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

Re: Butler's Fatigue Argument

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.