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

Re: Markan Additions

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 29 , Oct 2, 1998
      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 2 of 29 , Oct 2, 1998
        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 3 of 29 , Oct 6, 1998
          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 4 of 29 , Oct 7, 1998
            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.