhaps Brian. Since
      today's Markan priorists do not believe that a non-disciple named Mark wrote
      that gospel, with its apparent eye-witness accounts, one can as easily ask
      why AMk added those three pericopes to his source, whatever that source was.

      The modified AH I support can only speculate why AMk added the story about
      the half-naked boy who was following Jesus. But I have yet to read of any
      plausible explanation for it in the literature. My speculation is that its
      purpose was to show how cowardly the disciples were for fleeing and not
      defending Jesus. A young man, half naked even and with no weapon, risked
      being seized by following Jesus, even to the point of being stripped naked
      before he finally fled, which was much more heroic than anything the
      disciples did following Mk 15:49. However, I regard this as a botched
      editorial addition by AMk because of its ambiguity of meaning. If AMk had
      allowed the young man to be seized, my speculation might seem to work
      better, but AMk may have wished to have the boy flee so as to better allude
      to the fleeing of the disciples.

      The modified AH explains the two-fold healing in Mk 8:22-26 as having been
      present within the short document that Peter and Mark brought with them to
      Rome, later utilized by AMk. This healing had been forgotten by the writer
      of Matthew's source by the time he got around to writing it ("it" being the
      document that Papias referred to as the Logia). Perhaps the reason ALk did
      not make use of it was because it was neither in Matthew or Matthew's
      source, and so he did not trust its genuineness. (This modified AH allows
      that ALk and AJn had brief exposure to AMt's source, some time after AMt was
      done with it.)

      Concerning Mark's pericope about the ones with Jesus calling him mad, the
      modified AH explains it as another of AMk's numerous slurs against either
      the Jewish disciples or Jews in general, relative to Matthew. This was for
      the purposes of showing that gentiles would make better disciples than Jews,
      and/or in retaliation for Matthew's anti-gentile statements.

      Thus I agree with Farmer to the extent that Davies and Allison's argument
      provides no compelling argument for Markan priority.

      Plausible rebuttals to any of this will be welcomed.

      Jim Deardorff
      Corvallis, Oregon
      E-mail: deardorj@...
      Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
    • Brian E. Wilson
      ... If Markan Priority is unproblematic by itself, why bother with the Farrer Hypothesis? Why not be content with the idea that Mark was written first, and
      Message 2 of 29 , Sep 25, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        Mark Goodacre wrote:
        >I am yet to be convinced, however, that Markan Priority is
        >problematic

        If Markan Priority is unproblematic by itself, why bother with the
        Farrer Hypothesis? Why not be content with the idea that Mark was
        written first, and that Matthew and Luke were each documentary
        descendants of Mark in some unspecified way?

        The answer, of course, is that by itself Markan Priority is an enormous
        problem. By itself, it is not a satisfactory account of the similarities
        and differences between Matthew, Mark and Luke. It does not explain the
        agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark, either in the double
        tradition or within the triple tradition material.

        The Two Document Hypothesis attempts to account for the agreements of
        Matthew and Luke against Mark by positing "Q" as a source copied
        independently by Matthew and Luke. This patching-up of Markan Priority
        does not work, however. It fails to account for the Minor Agreements,
        the "Mark Q Overlaps", and other patterns. The temptation is to patch up
        even further by positing more sources, or even by speculative
        emendations to the text of Mark.

        The Farrer Hypothesis also sets out to patch up Markan Priority. It
        attempts to account for the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark
        by supposing that they were created ex nihilo by Matthew. With Mark and
        the Old Testament writings to guide his genius for manufacturing new
        material out of his own head, Matthew fabricated much of the Sermon on
        the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, Jesus' Thanksgiving to the Father, the
        Temptations of Jesus in the Wilderness, parables such as the Two
        Builders, the Playing Children, the Asking Son, the Lamp and Bushel, the
        Leaven, the Great Banquet, and so on. Matthew is supposed to have
        achieved this brilliant feat without using any additional source
        material, written or spoken, according to Goulder.

        If any additional source were even mentioned, of course, whether oral or
        written, this would immediately raise the question of how this source
        material relates to the "Q" posited by the Two Document Hypothesis. So
        it is not mentioned, or at least very rarely mentioned. Additional
        source material sounds too much like "Q" lurking in the shadows.

        A further difficulty for the Farrer Hypothesis is that on its basis Luke
        must have subtracted the wording of Mark from passages in Matthew where
        it is combined with double tradition wording. Luke must then have
        usually assembled the double tradition material into larger units. A by
        no means easy task as a whole, and not easy to understand in some of its
        parts. For instance, as G. M. Styler points out, ('Excursus IV' in C.
        F. D. Moule "The Birth of the New Testament", edition 3, 1981, pages
        303-304), in the Beelzebub controversy - Mt 12.25-37, Mk 3.23-30, Lk
        11.17-23 -

        "...there are close parallels in some verses between Matthew and Luke,
        and in other verses between Matthew and Mark. This is easily explained
        if Matthew is conflating what he found in Mark and what he found in Q,
        and if Luke is following Q faithfully. But if Matthew is the source of
        one or both of the others, it is extremely difficult to create a
        plausible sequence of events. If Luke came last, knowing both Mark and
        Matthew, his procedure must have been quite extraordinary: he must
        carefully have SUBTRACTED from Matthew almost all that was common to
        Matthew and Mark and retained VERBATIM much of what was left...Such a
        procedure would not be difficult to carry out. But to produce a
        plausible explanation for doing anything so apparently crazy is very
        difficult indeed."

        Goulder puts a brave face on the above difficulty ("Luke: A New
        Paradigm", page 508), but you only have to look at page 30 in W. R.
        Farmer "SYNOPTICON", (Cambridge,1969), and see the alternate layers of
        double tradition (in red) and material parallel to Mark but not Luke (in
        yellow), to realize the huge difficulty for the Farrer Hypothesis at
        this point.

        Markan Priority is a problem. It could be described as the first step
        over the edge of a cliff.

        Best wishes,
        BRIAN WILSON

        E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
        SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
        10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
        Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
      • Mark Goodacre
        ... Markan Priority on its own is of course not adequate to explain Matthew and Luke. What one needs is something to explain also the double tradition. So do
        Message 3 of 29 , Sep 25, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          On 25 Sep 98 at 12:43, Brian E. Wilson wrote:

          > If Markan Priority is unproblematic by itself, why bother with the
          > Farrer Hypothesis? Why not be content with the idea that Mark was
          > written first, and that Matthew and Luke were each documentary
          > descendants of Mark in some unspecified way?

          Markan Priority on its own is of course not adequate to explain Matthew and
          Luke. What one needs is something to explain also the double tradition. So
          do we go for Q or Luke's use of Matthew? I prefer Luke's use of Matthew
          because it helps us to explain not only the double tradition but also elements
          of the triple tradition, specifically minor and major agreements between
          Matthew and Luke against Mark.

          > The Farrer Hypothesis also sets out to patch up Markan Priority. It
          > attempts to account for the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark
          > by supposing that they were created ex nihilo by Matthew. With Mark and
          > the Old Testament writings to guide his genius for manufacturing new
          > material out of his own head, Matthew fabricated much of the Sermon on
          > the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, Jesus' Thanksgiving to the Father, the
          > Temptations of Jesus in the Wilderness, parables such as the Two
          > Builders, the Playing Children, the Asking Son, the Lamp and Bushel, the
          > Leaven, the Great Banquet, and so on. Matthew is supposed to have
          > achieved this brilliant feat without using any additional source
          > material, written or spoken, according to Goulder.

          As you know I have been critical of Goulder's no-other-sources theory, perhaps
          the greatest weakness in his approach. But this view, though shared by Drury,
          is not necessary to the Farrer theory and others like Sanders would regard it
          as a partial weakness. Farrer himself did not believe this but thought that
          Matthew had other sources.
          >
          > If any additional source were even mentioned, of course, whether oral or
          > written, this would immediately raise the question of how this source
          > material relates to the "Q" posited by the Two Document Hypothesis. So
          > it is not mentioned, or at least very rarely mentioned. Additional
          > source material sounds too much like "Q" lurking in the shadows.

          We have to remember what Q constitutes to most of its advocates, a document
          that can be reconstructed by comparing non-Markan material in Matthew and Luke
          on the assumption that they used Mark independently. This is not the same as
          Matthew's non-Markan traditions though of course there is some overlap. The
          area of overlap is, in my opinion, one of the reasons that some Q research has
          plausible elements.
          >
          > A further difficulty for the Farrer Hypothesis is that on its basis Luke
          > must have subtracted the wording of Mark from passages in Matthew where
          > it is combined with double tradition wording. Luke must then have
          > usually assembled the double tradition material into larger units. A by
          > no means easy task as a whole, and not easy to understand in some of its
          > parts. For instance, as G. M. Styler points out, ('Excursus IV' in C.
          > F. D. Moule "The Birth of the New Testament", edition 3, 1981, pages
          > 303-304), in the Beelzebub controversy - Mt 12.25-37, Mk 3.23-30, Lk
          > 11.17-23 -

          For a fuller statement of the case I would recommend F. Gerald Downing,
          'Towards the Rehabilitation of Q', NTS 11 (1964), pp. 169-81, an article that
          was written directly to counter Farrer's seminal article. Downing's article
          deserves to be taken seriously and I have written an 18-page analysis of
          it for my _Case Against Q_, which will not, I am afraid, see the light of day
          for a while yet. But let me comment briefly on what is wrong with the
          following:
          >
          > "...there are close parallels in some verses between Matthew and Luke,
          > and in other verses between Matthew and Mark. This is easily explained
          > if Matthew is conflating what he found in Mark and what he found in Q,
          > and if Luke is following Q faithfully. But if Matthew is the source of
          > one or both of the others, it is extremely difficult to create a
          > plausible sequence of events. If Luke came last, knowing both Mark and
          > Matthew, his procedure must have been quite extraordinary: he must
          > carefully have SUBTRACTED from Matthew almost all that was common to
          > Matthew and Mark and retained VERBATIM much of what was left...Such a
          > procedure would not be difficult to carry out. But to produce a
          > plausible explanation for doing anything so apparently crazy is very
          > difficult indeed."

          (1) This is at best a caricature. It is worth noting, for example, that Luke
          does show clear signs of use of Mark as well as Matthew in this pericope,
          specifically at Luke 11.15, where EKBALLEI is placed after DAIMONIWN -- seven
          words verbatim agreement in order against Matthew. Cf. also Luke 11.17 where
          there is a Mark-Luke agreement against Matthew in both vocabulary and order.

          (2) The statement that "he must carefully have SUBTRACTED from Matthew almost
          all that was common to Matthew and Mark" is partly inaccurate and partly
          misleading. Luke does not 'omit' the relevant material, which in any case only
          amounts to a sentence and a half, but he re-formulates it, some in accordance
          with a change in context (12.10) and some in the light of a characteristically
          Lucan re-working of the Matthew's and Mark's image (11.21-22).

          Mark
          --------------------------------------
          Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
          Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham

          Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
          --------------------------------------

          Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l
          Synoptic-L Owner: mailto:Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Yuri Kuchinsky
          ... But why not both, Mark? I think that most elements of the double traditions can be accounted for by the Q hypothesis, and some such elements also indicate
          Message 4 of 29 , Sep 26, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Mark Goodacre wrote:

            > On 25 Sep 98 at 12:43, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
            >
            > > If Markan Priority is unproblematic by itself, why bother with the
            > > Farrer Hypothesis? Why not be content with the idea that Mark was
            > > written first, and that Matthew and Luke were each documentary
            > > descendants of Mark in some unspecified way?
            >
            > Markan Priority on its own is of course not adequate to explain
            > Matthew and Luke. What one needs is something to explain also the
            > double tradition. So do we go for Q or Luke's use of Matthew?

            But why not both, Mark?

            I think that most elements of the double traditions can be accounted for
            by the Q hypothesis, and some such elements also indicate Lk's use of Mt.

            > I prefer Luke's use of Matthew because it helps us to explain not only
            > the double tradition but also elements of the triple tradition,
            > specifically minor and major agreements between Matthew and Luke
            > against Mark.

            Minor agreements can of course be adequately explained by the protoMk
            hypothesis.

            Regards,

            Yuri.
          • Tim Reynolds
            Stevan, ... Peter s job is witnessing, and he wasn t witness to the miraculous birth. ... I spent an afternoon with Pound at St. Elizabeth s and remember not a
            Message 5 of 29 , Sep 26, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              Stevan,

              I accept that your contribution satirizes the tealeaf-reading rife in the NT biz. Still, analysis of your persona's points is possible:

              > > omit the miraculous birth of Jesus,
              >
              > Mark has a possessionist Christology and events prior to the baptism
              > are irrelevant (cf. 6:1-7). Probably relevant that all of Luke/Acts
              > from 3:1 on are possessionist and ignore the miraculous birth of
              > Jesus.

              Peter's job is witnessing, and he wasn't witness to the miraculous birth.
              >
              > > the sermon on the mount,
              >
              > It is a "fence around the Torah" speech for the most part, and Jesus
              > the Pharisee who does not suspend a jot or a tittle is not Mark's
              > view in his chapter 7.

              I spent an afternoon with Pound at St. Elizabeth's and remember not a word. I've read and heard read AA stuff hundreds of times but couldn't repeat it. Some can, some can't.
              >
              > > and the resurrection appearances,
              >
              > This is part of Mark's political agenda to undercut the authority
              > claims of Jesus' disciples and family.

              Alleged political agena. It doesn't explain why the text ends in mid-sentence. I think it represents the moment the lynch mob broke in. It could hardly be more dramatic, like the prince's "Turandooo/": "They said nothing lest/" You could hear a pin drop.
              >
              > > while, on the other hand, adding the tale of the naked young man,
              >
              > Just for a change of pace, this one was in Matthew but has been
              > lost through scribal transmission error.

              You're being silly, but your satiric persona's model is less parsimonious. Neaniskoi in sheets are a feature of Mk, not Mt.
              >
              > > a healing miracle in which Jesus has trouble healing,
              >
              > an overrated focus on the "trouble" because the point is the
              > successful healing. Mark does not have such a high view of Jesus'
              > healing abilities (cf. 6:1-7) as scholars seem to think he should
              > have had.

              Okay.
              >
              > > and the remark
              > > that Jesus' family thought him mad?"
              >
              > This is part of Mark's political agenda to undercut the authority
              > claims of Jesus' disciples and family.

              Alleged political agenda. You could claim it was aimed at James and the Jerusalem Home Office (if before 62) but reportage seems more likely. Everything else seems to be.

              What's "the SM"? Not "secret Mark", surely?

              Tertium datur,

              Tim Reynolds




              -----
              See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l/?start=1001
              --
              Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/
            • Maluflen@aol.com
              In a message dated 98-09-24 10:22:49 EDT, peterson@mail.ics.edu writes:
              Message 6 of 29 , Sep 27, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 98-09-24 10:22:49 EDT, peterson@... writes:

                << The birth narrative aside, the threefold Temptation remains for GH as a
                Marcan omission of material seemingly cohering with his interests
                elsewhere, and so requiring explanation. Leonard Maluf's recent post states
                the general question in a helpful way, in light of which one might ask how
                it is that AMark thinks his account of "the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of
                God" is better communicated without the birth and temptation narratives
                found in his two major predecessors.

                Jeff >>

                LEONARD: Thanks Jeff for the above. I think the infancy narratives of Matthew
                and Luke posed the following problems for Mark: 1.) they hindered his getting
                started with a fast-moving drama of the ministry of Jesus leading to his
                death, which seems to have been what AMk intended to create; 2.) the two
                accounts of Matt and Lk were extremely diverse from each other, and therefore
                posed serious problems for how AMk intended in general to proceed, namely, by
                developing materials, in the direction of popular drama, to which Matt and Lk
                bore concurrent testimony; 3.) if the setting for the intended,single-reading,
                oral recitation or performance of Mk was to be a baptismal vigil of some kind,
                there was a strong appropriateness in beginning the narrative with the story
                of JB, and in particular, with John's prediction of a future baptism in the
                Holy Spirit of which Jesus Christ, Son of God was to be the agent (note that
                Mark removed in this narrative all the sayings material in Matt and Lk that
                made the baptismal reference of John into a metaphor for future judgment to be
                executed by Israel's end-time Messiah. Instead, in MK, the words of JB may be
                seen as a prophetic announcement of a baptism which his audience, or part of
                it, was to receive in the immediate aftermath of the dramatic recital itself
                -- a baptism whose minister was one acting in persona Christi: HE will baptize
                you...); 4.) Mark was aware of the kind of writing that was being done in both
                infancy narratives, namely, one with close ties to midrashic procedures of
                Rabbinic scholarship, which required a sophistication in the addressee that
                was probably unrealistic to expect of his popular Roman audience.

                As for the temptation account in Mark, by comparison with the versions found
                in Matt and Lk, one sees the same urgency on the part of AMk to plunge rapidly
                and dramatically into the story of Jesus' ministry itself, and the same
                hesitancy to use material of a sophisticated, midrashic character to make his
                points. Mark's audience would certainly identify well with a Jesus whose
                temptation involved being in the desert "with the beasts", given that some
                members of the community had probably faced a similar trial in the
                amphitheatres of Rome. Also to be noted is the fact that by the time Mark is
                written, the designation Son of God (Mk 1:1, probably) has become fully
                titular in character and in the Hellenistic setting of Mark's community, now
                designates simply a person who belongs to the divine sphere. For Matt
                especially, Jesus' sonship to God is still a much more realistic, Old
                Testament-based, and multifaceted metaphor, not yet hardened into a title
                designating divinity. It reflects primarily the full spectrum of interpersonal
                relationships between a human being and God, as intended by the biblical
                revelation: a son is one who, as a human being, is begotten by God (in this
                case, through Mary [Matt 1:16], where the passive verb is probably a divinum
                passivum -- this with no precedent in biblical tradition, but supported by the
                prophecy of Is 7:14); he is one who, like Israel of old, is protected and
                nurtured specially by God in his childhood (Matt 2:15 and the surrounding
                text); and then, he is one who, as a mature son, must be obedient to his
                Father in all things (as Israel was not: cf. the temptation narrative of Matt,
                inter alia, as a theological blue-print of Jesus' entire ministry and death);
                and finally, a son of God is one who ultimately inherits his Father's
                position, in this case, universal authority, royalty, divinity, in the
                interests of a world-wide, Gentile mission (Matt 21:42, 22:2; 25:1-14; 25:31;
                28:18). Since sonship to God, at least in much of the earlier part of the
                Matthean picture, implies a way of being human, rather than the full majesty
                of a divine person, it is not really so suitable an image for Mark's audience,
                who are being told from the outset that this is the Gospel of Jesus Christ,
                Son of God (a divine being, with full authority, who will be actively involved
                in baptizing them in the Spirit in but a few hours).

                I hope the above supplies a reasonable account of AMk's procedure in the early
                part of his gospel.

                Leonard Maluf
              • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                ... [snip] ... Leonard, Shades of F.C. Grant! Seriously, whatever one is to make of the argument from haste , it seems to me that your thesis hinges on the
                Message 7 of 29 , Sep 27, 1998
                • 0 Attachment
                  Maluflen@... wrote:
                  >
                  > In a message dated 98-09-24 10:22:49 EDT, peterson@... writes:
                  >
                  > << The birth narrative aside, the threefold Temptation remains for GH as a
                  > Marcan omission of material seemingly cohering with his interests
                  > elsewhere, and so requiring explanation. Leonard Maluf's recent post states
                  > the general question in a helpful way, in light of which one might ask how
                  > it is that AMark thinks his account of "the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of
                  > God" is better communicated without the birth and temptation narratives
                  > found in his two major predecessors.
                  >
                  > Jeff >>
                  >
                  [snip]

                  > As for the temptation account in Mark, by comparison with the versions found
                  > in Matt and Lk, one sees the same urgency on the part of AMk to plunge rapidly
                  > and dramatically into the story of Jesus' ministry itself, and the same
                  > hesitancy to use material of a sophisticated, midrashic character to make his
                  > points. Mark's audience would certainly identify well with a Jesus whose
                  > temptation involved being in the desert "with the beasts", given that some
                  > members of the community had probably faced a similar trial in the
                  > amphitheatres of Rome. Also to be noted is the fact that by the time Mark is
                  > written, the designation Son of God (Mk 1:1, probably) has become fully
                  > titular in character and in the Hellenistic setting of Mark's community, now
                  > designates simply a person who belongs to the divine sphere. For Matt
                  > especially, Jesus' sonship to God is still a much more realistic, Old
                  > Testament-based, and multifaceted metaphor, not yet hardened into a title
                  > designating divinity. It reflects primarily the full spectrum of interpersonal
                  > relationships between a human being and God, as intended by the biblical
                  > revelation: a son is one who, as a human being, is begotten by God (in this
                  > case, through Mary [Matt 1:16], where the passive verb is probably a divinum
                  > passivum -- this with no precedent in biblical tradition, but supported by the
                  > prophecy of Is 7:14); he is one who, like Israel of old, is protected and
                  > nurtured specially by God in his childhood (Matt 2:15 and the surrounding
                  > text); and then, he is one who, as a mature son, must be obedient to his
                  > Father in all things (as Israel was not: cf. the temptation narrative of Matt,
                  > inter alia, as a theological blue-print of Jesus' entire ministry and death);
                  > and finally, a son of God is one who ultimately inherits his Father's
                  > position, in this case, universal authority, royalty, divinity, in the
                  > interests of a world-wide, Gentile mission (Matt 21:42, 22:2; 25:1-14; 25:31;
                  > 28:18). Since sonship to God, at least in much of the earlier part of the
                  > Matthean picture, implies a way of being human, rather than the full majesty
                  > of a divine person, it is not really so suitable an image for Mark's audience,
                  > who are being told from the outset that this is the Gospel of Jesus Christ,
                  > Son of God (a divine being, with full authority, who will be actively involved
                  > in baptizing them in the Spirit in but a few hours).
                  >
                  > I hope the above supplies a reasonable account of AMk's procedure in the early
                  > part of his gospel.
                  >

                  Leonard,

                  Shades of F.C. Grant! Seriously, whatever one is to make of the argument
                  from "haste", it seems to me that your thesis hinges on the the truth of
                  two assumptions: (1) an assumption about what "Son of God means for
                  Matthew and for Mark respectively (and, by the way, I see the ghost of
                  Bultmann, and therfore the division of Christianity between Jewish
                  Palestinian and Greek Hellenistic layers, in your reading of Mark's
                  Christology), and (2) that Matthew *always* uses the title "Son of God"
                  differently than does Mark. Now while there may be times when Mark's and
                  Matthew's view of the office *is* as you say, I would question whether
                  it is actually the case that Mark *never* uses it as it reputedly is
                  used in GMatt, or that Matthew never sees "Son of God" as Mark
                  supposedly does. Is the title strictly an equivalent to the "divine man"
                  in, say, the Centurion's confession in Mk. 15, where shades of Jesus as
                  embodied Israel appear to permeate the text?

                  Yours,

                  Jeffrey
                  --
                  Jeffrey B. Gibson
                  7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
                  Chicago, Illinois 60626
                  e-mail jgibson000@...
                • Brian E. Wilson
                  ... What use is it trying to explain the double tradition by Luke s use of Matthew ? Markan Priority has nothing to say about the double tradition material.
                  Message 8 of 29 , Sep 27, 1998
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Mark Goodacre wrote:
                    >Markan Priority on its own is of course not adequate to explain Matthew and
                    >Luke. What one needs is something to explain also the double tradition. So
                    >do we go for Q or Luke's use of Matthew? I prefer Luke's use of Matthew
                    >because it helps us to explain not only the double tradition but also elements
                    >of the triple tradition, specifically minor and major agreements between
                    >Matthew and Luke against Mark.
                    >
                    What use is it trying to explain the double tradition by "Luke's use of
                    Matthew"? Markan Priority has nothing to say about the double tradition
                    material. So from where did Matthew obtain the double tradition for
                    Luke to use?

                    If the Farrer Hypothesis is Markan Priority plus Luke's use of Matthew,
                    then it does not account for the existence of the double tradition in
                    Matthew.

                    The Farrer Hypothesis must be Markan Priority plus Luke's use of Matthew
                    plus something else, therefore.

                    Best wishes,
                    BRIAN WILSON

                    E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
                    SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
                    10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                    Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
                  • Mark Goodacre
                    ... The question of Matthew s sources for non-Markan material is of course an interesting one, just as the question of Mark s sources is an interesting one. So
                    Message 9 of 29 , Sep 28, 1998
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 27 Sep 98 at 21:50, Brian E. Wilson wrote:

                      > What use is it trying to explain the double tradition by "Luke's use of
                      > Matthew"? Markan Priority has nothing to say about the double tradition
                      > material. So from where did Matthew obtain the double tradition for
                      > Luke to use?
                      >
                      > If the Farrer Hypothesis is Markan Priority plus Luke's use of Matthew,
                      > then it does not account for the existence of the double tradition in
                      > Matthew.

                      The question of Matthew's sources for non-Markan material is of course an
                      interesting one, just as the question of Mark's sources is an interesting one.
                      So too the question of Q's sources on the 2ST, or the question of Matthew's
                      sources on the GH, and so on. But surely what we are dealing with when we are
                      discussing the Synoptic Problem is the issue of explaining the literary
                      agreement among the Synoptics. We will naturally focus, therefore, on the two
                      major areas of apparent literary agreement of some kind among the Synoptics --
                      the triple tradition (as well as Mark // Matthew and Mark // Luke) and the
                      double tradition. It is this material that is naturally one's focus in the
                      discussion of Synoptic interrelationships and it is this material that was the
                      focus of my attention in the Email to which Brian was responding.
                      >
                      > The Farrer Hypothesis must be Markan Priority plus Luke's use of Matthew
                      > plus something else, therefore.

                      One might as well say, of course, that the 2ST is Markan Priority + Q +
                      something else, or that Griesbach is Luke's use of Matthew, Mark's use of
                      Matthew and Luke + something else. And so on. But if one is talking about
                      the literary relationships among the Synoptics, Markan Priority + Luke's use of
                      Matthew is indeed adequate to the task. The Farrer Theory would explain triple
                      tradition (including Mark // Luke and Mark // Matthew) largely by Markan
                      Priority, the double tradition by Luke's use of Matthew.

                      Mark
                      --------------------------------------
                      Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
                      Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham

                      Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                      --------------------------------------

                      Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l
                      Synoptic-L Owner: mailto:Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Brian E. Wilson
                      ... I think this proposed distinction between explaining literary agreement and assigning sources is muddled. For literary agreement between two synoptic
                      Message 10 of 29 , Sep 28, 1998
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Mark Goodacre wrote:
                        >The question of Matthew's sources for non-Markan material is of course an
                        >interesting one, just as the question of Mark's sources is an interesting one.
                        >So too the question of Q's sources on the 2ST, or the question of Matthew's
                        >sources on the GH, and so on. But surely what we are dealing with when we are
                        >discussing the Synoptic Problem is the issue of explaining the literary
                        >agreement among the Synoptics.

                        I think this proposed distinction between explaining literary agreement
                        and assigning sources is muddled. For literary agreement between two
                        synoptic gospels can be explained only by positing either that one was
                        the source of the other, or that both are dependent on the same source.
                        The question of sources is not something we begin to answer after we
                        have solved the Synoptic Problem. The question of sources is integral
                        to the Synoptic Problem itself.

                        Moreover, if your analysis above is accepted, the phenomenon of
                        "fatigue" in Matthew when compared with Mark would be outside the
                        discussion of the Synoptic Problem, since "fatigue" requires the
                        occurrence of literary disagreement, as well as agreement. What we are
                        dealing with when we are discussing the Synoptic Problem is surely the
                        issue of explaining the literary agreement AND DISAGREEMENT among the
                        Synoptics.

                        The question is from where, on the Farrer Hypothesis, did the double
                        tradition in Matthew come? If it was from a documentary source, then why
                        is this not posited by the Farrer Hypothesis, and was this source also
                        used by Luke? If it was from an oral source, then was this source used
                        by Luke also? Is Yuri right to suggest that Matthew did use Mark, and
                        that Luke used both Mark and Matthew, but that Matthew and Luke also
                        used Q, so that Q is re-dispensed rather than dispensed with? Or what?

                        Without an answer this is surely a missing link in the Farrer
                        Hypothesis. In John Drury's immortal words, "This is a loud silence"
                        (Tradition and Design in Luke's Gospel, page 41).

                        Best wishes,
                        BRIAN WILSON

                        E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
                        SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
                        10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                        Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
                      • Mark Goodacre
                        ... Of course it is. And there was no proposed distinction between explaining literary agreement and assigning sources and so, I hope, no muddle. The
                        Message 11 of 29 , Sep 29, 1998
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 29 Sep 98 at 7:25, Brian E. Wilson wrote:

                          > I think this proposed distinction between explaining literary agreement
                          > and assigning sources is muddled. For literary agreement between two
                          > synoptic gospels can be explained only by positing either that one was
                          > the source of the other, or that both are dependent on the same source.
                          > The question of sources is not something we begin to answer after we
                          > have solved the Synoptic Problem. The question of sources is integral
                          > to the Synoptic Problem itself.

                          Of course it is. And there was no "proposed distinction between explaining
                          literary agreement and assigning sources" and so, I hope, no muddle. The
                          distinction I was making was between (1) the primary issue of explaining the
                          literary agreement between the synoptics, primarily constituted by triple
                          tradition and double tradition, and (2) the secondary but interesting question
                          of the pre-Synoptic origin of that material.

                          Let us get our thinking clear and spell out what I expressed more tersely
                          before. The triple tradition is usually explained, in my opinion correctly, by
                          the theory of Markan Priority. Mark is thus the source of the literary
                          agreement between Matthew, Mark and Luke. But that primary question (1 above)
                          does not, of course, settle the secondary question of Mark's own sources (2
                          above).

                          Likewise on the 2ST, the double tradition is usually explained by the theory of
                          Q. Q is thus the source of much of the non-Markan literary agreement between
                          Matthew and Luke. But that primary question (1 above) does not, of course,
                          settle the secondary question (2 above) of Q's own sources.

                          Likewise on the Farrer Theory, that same double tradition material is explained
                          on the theory of Luke's use of Matthew. Matthew is thus the source of much of
                          the non-Markan literary agreement between Matthew and Luke. But that primary
                          question (1 above) does not, of course, settle the secondary question (2 above)
                          of Matthew's own non-Markan sources.

                          Likewise on the Griesbach Theory, Matthew is the main source for Luke's Gospel.
                          Thus Matthew is the source of much of the literary agreement between Matthew
                          and Luke. But that primary question (1 above) does not, of course, settle the
                          secondary question (2 above) of Matthew's own sources.

                          And so on. Each of these theories has to ask its own secondary questions on
                          the origin of the material in the source(s) it considers primary.

                          It is the second of the questions that I think Brian wants to press me on,
                          as the following makes clear:

                          > The question is from where, on the Farrer Hypothesis, did the double
                          > tradition in Matthew come? If it was from a documentary source, then why
                          > is this not posited by the Farrer Hypothesis, and was this source also
                          > used by Luke? If it was from an oral source, then was this source used
                          > by Luke also? Is Yuri right to suggest that Matthew did use Mark, and
                          > that Luke used both Mark and Matthew, but that Matthew and Luke also
                          > used Q, so that Q is re-dispensed rather than dispensed with? Or what?

                          I think that Brian is quite right to push the question of Matthew's non-Markan
                          sources, and the implications of this question for the Farrer theory overall.
                          Steve Davies pushed this a good deal some time ago on the Crosstalk list and
                          there was some (I thought) helpful discussion.

                          One of the weaknesses in Goulder's and Drury's perspective has been the theory
                          of minimal sources for Matthew (and Luke). I find it most unlikely that
                          Matthew had no other substantial sources for material outside of Mark and the
                          Hebrew Bible. On the contrary, I am sure that Matthew creatively interacted
                          with oral traditions, Mark and the Scriptures just as Luke creatively
                          interacted with oral traditions, Matthew, Mark and the Scriptures.

                          This final point is important and I would like to place some stress on the term
                          "interaction". In what I wrote at the beginning of this Email, I talked
                          about sources in a mechanical way for the sake of clarity. However,
                          the term "interaction" with source material might be more appropriate
                          than the term "use of" or "dependence on" source material. Thus Matthew was
                          influenced by his sources and he also influenced (changed / re-worked) them.
                          Furthermore, I do not think that oral traditions die the moment that some of
                          them are crystallised in texts. Thus it is likely that Matthew has interacted
                          with Mark itself in the light of oral traditions. And so on.

                          I hope that this helps to clarify things.

                          Mark
                          -------------------------------------------
                          Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
                          Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham
                          Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre

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

                          Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          Synoptic-L Owner: mailto:Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l
                        • Brian E. Wilson
                          ... It helps to clarify your position, Mark. Thank you for that. I am not sure, however, that it strengthens the Farrer Hypothesis. Best wishes, BRIAN WILSON
                          Message 12 of 29 , Sep 30, 1998
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Mark Goodacre wrote:
                            >Thus it is likely that Matthew has interacted with Mark itself in the
                            >light of oral traditions. And so on. I hope that this helps to
                            >clarify things.
                            >
                            It helps to clarify your position, Mark. Thank you for that.

                            I am not sure, however, that it strengthens the Farrer Hypothesis.

                            Best wishes,
                            BRIAN WILSON

                            E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
                            SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
                            10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                            Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
                          • Yuri Kuchinsky
                            On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Brian E. Wilson wrote: ... Thanks for mentioning this, Brian. Actually I believe that the authors/editors of Lk were using Mt, but perhaps
                            Message 13 of 29 , Sep 30, 1998
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Brian E. Wilson wrote:

                              ...

                              > The question is from where, on the Farrer Hypothesis, did the double
                              > tradition in Matthew come? If it was from a documentary source, then why
                              > is this not posited by the Farrer Hypothesis, and was this source also
                              > used by Luke? If it was from an oral source, then was this source used
                              > by Luke also? Is Yuri right to suggest that Matthew did use Mark, and
                              > that Luke used both Mark and Matthew,

                              Thanks for mentioning this, Brian.

                              Actually I believe that the authors/editors of Lk were using Mt, but
                              perhaps only at the last stages of Lk's composition. The number of Lk's
                              passages visibly influenced by Mt is not that great.

                              The nativity stories were probably added up to both Mt and Lk ca. 140.
                              (One reason for this was to fight Adoptionism, but anti-Marcionite
                              polemic may have been a factor as well.) So the idea of adding a nativity
                              story may have been what anthropologists call "stimulus diffusion".

                              > but that Matthew and Luke also used Q, so that Q is re-dispensed
                              > rather than dispensed with? Or what?

                              I don't think there's much doubt that various sayings collections were
                              circulating in the first century and later. GTh pretty well proves this.
                              GTh certainly can be considered as providing very good support for Q.

                              > Without an answer this is surely a missing link in the Farrer
                              > Hypothesis. In John Drury's immortal words, "This is a loud silence"
                              > (Tradition and Design in Luke's Gospel, page 41).

                              Regards,

                              Yuri.

                              Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

                              http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                              The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                              equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                            • Stephen C. Carlson
                              ... I don t quite understand the point about Mk2:26. I suppose the argument is that why would Mark, wishing to clarify, introduce something that is not a
                              Message 14 of 29 , Oct 2, 1998
                              • 0 Attachment
                                At 11:34 AM 9/24/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                                >(3) Specifically, to come back to the question of the relationship between
                                >omissions and additions, is it not difficult for the GH that Mark combines
                                >omission of conducive material with additions that may confuse the reader or
                                >introduce errors? "When Abiathar was high priest" (2.26) introduces an error;
                                >so too does the bringing forward of the Malachi 3.2 quotation at Mark 1.2 (from
                                >Matt. 11.10 // Luke 7.27) as something that "is written in the prophet Isaiah".

                                I don't quite understand the point about Mk2:26. I suppose the argument is
                                that why would Mark, wishing to clarify, introduce something that is not a
                                clarification, but an error? Doesn't this argument assume that Mark
                                recognized EPI ABIAQAR ARXIEREWS as erroneous but added it anyway? But if
                                Mark thought it was erroneous, why did he, under Markan priority, write
                                it in the first place?

                                >This is in spite of the fact that on the GH Mark is not averse, on occasions,
                                >to making clarifying additions (e.g. Mark 2.15b, "for there were many, and they
                                >followed him"). In other words, how consistent is the GH's Mark in his
                                >redaction of Matthew and Luke?

                                I think the pattern of omissions and additions can be problematic for any
                                direct dependence theory between Matthew and Mark. For example, Bussmann,
                                cited by Sanders (1969) at 150-1, noted that although Matthew emphasis
                                names and numbers, he frequently does not have the names and numbers that
                                appear in Mark. Bussmann felt that the details, which would normally be
                                congenial to Matthew, were therefore added later to Matthew's Vorlage.

                                Sanders goes on to say:

                                Bussmann would argue, then, that Matthew had no tendency to
                                omit details, since he adds to many on his own. If we accept
                                this agument, as I am inclined to do, it poses a considerable
                                problem. Either Matthew's relation to Mark is not what it is
                                usually thought to have been, or else his redactional method
                                is not what it is thought to have been.... It is interesting
                                to note that, if one rejects the hypothesis that Matthew was
                                an abbreviator, one encounters the same problem ordinarily
                                encountered by those who wish to place Matthew before Mark....
                                It is just this consideration which led Bussmann to embrace
                                the view that neither knew the other directly.
                                Sanders at 151 (footnote omitted)

                                Stephen Carlson



                                --
                                Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                                Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                                "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                              • Jeff Peterson
                                ... Maurice Casey argued in NTS 34 (1988) -- no doubt incorporated in his forthcoming _Aramaic Sources of Mark s Gospel_ -- that EPI here should be understood
                                Message 15 of 29 , Oct 2, 1998
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  At 3:01 AM 10/2/98, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                                  >At 11:34 AM 9/24/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                                  >>(3) Specifically, to come back to the question of the relationship between
                                  >>omissions and additions, is it not difficult for the GH that Mark combines
                                  >>omission of conducive material with additions that may confuse the reader or
                                  >>introduce errors? "When Abiathar was high priest" (2.26) introduces an
                                  >>error;
                                  >>so too does the bringing forward of the Malachi 3.2 quotation at Mark 1.2
                                  >>(from
                                  >>Matt. 11.10 // Luke 7.27) as something that "is written in the prophet
                                  >>Isaiah".
                                  >
                                  >I don't quite understand the point about Mk2:26. I suppose the argument is
                                  >that why would Mark, wishing to clarify, introduce something that is not a
                                  >clarification, but an error? Doesn't this argument assume that Mark
                                  >recognized EPI ABIAQAR ARXIEREWS as erroneous but added it anyway? But if
                                  >Mark thought it was erroneous, why did he, under Markan priority, write
                                  >it in the first place?

                                  Maurice Casey argued in NTS 34 (1988) -- no doubt incorporated in his
                                  forthcoming _Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel_ -- that EPI here should be
                                  understood as a translation of the Aramaic BYWMY, "in the days of," citing
                                  the rendering of Hebrew BYMYK by EPI SOU in Job 38:12 LXX. The suggestion
                                  has some interest even for those skeptical that well-defined Aramaic
                                  sources stand behind the Gospels if AMark was more at home in a Semitic
                                  language than in Greek.

                                  Jeff


                                  Jeffrey Peterson
                                  Institute for Christian Studies
                                  Austin, Texas, USA
                                • Mark Goodacre
                                  ... Good point; thanks -- this was a rotten argument. EPI ABIAQAR ARXIEREWS will qualify as a clarifying addition on the GH, albeit an erroneous one. The
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Oct 2, 1998
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On 2 Oct 98 at 3:01, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                                    > I don't quite understand the point about Mk2:26. I suppose the argument is
                                    > that why would Mark, wishing to clarify, introduce something that is not a
                                    > clarification, but an error? Doesn't this argument assume that Mark
                                    > recognized EPI ABIAQAR ARXIEREWS as erroneous but added it anyway? But if
                                    > Mark thought it was erroneous, why did he, under Markan priority, write it in
                                    > the first place?

                                    Good point; thanks -- this was a rotten argument. EPI ABIAQAR ARXIEREWS will
                                    qualify as a clarifying addition on the GH, albeit an erroneous one.

                                    The movement forward of the Malachi quotation to Mark 1.2 may not be so weak,
                                    however. Here Mark, if he is using Matthew and Luke, goes against their
                                    concurrent testimony by bringing forward Matt. 11.10 // Luke 7.27 to a new
                                    place whereby it introduces an error. It is not said to be from Isaiah in
                                    that context, but it is now in the new one. While is it possible that Mark has
                                    done this, will we not be more inclined towards a theory that sees Matthew and
                                    Luke each correcting their source?

                                    > I think the pattern of omissions and additions can be problematic for any
                                    > direct dependence theory between Matthew and Mark. (snip)

                                    Thanks for the interesting information from Bussmann and Sanders. On the
                                    general issue of omissions and additions on the pericope level, I find myself
                                    inclined towards Markan Priority for the following reason (among others). Does
                                    Mark’s Gospel makes better sense on the assumption that its unique elements are
                                    matters that Mark has added to Matthew and Luke or on the assumption that its
                                    unique elements are matters that Matthew and Luke have each omitted from Mark?
                                    Equally, is the material that is absent from Mark better explained as material
                                    that Mark has omitted from Matthew and Luke or as material that Matthew and
                                    Luke have added to Mark?

                                    Given that some of the double tradition appears congenial to Mark (e.g. the
                                    Lord's Prayer, which has an obvious potential location in chapter 11) and given
                                    that all of the material unique to Mark appears uncongenial to Matthew and Luke
                                    (e.g. Blind Man of Bethsaida -- secrecy, saliva and limiting Jesus' power),
                                    might we not be more naturally inclined to Markan Priority in this category?

                                    Mark
                                    --------------------------------------
                                    Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
                                    Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham

                                    Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                                    --------------------------------------

                                    Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                    Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l
                                    Synoptic-L Owner: mailto:Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                                    In a message dated 98-10-02 12:33:01 EDT, M.S.GOODACRE@bham.ac.uk writes:
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Oct 2, 1998
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      In a message dated 98-10-02 12:33:01 EDT, M.S.GOODACRE@... writes:

                                      <<
                                      On 2 Oct 98 at 3:01, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                                      > I don't quite understand the point about Mk2:26. I suppose the argument is
                                      > that why would Mark, wishing to clarify, introduce something that is not a
                                      > clarification, but an error? Doesn't this argument assume that Mark
                                      > recognized EPI ABIAQAR ARXIEREWS as erroneous but added it anyway? But if
                                      > Mark thought it was erroneous, why did he, under Markan priority, write it
                                      in
                                      > the first place?

                                      MARK: Good point; thanks -- this was a rotten argument. EPI ABIAQAR
                                      ARXIEREWS will qualify as a clarifying addition on the GH, albeit an erroneous
                                      one.

                                      LEONARD: Thanks for this, Mark. I wish we were all as prompt to retreat from
                                      previously held weak positions, or lapsus mentis.

                                      MARK: The movement forward of the Malachi quotation to Mark 1.2 may not be so
                                      weak, however. Here Mark, if he is using Matthew and Luke, goes against their
                                      concurrent testimony by bringing forward Matt. 11.10 // Luke 7.27 to a new
                                      place whereby it introduces an error. It is not said to be from Isaiah in
                                      that context, but it is now in the new one. While it is possible that Mark
                                      has
                                      done this, will we not be more inclined towards a theory that sees Matthew
                                      and
                                      Luke each correcting their source?

                                      LEONARD: Not really. At least not all of us will be. Against the 2 SH, it is
                                      somewhat too wonderful to believe that the two other synoptic evangelists
                                      independently settled on exactly the same MANNER of correction. And in any
                                      case, the direction seems easily as imaginable with Mark thought of as writing
                                      third, as it does with Matt-Lk making a correction. One would think, e.g.,
                                      that that such a correction would have included indicating the CORRECT source
                                      for the OT quotation at Matt 11:10// Lk 7:27, if this was all such a conscious
                                      procedure to begin with. And a change in the other direction made by Mark only
                                      produces half an error anyway, one that would be easily missed by, and not at
                                      all of concern to, the popular audience I imagine Mk to have been written for.
                                      Couldn't we leave this one a draw?

                                      MARK: Thanks for the interesting information from Bussmann and Sanders. On
                                      the
                                      general issue of omissions and additions on the pericope level, I find myself
                                      inclined towards Markan Priority for the following reason (among others).
                                      Does
                                      Marks Gospel makes better sense on the assumption that its unique elements
                                      are
                                      matters that Mark has added to Matthew and Luke or on the assumption that
                                      its
                                      unique elements are matters that Matthew and Luke have each omitted from
                                      Mark?

                                      LEONARD: Perhaps predictably, I find the first possibility more plausible
                                      (that Mark added his unique material to what he found in Matt and Lk). What
                                      possible difficulty could Matt and Lk have had, e.g., with Mark 4:26-28? And
                                      as for the healing miracles in Mark 7 and 8, it baffles me why so many
                                      scholars assume that the only or most natural solution to possible
                                      difficulties with these texts on the part of Matt and Lk is for them both to
                                      simply omit both stories. Matt and Lk have elsewhere exibited considerable
                                      talent in (supposedly) editing Mark by deft editorial touches. Could at least
                                      one of them not have thought of simply removing the saliva, if that indeed was
                                      such a serious problem? (It seems not have been, by the way, for John).

                                      MARK: Equally, is the material that is absent from Mark better explained as
                                      material
                                      that Mark has omitted from Matthew and Luke or as material that Matthew and
                                      Luke have added to Mark?

                                      LEONARD: Here, of course, the case is not nearly so clear. In itself, it
                                      makes perfect sense to think of Matt-Lk material as having been added to a
                                      shorter Mark.
                                      But this only becomes a strong argument against Markan posteriority, if we
                                      assume that Mark's audience had not ever heard of Matt or Lk, or that the
                                      publication of Mark was considered, in political terms, the equivalent of
                                      placing the earlier Gospels on the church's index (of forbidden books). I
                                      think neither of these positions can be seriously maintained, and therefore
                                      Mark's audience should be assumed to have full familiarity with the "omitted"
                                      material from Matt and Lk, and the absence of these materials in GMk should be
                                      thought of as no more significant than their absence also from most other late
                                      first- and early second-century Christian documents. In other words, this
                                      argument is not strong enough in itself to override the EVIDENCE for Markan
                                      posteriority, as a conflation and popular dramatization of material found in
                                      the earlier, more literary documents of Matt and Lk. Once again, let me state
                                      that the presupposition of an evangelist's task as that of a collector, for
                                      the sake of posterity, of earlier materials about the life of Jesus would also
                                      validate Mark G's argument here. But I doubt the validity of this
                                      presupposition, and am therefore free to take seriously the evidence of Mark's
                                      lateness, without being disturbed in the least by his omissions.

                                      Leonard Maluf
                                    • Mark Goodacre
                                      On 2 Oct 98 at 16:37, Maluflen@aol.com wrote on Matt. 11.10 // Mark 1.2 // ... I agree that the 2ST is in difficulties here. It is not only the moving of the
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Oct 6, 1998
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On 2 Oct 98 at 16:37, Maluflen@... wrote on Matt. 11.10 // Mark 1.2 //
                                        Luke 7.27:

                                        > LEONARD: Not really. At least not all of us will be. Against the 2 SH, it is
                                        > somewhat too wonderful to believe that the two other synoptic evangelists
                                        > independently settled on exactly the same MANNER of correction.

                                        I agree that the 2ST is in difficulties here. It is not only the moving of the
                                        quotation but also the use of the identical, non-LXX wording with KATASKEUEIN
                                        plus EMPROSQEN SOU. Both Goulder (and to some extent Sanders) have made a good
                                        deal of this as evidence of Luke's use of Matthew as well as Mark, in my view
                                        rightly.

                                        > And in any
                                        > case, the direction seems easily as imaginable with Mark thought of as writing
                                        > third, as it does with Matt-Lk making a correction. One would think, e.g.,
                                        > that that such a correction would have included indicating the CORRECT source
                                        > for the OT quotation at Matt 11:10// Lk 7:27, if this was all such a conscious
                                        > procedure to begin with.

                                        It is common for Matthew not to indicate the source of OT quotations (4.4, 4.6,
                                        4.7, 4.10, 21.13, 26.24, 26.31) so we will not particularly expect him here to
                                        write "This is the one about whom Malachi wrote . . . " Indeed, the tendency
                                        is to leave the source of the GEGRAPTAI unspecified.

                                        > And a change in the other direction made by Mark only
                                        > produces half an error anyway, one that would be easily missed by, and not at
                                        > all of concern to, the popular audience I imagine Mk to have been written for.
                                        > Couldn't we leave this one a draw?

                                        I'll grant that Griesbach and Farrer are both preferable to the 2ST on this
                                        one, but I think that Farrer remains preferable to Griesbach. Most will be
                                        more inclined towards a theory that sees Matthew and Luke each correcting their
                                        source than towards one that sees Mark introducing an error against the
                                        concurrent testimony of his predecessors, a testimony that elsewhere is held to
                                        be important to him.

                                        > LEONARD: Perhaps predictably, I find the first possibility more plausible
                                        > (that Mark added his unique material to what he found in Matt and Lk). What
                                        > possible difficulty could Matt and Lk have had, e.g., with Mark 4:26-28?

                                        On the assumption that Matthew knew and used Mark, it seems clear that he has
                                        preferred the very Matthean Wheat and Tares parable to the very Markan Seed
                                        Growing Secretly. Luke, as is his habit with long discourse material
                                        (Collection of Sayings in Mark 9.33-50; Sermon on the Mount in Matt. 5-7 etc.),
                                        keeps some, omits some and redistributes the remainder. This pericope is one
                                        of those omitted by Luke.

                                        > And
                                        > as for the healing miracles in Mark 7 and 8, it baffles me why so many
                                        > scholars assume that the only or most natural solution to possible
                                        > difficulties with these texts on the part of Matt and Lk is for them both to
                                        > simply omit both stories. Matt and Lk have elsewhere exibited considerable
                                        > talent in (supposedly) editing Mark by deft editorial touches. Could at least
                                        > one of them not have thought of simply removing the saliva, if that indeed was
                                        > such a serious problem? (It seems not have been, by the way, for John).

                                        It is arguable that Mathew did precisely that with the Blind Man of
                                        Bethsaida. Once one has taken away all the difficulties (healing method,
                                        secrecy, limits on Jesus' power) one is left simply with a blind man being
                                        healed, typically doubled up in Matt. 9.27-31? The difficulty particularly
                                        with the Blind Man of Bethsaida is that there are several odd motifs.

                                        > LEONARD: Here, of course, the case is not nearly so clear. In itself, it
                                        > makes perfect sense to think of Matt-Lk material as having been added to a
                                        > shorter Mark. But this only becomes a strong argument against Markan
                                        > posteriority, if we assume that Mark's audience had not ever heard of Matt or
                                        > Lk, or that the publication of Mark was considered, in political terms, the
                                        > equivalent of placing the earlier Gospels on the church's index (of forbidden
                                        > books). I think neither of these positions can be seriously maintained, and
                                        > therefore Mark's audience should be assumed to have full familiarity with the
                                        > "omitted" material from Matt and Lk, and the absence of these materials in GMk
                                        > should be thought of as no more significant than their absence also from most
                                        > other late first- and early second-century Christian documents.

                                        This is similar to what Prof. Longstaff was saying in his message last week and
                                        I find it a helpful perspective. I do tend to think about Matthew as an
                                        attempt to correct and replace Mark, and Luke (perhaps explicitly, 1.1-4) as an
                                        attempt to correct and replace Mark and Matthew. And it might be problematic to
                                        hold such a view on the assumption of Markan Posteriority. One potential
                                        problem that occurs to me is what, then, of the analogy between Mark and
                                        Tatian? If Mark is taking such trouble to conflate (aspects of) Matthew and
                                        Luke, is he not in some way supposedly doing an early harmony, the purpose of
                                        which would more naturally be to supercede Matthew and Luke?

                                        > In other
                                        > words, this argument is not strong enough in itself to override the EVIDENCE
                                        > for Markan posteriority, as a conflation and popular dramatization of material
                                        > found in the earlier, more literary documents of Matt and Lk. Once again, let
                                        > me state that the presupposition of an evangelist's task as that of a
                                        > collector, for the sake of posterity, of earlier materials about the life of
                                        > Jesus would also validate Mark G's argument here. But I doubt the validity of
                                        > this presupposition, and am therefore free to take seriously the evidence of
                                        > Mark's lateness, without being disturbed in the least by his omissions.

                                        By the evidence of Mark's "lateness", I take it that posteriority to Matthew
                                        and Luke is meant? If not, I would be interested to know what the evidence for
                                        "lateness" is. Most, of course, have seen Matthew and Luke as more obviously
                                        late with possible references to AD 70 etc.

                                        Thanks for the thoughtful response to my earlier post.

                                        Mark
                                        -------------------------------------------
                                        Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
                                        Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham
                                        Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre

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

                                        Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                        Synoptic-L Owner: mailto:Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                        Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l
                                      • Maluflen@aol.com
                                        Continuing the discussion on Markan additions: (LEONARD: And in any case, the direction seems easily as imaginable with Mark thought of as writing third, as it
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Oct 7, 1998
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Continuing the discussion on Markan additions:

                                          (LEONARD: And in any case, the direction seems easily as imaginable with Mark
                                          thought of as writing third, as it does with Matt-Lk making a correction. One
                                          would think, e.g., that that such a correction would have included indicating
                                          the CORRECT source for the OT quotation at Matt 11:10// Lk 7:27, if this was
                                          all such a conscious
                                          procedure to begin with.)

                                          MARK: It is common for Matthew not to indicate the source of OT quotations
                                          (4.4, 4.6, 4.7, 4.10, 21.13, 26.24, 26.31) so we will not particularly expect
                                          him here to
                                          write "This is the one about whom Malachi wrote . . . " Indeed, the tendency
                                          is to leave the source of the GEGRAPTAI unspecified.

                                          LEONARD: Good point. In all of the cases cited, it is not the Evangelist, but
                                          someone else in the narrative, usually Jesus, who is speaking. Jesus is also
                                          speaking in Matt 11:10, and therefore one would not expect to find a reference
                                          to Malachi there. However, the fact that the quotation is found in this
                                          context of an entire incident about John the Baptist that is absent in Mark
                                          makes it difficult to see Matthew's work here as a "correction" of Mark's
                                          faulty citation. In other words, Matt's work has a ratio all its own, and
                                          produces a fully coherent picture without any reference to the text of Mark.

                                          (LEONARD: And a change in the other direction made by Mark only
                                          produces half an error anyway, one that would be easily missed by, and not at
                                          all of concern to, the popular audience I imagine Mk to have been written
                                          for.
                                          Couldn't we leave this one a draw?)

                                          MARK: I'll grant that Griesbach and Farrer are both preferable to the 2ST on
                                          this
                                          one, but I think that Farrer remains preferable to Griesbach. Most will be
                                          more inclined towards a theory that sees Matthew and Luke each correcting
                                          their
                                          source than towards one that sees Mark introducing an error against the
                                          concurrent testimony of his predecessors, a testimony that elsewhere is held
                                          to
                                          be important to him.

                                          LEONARD: If this is so, I remain comfortably in the minority here. It is
                                          misleading to speak of Mark as "introducing an error against the concurrent
                                          testimony of his predecessors" here. If anything, Mark is guilty of being
                                          overliteral in transcribing his sources (he could have avoided all
                                          embarrassment, if he hadn't copied the reference to Isaiah the prophet from
                                          Matt 3 in the first place.) Knowing that he was to omit the entire pericope of
                                          Matt 11:1-19 par., Mark simply tacked on the UNIDENTIFIED OT quotation found
                                          in that passage to the citation found in Matt 3, which is indeed from Isaiah,
                                          and therefore sufficiently justifies his introduction to the combined quote,
                                          as far as his unlearned audience is concerned. I really do find this scenario
                                          much more plausible than that of a correction of Mark by Matt and Luke
                                          involving the elaborate construction of an entire pericope, in another part of
                                          their respective Gospels, in which the incorrect portion of the Marcan
                                          citation miraculously finds a perfectly tailor-made home.

                                          > LEONARD: Perhaps predictably, I find the first possibility more plausible
                                          > (that Mark added his unique material to what he found in Matt and Lk). What
                                          > possible difficulty could Matt and Lk have had, e.g., with Mark 4:26-28?

                                          MARK: On the assumption that Matthew knew and used Mark, it seems clear that
                                          he has preferred the very Matthean Wheat and Tares parable to the very Markan
                                          Seed Growing Secretly.

                                          LEONARD: But why not use both? And is the fact that this parable appears as
                                          "very Markan" not indicative of Mark's having WRITTEN this particular
                                          pericope, in contrast to the less Markan portions of most of his text which he
                                          has BORROWED from Matt and Lk?

                                          MARK: Luke, as is his habit with long discourse material (Collection of
                                          Sayings in Mark 9.33-50; Sermon on the Mount in Matt. 5-7 etc.), keeps some,
                                          omits some and redistributes the remainder. This pericope is one of those
                                          omitted by Luke.

                                          LEONARD: But again, why?

                                          > LEONARD: Here, of course, the case is not nearly so clear. In itself, it
                                          > makes perfect sense to think of Matt-Lk material as having been added to a
                                          > shorter Mark. But this only becomes a strong argument against Markan
                                          > posteriority, if we assume that Mark's audience had not ever heard of Matt
                                          or
                                          > Lk, or that the publication of Mark was considered, in political terms, the
                                          > equivalent of placing the earlier Gospels on the church's index (of
                                          forbidden
                                          > books). I think neither of these positions can be seriously maintained, and
                                          > therefore Mark's audience should be assumed to have full familiarity with
                                          the
                                          > "omitted" material from Matt and Lk, and the absence of these materials in
                                          GMk
                                          > should be thought of as no more significant than their absence also from
                                          most
                                          > other late first- and early second-century Christian documents.

                                          MARK: This is similar to what Prof. Longstaff was saying in his message last
                                          week and I find it a helpful perspective. I do tend to think about Matthew
                                          as an
                                          attempt to correct and replace Mark, and Luke (perhaps explicitly, 1.1-4) as
                                          an
                                          attempt to correct and replace Mark and Matthew. And it might be problematic
                                          to
                                          hold such a view on the assumption of Markan Posteriority. One potential
                                          problem that occurs to me is what, then, of the analogy between Mark and
                                          Tatian? If Mark is taking such trouble to conflate (aspects of) Matthew and
                                          Luke, is he not in some way supposedly doing an early harmony, the purpose of
                                          which would more naturally be to supercede Matthew and Luke?

                                          LEONARD: Conflation is a compositional METHOD frequently employed by Mark, not
                                          his goal or purpose, which must be defined in terms of the Gospel's intrinsic
                                          pastoral effectiveness, and independently of its author's method. And of
                                          course Mark's text is supposed to supercede Matthew and Luke FOR THE LIMITED
                                          PURPOSES OF ITS INTENDED USE IN A PARTICULAR LITURGICAL OR OTHER SETTING. I
                                          would only argue that it is not intended to supercede or replace the older
                                          gospels simpliciter, as the Scholastics would put it.

                                          (LEONARD: In other words, this argument is not strong enough in itself to
                                          override the EVIDENCE for Markan posteriority, as a conflation and popular
                                          dramatization of material found in the earlier, more literary documents of
                                          Matt and Lk. Once again, let
                                          me state that the presupposition of an evangelist's task as that of a
                                          collector, for the sake of posterity, of earlier materials about the life of
                                          Jesus would also validate Mark G's argument here. But I doubt the validity of
                                          this presupposition, and am therefore free to take seriously the evidence of
                                          Mark's lateness, without being disturbed in the least by his omissions.)

                                          MARK: By the evidence of Mark's "lateness", I take it that posteriority to
                                          Matthew
                                          and Luke is meant? If not, I would be interested to know what the evidence
                                          for
                                          "lateness" is. Most, of course, have seen Matthew and Luke as more obviously
                                          late with possible references to AD 70 etc.

                                          LEONARD: Yes, by evidence of Mark's lateness I do mean the fairly pervasive
                                          evidence of its posteriority to Matthew and Luke, which is often ignored
                                          because isolated pieces of possible evidence for relative lateness of Matt and
                                          Luke have been accorded an inflated and decisive value.

                                          Leonard Maluf
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.