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

Re: Butler's Fatigue Argument

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    I am grateful to Stephen for the interesting passage from Butler. One of the nightmares that I faced when doing the research on fatigue crops up here. To
    Message 1 of 13 , Nov 9, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      I am grateful to Stephen for the interesting passage from Butler. One of the
      nightmares that I faced when doing the research on fatigue crops up here. To
      what extent should one allow examples of apparent stylistic irregularity to
      count as potential examples of editorial fatigue? In particular, could
      stylistic irregularity in Mark point to Markan posteriority (AH, GH) or does it
      point more clearly to Markan priority -- stylistic pecularities tidied up by
      Matthew and Luke?

      Since both theses seem to be argued in the literature with equal force (though
      more plausibly, in my opinion, by those assuming Markan Priority), I decided
      that stylistic irregularity and / or incoherence and / or inconsistency should
      be excluded from the exercise. Such examples are clearly capable of an
      explanation from those on both sides.

      One's focus should therefore be on examples that involve a blatant
      inconsistency, incoherence or contradiction in terms of content, not style, of
      the kind that is non-reversible and difficult to explain away. There is then
      of course the difficulty of whether the anomaly is occurring in an earlier text
      that is straightened out by a later one or whether it is being generated by the
      later text inadvertently in its dependence on the earlier one. The best way to
      be sure about this is to check to see whether the (alleged) changes early in
      the account are characteristic of the evangelist in question.

      I think that the example that Stephen quotes from Butler is really an example
      of stylistic irregularity of the kind that is typical in Mark, which does not
      require a fatigue explanation. It is colloquial style that confuses things
      like direct and indirect speech, second and third persons, narrator's voice and
      characters' voices. Famous examples of the same kind of thing are:

      Mark 2.10-11: But in order that you might know that the Son of Man has
      authority to forgive sins upon the earth, he says to the paralytic, I say to
      you, Arise; take your pallet and depart into your house.

      Mark 11.31-32: And they debated among themselves saying, If we say From heaven,
      he will say Why therefore did you not believe him? But shall we say From
      people? They were afraid of the crowd.

      But Stephen also points out the following:

      > Corroborating this prima facie case of fatigue is that the
      > initial difference between Matthew and Mark, i.e. indirect
      > speech over direct speech, is more characteristic of Mark,
      > and the later agreement (direct speech) is characteristic
      > of Matthew. E.P. Sanders, THE TENDENCIES OF THE SYNOPTIC
      > TRADITION (SNTSMS 9, Matthew Black, gen. ed.; Cambridge:
      > University Press, 1969) 260-61, finds that Matthew has
      > direct speech where Mark is indirect (including 10:9f//
      > Mk6:8) 15 times, but Mark is direct where Matthew is
      > indirect for only 7 times.

      On the assumption of Matthean Priority, then, Mark changes direct speech
      in Matthew to indirect speech in his own Gospel just over twice as often as he
      does the reverse. But this becomes less striking in light of the observation
      that on the assumption of Markan Priority, Matthew has done what we might
      expect here, turning indirect speech into direct speech.

      This is not, therefore, a good counter-example, but thanks for drawing our
      attention to it.

      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
    • Yuri Kuchinsky
      ... I disagree, Mark. I think Stephen s argument is quite valid, and that he gave a very good example of a passage in Mk that seems secondary to Mt. Since this
      Message 2 of 13 , Nov 9, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Mark Goodacre wrote:

        > I am grateful to Stephen for the interesting passage from Butler.

        ...

        > I think that the example that Stephen quotes from Butler is really an
        > example of stylistic irregularity of the kind that is typical in Mark,
        > which does not require a fatigue explanation.

        I disagree, Mark.

        I think Stephen's argument is quite valid, and that he gave a very good
        example of a passage in Mk that seems secondary to Mt. Since this passage
        deals with the mission to the Gentiles, it is similar in its appeal to the
        Bethsaida section, and to other Markan passages that seek to legitimize
        the "future Gentile mission". And it also happens to be one of those
        notorious Markan doublets.

        Alfred Loisy already pointed this out many years ago:

        "The mission of the apostles (Mk 6:7-13) duplicates that previously
        mentioned (3:13-15), but in the present context with an abridgement of the
        discourse which Mt and Lk (10:1-16) give _in extenso_; it prefigures
        Christian propaganda among the Gentiles. (ORIGINS OF THE NT, 1962, p. 98)

        Best,

        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
        ... Content vs. Style: This is an interesting distinction. I hadn t understood from your article that you considered it important, so let me think about this
        Message 3 of 13 , Nov 9, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          At 06:04 PM 11/9/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
          >One's focus should therefore be on examples that involve a blatant
          >inconsistency, incoherence or contradiction in terms of content, not style, of
          >the kind that is non-reversible and difficult to explain away.

          Content vs. Style: This is an interesting distinction. I hadn't
          understood from your article that you considered it important, so
          let me think about this for a while. This explains why, however,
          you were not impressed with my earlier distinction between Baptist
          and Baptizer--the content is the same but the style is clearly
          different. (However, for some vernacular speakers, I'm not that
          sure that the distinction between King and Tetrarch is all that
          important either.)

          >But Stephen also points out the following:
          >
          >> Corroborating this prima facie case of fatigue is that the
          >> initial difference between Matthew and Mark, i.e. indirect
          >> speech over direct speech, is more characteristic of Mark,
          >> and the later agreement (direct speech) is characteristic
          >> of Matthew. E.P. Sanders, THE TENDENCIES OF THE SYNOPTIC
          >> TRADITION (SNTSMS 9, Matthew Black, gen. ed.; Cambridge:
          >> University Press, 1969) 260-61, finds that Matthew has
          >> direct speech where Mark is indirect (including 10:9f//
          >> Mk6:8) 15 times, but Mark is direct where Matthew is
          >> indirect for only 7 times.
          >
          >On the assumption of Matthean Priority, then, Mark changes direct speech
          >in Matthew to indirect speech in his own Gospel just over twice as often as he
          >does the reverse. But this becomes less striking in light of the observation
          >that on the assumption of Markan Priority, Matthew has done what we might
          >expect here, turning indirect speech into direct speech.
          >
          >This is not, therefore, a good counter-example, but thanks for drawing our
          >attention to it.

          I don't quite understand this objection. Is Matthew's behavior here,
          on the assumption of Mark Priority, intelligible? Yes -- but no more
          than if Matthew was the original author. But Fatigue promises to go
          beyond the age-old, reversible arguments of editorial affinities.

          On page 52 of the Fatigue article, in the critical passage IMO,
          you wrote:
          "Rather, in most cases, Matthew and Luke differ from Mark
          at the beginning of the pericope, at the point where they
          are writing most characteristically, and they agree with
          Mark later in the pericope, where they are writing less
          characteristically. [n.26 -- re: danger of circularity]"

          Reversing Mark for Matthew because Butler's argument is the other way,
          it is argued that (1) Mark differs from Matthew, at the beginning, at
          the point Mark is writing characteristically [stats show Mark prefers
          indirect to direct 15:7] and (2) Mark agrees with Matthew later, where
          he is writing less characteristically [same stats show 7:15].

          Naturally, were I to make a full-blown case against Markan Priority,
          which I am nowhere near ready to do so, I would hope to have better
          examples of Mark's fatigue than what I've adduced so far.

          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
        • Stephen C. Carlson
          ... Ahh, the perils of touch typing. ... This is currently the conclusion that I am leaning toward--if the evidence can bear it out. I am not at all ready to
          Message 4 of 13 , Nov 9, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            At 10:09 AM 11/9/98 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
            >Stephen Carlson (alias Carksib) wrote-
            >>Stephen Carksib
            >It seems that you worked very hard on this - even to the point of
            >fatigue in your signature!

            Ahh, the perils of touch typing.

            >I would comment that the combination of fatigue of Matthew in relation
            >to the wording of Mark, and of fatigue of Mark in relation to the
            >wording of Matthew, is evidence that neither Matthew nor Mark copied
            >from the other, but that both copied from a common source.
            >
            >And yes, I agree that this could have been a "Matthean-like source" in
            >some respects.

            This is currently the conclusion that I am leaning toward--if the
            evidence can bear it out. I am not at all ready to dispute the
            fairly clear examples of Matthew's fatigue of Mark or Luke's fatigue
            of Mark and Matthew as pointed by Mark Goodacre. However, like
            Mark G., I am quite happy with the idea that Luke is dependent on
            (our) Mark. Do you have any evidence that suggests that Mark and
            Luke used a common source?

            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
          • Brian E. Wilson
            Mark Goodacre wrote (SNIP) - ... It is interesting, however, that the same colloquial style that confuses things... seems at times to occur in the double
            Message 5 of 13 , Nov 10, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              Mark Goodacre wrote (SNIP) -
              >I think that the example that Stephen quotes from Butler is really an
              >example of stylistic irregularity of the kind that is typical in Mark
              >... it is colloquial style that confuses things like direct and
              >indirect speech, second and third persons, narrator's voice and
              >characters' voices. Famous examples of the same kind of thing are:
              >
              >Mark 2.10-11: But in order that you might know that the Son of Man has
              >authority to forgive sins upon the earth, he says to the paralytic, I say to
              >you, Arise; take your pallet and depart into your house.
              >
              >Mark 11.31-32: And they debated among themselves saying, If we say From heaven,
              >he will say Why therefore did you not believe him? But shall we say From
              >people? They were afraid of the crowd.
              >
              It is interesting, however, that the same "colloquial style that
              confuses things..." seems at times to occur in the double tradition
              where Matthew and Luke have the same wording.

              For instance, in Jesus's Lament over Jerusalem, Mt 23.37-39 //Lk
              13.34-45, IEROUSALHM is vocative, and yet those who are stoned are sent
              PROJ AUTHN - in the 3rd person singular. Also Jerusalem's children are
              referred to as TA TEKNA SOU where SOU is second person singular, whereas
              this is governed by OUK HQELHSATE - which is second person plural.

              It would seem that the "colloquial style that confuses things..." may
              not be distinctive of Mark.

              Best wishes,
              BRIAN WILSON

              HOMEPAGE -- http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk


              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
            • Mark Goodacre
              ... Indeed -- I was not impressed with the baptist/ baptizer distinction because it is an example that might be explained simply as a variation in wording,
              Message 6 of 13 , Nov 10, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                On 9 Nov 98 at 22:37, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                > Content vs. Style: This is an interesting distinction. I hadn't
                > understood from your article that you considered it important, so
                > let me think about this for a while. This explains why, however,
                > you were not impressed with my earlier distinction between Baptist
                > and Baptizer--the content is the same but the style is clearly
                > different. (However, for some vernacular speakers, I'm not that
                > sure that the distinction between King and Tetrarch is all that
                > important either.)

                Indeed -- I was not impressed with the baptist/ baptizer distinction because it
                is an example that might be explained simply as a variation in wording,
                whereas Fatigue might be defined as a failure to sustain a set of
                characteristic, redactional changes such as to produce serious inconsistency
                or incoherence in the content of the account. But Mark's preference for hO
                BAPTIZWN over hO BAPTISTHS is far from overwhelming -- we have two or three
                occurrences of hO BAPTIZWN against two or three of hO BAPTISTHS.

                Of course "style" is a slippery word to have used, and I hope that the
                distinction will not seem to be arbitrary. It arose from a genuine attempt to
                avoid a minefield. I came up with dozens of potential examples of fatigue when
                first doing the research and the more I stared at them the more I became
                concerned that many were very weak and amenable to other explanations.
                My tendency therefore was to try to avoid examples of stylistic incoherence,
                inconsistency and the like. I suppose that I would be open in principle to
                any really strong possible examples that might make sense on the Fatigue
                principle, but I did look carefully for them and did not find any.

                But is the example here provided from Butler strong enough to act as a good
                counter-example to those I adduce in the article? I don't think that it is
                strong enough and was surprised to see that both Brian Wilson and Yuri
                Kuchinsky thought otherwise. So let us briefly review the evidence in relation
                to how characteristic the various elements are.

                As Stephen points out from Sanders, "Matthew has direct speech where Mark
                is indirect (including 10:9f// Mk6:8) 15 times, but Mark is direct where
                Matthew is indirect for only 7 times". I don't have a copy of Sanders to hand,
                nor do I know of anywhere that gives reliable figures for direct speech in
                Matthew and Mark, but we need more than just the figures for cases of indirect
                // direct in Matthew and Mark to establish what is characteristic of an
                evangelist. We need at least to have a clear idea of overall usages in their
                respective gospels, including direct // direct, indirect // indirect, indirect
                // no parallel, direct // no parallel, etc. But let us say that the figures
                will come out as above, roughly twice as much direct speech (adjusted in
                proportion to the lengths of the Gospels) in Matthew compared to Mark (and vice
                versa). Is this as striking as my three examples of characteristic Matthew in
                Matthean fatigue of Mark? I don't think so:

                (1) Death of John the Baptist (Mark 6.14-29 // Matt 14.1-12), Matthew is
                turning Mark's incorrect 'King Herod' into the proper 'Herod the
                Tetrarch', thus characteristically taking care over rulers' proper titles:
                Pilate (Mark 15.1, 4, 9, 12, 14, 15, 43, 44) is properly called 'the
                governor' (hO hHGEMWN, Matt. 27.2, 11, 14, 15, 21, 27, 28.14), and 'the
                high priest' (Mark 14.53) is 'Caiaphas the high priest' (Matt. 26.57) or
                in his Birth Narrative, that Herod the Great is a 'king' (2.1, 3) and that
                Archelaus is not (2.22). It is characteristic of Matthew, then, to say
                'Herod the Tetrarch' in 14.1 and uncharacteristic to call him 'the king'
                in 14.9.

                (2) The Cleansing of the Leper (Matt 8.1-4 // Mark 1.40-45), Matthew is
                making a characteristic change by introducing 'many crowds' (8.1). OCLOI
                POLLOI occur also at Matt 4.25, 13.2, 15.30 and 19.2 and they are never
                present in Mark.

                (3) Jesus' Mother and Brothers (Matt 12.46-50 // Mark 3.31-35), Matthew
                once again begins characteristically with ETI AUTOU LALOUNTOS TOIS OCLOIS,
                IDOU (Matt 12.46). This construction, genitive absolute followed by IDOU,
                comes eleven times in Matthew and never in Mark. On two of these occasions
                (9.18 and 17.5), as here, IDOU interrupts speech.

                In each of the three cases, the "characteristic" element at the beginning of
                the pericope is markedly more striking than it is in the Butler example.

                Stephen wrote:

                > Reversing Mark for Matthew because Butler's argument is the other way,
                > it is argued that (1) Mark differs from Matthew, at the beginning, at
                > the point Mark is writing characteristically [stats show Mark prefers
                > indirect to direct 15:7] and (2) Mark agrees with Matthew later, where
                > he is writing less characteristically [same stats show 7:15].

                I think that you are quite right to focus on the characteristic /
                uncharacteristic element in the argument. But I do think that we need
                something more striking than a feature only twice as common in one Gospel as
                the other.

                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
              • Bob Schacht
                ... hand, ... indirect ... their ... indirect ... vice ... Matthew in ... Well, leaving out the joker represented by no parallel , you seem to have enough
                Message 7 of 13 , Nov 10, 1998
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 03:01 PM 11/10/98 +0000, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                  >...As Stephen points out from Sanders, "Matthew has direct speech where Mark
                  >is indirect (including 10:9f// Mk6:8) 15 times, but Mark is direct where
                  >Matthew is indirect for only 7 times". I don't have a copy of Sanders to
                  hand,
                  >nor do I know of anywhere that gives reliable figures for direct speech in
                  >Matthew and Mark, but we need more than just the figures for cases of
                  indirect
                  >// direct in Matthew and Mark to establish what is characteristic of an
                  >evangelist. We need at least to have a clear idea of overall usages in
                  their
                  >respective gospels, including direct // direct, indirect // indirect,
                  indirect
                  >// no parallel, direct // no parallel, etc. But let us say that the figures
                  >will come out as above, roughly twice as much direct speech (adjusted in
                  >proportion to the lengths of the Gospels) in Matthew compared to Mark (and
                  vice
                  >versa). Is this as striking as my three examples of characteristic
                  Matthew in
                  >Matthean fatigue of Mark? ...

                  Well, leaving out the joker represented by "no parallel", you seem to have
                  enough cases to actually do some STATISTICS here <g>. You've already
                  presented half the data, now all we need is the other half. I'll present
                  the contingency table as you've given it so far, and if someone wants to
                  fill in the other two cells, then you can do a Chi-square test (or maybe
                  Fisher's Exact, if the cell counts are too small):

                  Matthew
                  Direct Indirect Total
                  -------------------------------------------------------
                  Direct ? 7 ??
                  Mark---------------------------------------------------
                  Indirect 15 ? ??
                  =======================================================
                  Total ?? ?? ??

                  Only two more cell counts are needed; the totals can then be calculated.
                  The null hypothesis here is that directness in Matthew is independent of
                  directness in Mark (or vv.)

                  I don't know if this table will survive cyber-transmission, but hopefully
                  you can see what I mean.


                  Bob
                  *******************************
                  Robert M. Schacht
                  Northern Arizona University

                  Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
                  (Where charity and love are [found], God is there)
                  9th century latin hymn
                • Brian E. Wilson
                  Stephen Carlson wrote (SNIP) - ... Why not bring in Matthew also? The question then becomes whether there are phenomena in the synoptic gospels compatible with
                  Message 8 of 13 , Nov 11, 1998
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Stephen Carlson wrote (SNIP) -
                    >Like Mark G., I am quite happy with the idea that Luke is dependent on
                    >(our) Mark. Do you have any evidence that suggests that Mark and
                    >Luke used a common source?

                    Why not bring in Matthew also? The question then becomes whether there
                    are phenomena in the synoptic gospels compatible with all three
                    synoptists having depended on the same documentary source (which
                    includes the idea that Mark and Luke used a common source).

                    We should consider one synoptic hypothesis at a time, otherwise
                    confusion reigns. Let us consider the hypothesis that all three
                    synoptists independently copied from the same documentary source.

                    In the triple tradition there are instances of positive agreements of
                    Matthew and Luke against Mark. In Matthew and Luke, some of the wording
                    of these agreements is, or forms part of, a duplicate expression,
                    whereas the wording of Mark against which Matthew and Luke agree does
                    not form part of such a duplicate expression.

                    For instance, PROFHTEUSON occurs in Mt 26.68, Mk 14.65 and Lk 22.64. In
                    Mark this word is not part of a duplicate expression. In the same
                    verses in Matthew and Luke however, there is a positive agreement - TIJ
                    ESTIN hO PAISAJ SE . In both Matthew and Luke, therefore, we observe
                    the double expression - PROFHTEUSON...TIJ ESTIN hO PAISAJ SE . The verb
                    PROFHTEUSON is a general request for Jesus to show that he is a prophet.
                    The sarcastic jibe TIJ ESTIN hO PAISAJ SE is a more specific request for
                    Jesus to give the name of the person hitting him. Both Matthew and
                    Luke, therefore, have a duplicate expression of the category "General
                    and Special" which, according to Frans Neirynck, is possibly the most
                    characteristic duality of the gospel of Mark. In this case, however, it
                    is found not in Mark, but in Matthew and Luke agreeing positively
                    against Mark.

                    To take another example, Mt 26.75, Mk 14.72 and Lk 22.62 form a positive
                    minor agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark in the triple
                    tradition. Mark has EPIBALWN EKLAIEN, whereas Matthew and Luke agree
                    positively against Mark with - ECELQWN ECW EKLAUSEN PIKRWJ. Again, the
                    wording in Mark does not form a duplicate expression. The common
                    wording in Matthew and Luke, however, does form a duplicate expression
                    in which the preposition EK found in the compound verb ECERXOMAI is used
                    again, separately, in ECW. Literally, Peter "OUT-going OUT-side wept
                    bitterly". This is another duplicate expression of the type we would
                    generally find in Mark, but in this case occurs in Matthew and Luke
                    agreeing positively against Mark.

                    I could continue with further examples, but that might not be
                    appropriate here.

                    The conclusion I draw from the above, is that "duality" of the type
                    observed in Mark is not distinctive of Mark, but is found in instances
                    of Matthew and Luke agreeing positively against Mark. This is
                    compatible with the hypothesis that all three synoptists independently
                    copied from the same documentary source. On this view, the "duality" we
                    observe generally in Mark, but also in places in Matthew and Luke, was a
                    characteristic of the documentary source used by all three synoptists.
                    Mark usually copied wording from this source faithfully, so reproducing
                    many instances of its duality. Occasionally, however, Mark departed from
                    the wording of the common source, and this resulted in some instances of
                    Matthew and Luke agreeing in retaining the wording of this duality of
                    the common source where Mark does not.

                    If we think of "duality" of the type we observe in the gospel of Mark as
                    a stylistic thumbprint, then maybe this was not the thumbprint of the
                    style of the writer of the gospel of Mark, but of the writer of a common
                    source used by all three synoptists. So a common source may have been
                    used by Mark and Luke (and also by Matthew, of course).

                    The argument above could be summarized by saying that we appear to have
                    "Markan-type" duplicate expressions in Matthew and Luke but not Mark in
                    positive Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark in the triple
                    tradition. This is compatible with all three synoptists having used a
                    common source of which duplicate expressions were a characteristic.

                    Any thoughts on the above, please?

                    Bests wishes,
                    BRIAN WILSON

                    HOMEPAGE -- http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk


                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                  • Bob Schacht
                    ... Brian, I thought this must be where you were headed. But what does this do to Q? Does your common source include it? Bob Robert Schacht Northern Arizona
                    Message 9 of 13 , Nov 11, 1998
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 10:41 AM 11/11/98 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                      >Stephen Carlson wrote (SNIP) -
                      >>Like Mark G., I am quite happy with the idea that Luke is dependent on
                      >>(our) Mark. Do you have any evidence that suggests that Mark and
                      >>Luke used a common source?
                      >
                      >Why not bring in Matthew also? The question then becomes whether there
                      >are phenomena in the synoptic gospels compatible with all three
                      >synoptists having depended on the same documentary source (which
                      >includes the idea that Mark and Luke used a common source).
                      >...
                      >The conclusion I draw from the above, is that "duality" of the type
                      >observed in Mark is not distinctive of Mark, but is found in instances
                      >of Matthew and Luke agreeing positively against Mark. This is
                      >compatible with the hypothesis that all three synoptists independently
                      >copied from the same documentary source. ... the writer of a common
                      >source used by all three synoptists. So a common source may have been
                      >used by Mark and Luke (and also by Matthew, of course).
                      >...
                      >
                      >Any thoughts on the above, please?
                      >
                      >Bests wishes,
                      >BRIAN WILSON
                      >

                      Brian,
                      I thought this must be where you were headed. But what does this do to Q?
                      Does your 'common source' include it?

                      Bob
                      Robert Schacht
                      Northern Arizona University
                      Robert.Schacht@...

                      "This success of my endeavors was due, I believe, to a rule of 'method':
                      that we should always try to clarify and to strengthen our opponent's
                      position as much as possible before criticizing him, if we wish our
                      criticism to be worth while." [Sir Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific
                      Discovery (1968), p. 260 n.*5]
                    • Jim Deardorff
                      ... This is easily explained as an attempted Markan improvement of Matthew. In Matthew, it would be no test of prophecy if Jesus were asked who it was who had
                      Message 10 of 13 , Nov 11, 1998
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 10:41 AM 11/11/98 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:

                        >...
                        >For instance, PROFHTEUSON occurs in Mt 26.68, Mk 14.65 and Lk 22.64. In
                        >Mark this word is not part of a duplicate expression. In the same
                        >verses in Matthew and Luke however, there is a positive agreement - TIJ
                        >ESTIN hO PAISAJ SE . In both Matthew and Luke, therefore, we observe
                        >the double expression - PROFHTEUSON...TIJ ESTIN hO PAISAJ SE . The verb
                        >PROFHTEUSON is a general request for Jesus to show that he is a prophet.
                        >The sarcastic jibe TIJ ESTIN hO PAISAJ SE is a more specific request for
                        >Jesus to give the name of the person hitting him. Both Matthew and
                        >Luke, therefore, have a duplicate expression of the category "General
                        >and Special" which, according to Frans Neirynck, is possibly the most
                        >characteristic duality of the gospel of Mark. In this case, however, it
                        >is found not in Mark, but in Matthew and Luke agreeing positively
                        >against Mark.

                        This is easily explained as an attempted Markan improvement of Matthew. In
                        Matthew, it would be no test of prophecy if Jesus were asked who it was who
                        had struck him. So AMk could well have decided to omit Matthew's "Who is it
                        who struck you?" and to add the blindfold too for good measure. In so doing,
                        he made one alteration too many, causing Mark itself to become rather
                        deficient in supplying no particular reason for the "Prophesy!" command.

                        ALk noticed the problems with both Mk and Mt on this, and so fixed it up
                        right by including both a cover for the face and the question "Who is it
                        that struck you?" Result: A relatively rare duality (of sorts) in Mt and Lk
                        not in Mark. It's perhaps not a true duality, however, in that "Prophesy!"
                        is general and "Who is it that struck you" is a specific amplification.

                        However, the blindfold was important in this pericope, too, and if we take
                        it alone we observe one more agreement between Mark and Luke against
                        Matthew. So it's better to consider the whole pericope.

                        >To take another example, Mt 26.75, Mk 14.72 and Lk 22.62 form a positive
                        >minor agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark in the triple
                        >tradition. Mark has EPIBALWN EKLAIEN, whereas Matthew and Luke agree
                        >positively against Mark with - ECELQWN ECW EKLAUSEN PIKRWJ. Again, the
                        >wording in Mark does not form a duplicate expression. The common
                        >wording in Matthew and Luke, however, does form a duplicate expression
                        >in which the preposition EK found in the compound verb ECERXOMAI is used
                        >again, separately, in ECW. Literally, Peter "OUT-going OUT-side wept
                        >bitterly". This is another duplicate expression of the type we would
                        >generally find in Mark, but in this case occurs in Matthew and Luke
                        >agreeing positively against Mark.

                        This is also explainable as a Markan improvement over Matthew, not apropos
                        for Luke to have replicated due to his earlier minor alterations. That is,
                        Matthew has Peter first in the courtyard and then going out to the porch.
                        AMk felt it inappropriate to have Peter go out once again, as in Mt 14:72,
                        since he was already out on the porch. So he altered Matthew's final Hebraic
                        equivalent of ECELQWN into EPIBALWN. ALk, however, had kept Peter in the
                        courtyard but eventually had to get him out of there, and so utilized
                        ECELQWN. Later, of course, when Hebraic Matthew was translated into Greek,
                        its translator also used ECELQWN, thus producing an agreement against Mark.
                        He was likely influenced by Luke's ECW in adding that too.

                        >[...]
                        >If we think of "duality" of the type we observe in the gospel of Mark as
                        >a stylistic thumbprint, then maybe this was not the thumbprint of the
                        >style of the writer of the gospel of Mark, but of the writer of a common
                        >source used by all three synoptists. So a common source may have been
                        >used by Mark and Luke (and also by Matthew, of course).
                        >
                        >The argument above could be summarized by saying that we appear to have
                        >"Markan-type" duplicate expressions in Matthew and Luke but not Mark in
                        >positive Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark in the triple
                        >tradition. This is compatible with all three synoptists having used a
                        >common source of which duplicate expressions were a characteristic.
                        >
                        >Any thoughts on the above, please?

                        A couple questions, Brian.
                        (1) If this source (or two sources) was used by the writers of Matthew, Mark
                        and Luke, all three, why is there no mention of it whatsoever in any
                        literature? And why no mention by either of the three writers? Surely this
                        source wasn't so unacceptable or heretical, was it, that they dared not
                        mention it?

                        (2) How do you distinguish between one gospel writer using the source you
                        have in mind and then the second using the first gospel and then the third
                        using the second and first gospels? Or, how distinguish between that and the
                        first two gospel writers using the source(s) you have in mind and the third
                        using the others? And so on with the other combinations.

                        Jim Deardorff
                        Corvallis, Oregon
                        E-mail: deardorj@...
                        Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                      • Brian E. Wilson
                        Bob Schacht wrote - ... Bob. Thanks for this question. I wrote - ... This hypothesis is compatible with the occurrence of the double tradition in Matthew and
                        Message 11 of 13 , Nov 11, 1998
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Bob Schacht wrote -
                          >Brian,
                          >I thought this must be where you were headed. But what does this do to Q?
                          >Does your 'common source' include it?
                          >

                          Bob. Thanks for this question. I wrote -
                          >
                          >Let us consider the hypothesis that all three synoptists independently
                          >copied from the same documentary source.
                          >
                          This hypothesis is compatible with the occurrence of the double
                          tradition in Matthew and Luke but not Mark, since Matthew and Luke could
                          independently have copied from the 'common source' some material which
                          Mark chose not to copy. On this view, therefore, the 'common source' may
                          well have contained the double tradition.

                          Best wishes,
                          BRIAN WILSON

                          HOMEPAGE -- http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk


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