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

Mt from Mark (wilson: non-directional)

Expand Messages
  • yochanan bitan
    ... what is needed are some clear idiosyncratic marcanisms in matthew. this was briefly discussed in the thread on tote and the hebrew jesus last month. tote
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 19, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      brian wilson wrote:
      >I do not know of any directional indicator which shows that Matthew
      >copied from Mark.

      what is needed are some clear idiosyncratic marcanisms in matthew.
      this was briefly discussed in the thread on 'tote' and the hebrew jesus
      last month.
      tote as a mattheanism shows that mark did not copy from matthew. however
      ----

      ke evthys 'and immediately' is a very idiosyncratic marcanism and it DOES
      show up in matthew often enough to qualify as a trace element showing mark
      to matthew flow. [matthew prefers evthews in any case.]

      ke evthys is idiosyncratic enough so that if one tries to argue that mark
      and matthew both copied from a "ke evthys" source, then that source becomes
      mark's twin. and luke does not seem to have copied from either "mark's
      twin" or mark, [unless a very strange editorial policy were adopted on his
      part to include many hebraisms and semitisms irregularly dumped in the
      gospel, also ke evthys L6.49 + ac10.16, but never once to allow mark's own
      ke evthys through. i will concede that this does not deal with the
      direction luke to mark.]
    • Brian E. Wilson
      Randall Buth wrote - ... Randall, Kai euthus is a very idiosyncratic phrase which is EITHER a Markanism OR, if it was not supplied by the writer of the
      Message 2 of 6 , Jan 19, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Randall Buth wrote -
        >
        >ke evthys 'and immediately' is a very idiosyncratic marcanism and it
        >DOES show up in matthew often enough to qualify as a trace element
        >showing mark to matthew flow. [matthew prefers evthews in any case.]
        >
        >ke evthys is idiosyncratic enough so that if one tries to argue that
        >mark and matthew both copied from a "ke evthys" source, then that
        >source becomes mark's twin. and luke does not seem to have copied from
        >either "mark's twin" or mark, [unless a very strange editorial policy
        >were adopted on his part to include many hebraisms and semitisms
        >irregularly dumped in the gospel, also ke evthys L6.49 + ac10.16, but
        >never once to allow mark's own ke evthys through. i will concede that
        >this does not deal with the direction luke to mark.]

        Randall,
        "Kai euthus" is a very idiosyncratic phrase which is EITHER a
        Markanism OR, if it was not supplied by the writer of the Gospel of
        Mark, a phrase distinctive of a documentary source used by Mark. We do
        not know that "kai euthus" was supplied by the writer of the Gospel of
        Mark himself.

        Neither am I sure about what you say concerning "mark's twin". Why
        should not Mark have depended on a significantly longer document than
        his gospel - a document which included not only the material found in
        Mark, but also the double tradition? This was part of the synoptic
        hypothesis put forward by Robert Lindsey (he called the common Greek
        documentary source "The Anthology" which included the double tradition).
        The same basic idea is part of the Jerusalem School Hypothesis today, I
        believe - that all three synoptists copied from a common documentary
        source significantly longer than Mark and which included the double
        tradition.

        According to J. C. Hawkins (in "Horae Synopticae", Oxford 1909), Luke
        allows through only one of the 151 historic presents found in Mark. This
        was not considered problematic in any way by Hawkins, (or by anyone
        else, as far as I know). It is perfectly feasible that Luke, not liking
        this type of expression, edited all (except one) away as he copied from
        the same source as Mark. Again, on my count, "palin" occurs 27 times in
        Mark, but is parallelled in Luke only once (Mk 15.12 // Lk 23.20), Luke
        having "palin" an additional twice where Mark does not. Luke could well
        have disliked this expression also, and removed it in all but three
        instances as he copied from a documentary source common to all three
        synoptic gospels. Equally, it is perfectly feasible that Luke, copying
        from the same source as Mark, edited away every instance of "kai euthus"
        he found in that source except, as it happens, again just the one
        instance which he retains at Lk 6.49.

        I agree that Luke does not seem to have copied from "mark or mark's
        twin". But, again, that is consistent with all three synoptists having
        copied from a common documentary source significantly longer than Mark
        and containing the double tradition.

        I would agree also that Luke has many hebraisms and semitisms, but there
        is no reason why Luke should not have obtained these from a documentary
        source common to all three synoptists. As I am sure you know, this was
        the view of Robert Lindsey, and is part of the Jerusalem School
        Hypothesis set out in "Jerusalem Perspective" No. 53 (October-December,
        1997). On this Lindsey-Jerusalem view, the hebraisms and semitisms in
        Luke were not invented by Luke but taken by him from a source which was
        also available to Mark and to Matthew.

        In my view, the documentary source used by all three synoptists
        contained hebraisms and semitisms because it was a translation of a
        Hebrew/Aramaic document. The same source, however, also contained
        expressions and constructions like "kai euthus", the historic present
        and "palin" because these were idiosyncracies of the style of the
        translator as he attempted to express his understanding of a
        Hebrew/Aramaic original in his sort of Greek. The translation contained
        both idioms emulating the original Hebrew/Aramaic, and also idioms
        revealing the translator's own Greek style.

        Presumably if one of us translated a few thousand words of French into
        English, the result could well similarly contain both idioms reflecting
        the French original, and also idioms revealing our own style of English.

        Best wishes,
        BRIAN WILSON

        E-MAIL : brian@... *** HOMEPAGE RECENTLY UPDATED ***
        SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
        10 York Close, Godmanchester,
        Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
      • Brian E. Wilson
        Karel Hanhart wrote- ... Karel, How do we know that Mark did not copy every instance of KAI EUTHUJ, the historic present, and PALIN from a documentary source
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 2, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Karel Hanhart wrote-
          >
          >I was impressed by the suggestion of Prof Ben Hemelsoet of the Kath.
          >Univ. of Amsterdam that the adverb 'euthus' refers to the theme of 1,3:
          >"MAKE STRAIGHT the way of JHWH" [EUTHEIAS POIEITE]. Although Mark wrote
          >reasonably good Greek, his mother tongue appears to have been Aramaic.
          >Like all immigrants he experiments with his second language but not
          >always sucessfully. He wishes to convey the immediate healing effects of
          >Jesus' ministry but he wishes at the same time to remind the reader of
          >the "Way of JHWH". It could perhaps be translated with: "straightway".
          >The theme of "The Way" governs the entire Gospel which ends with the
          >promise "he is GOING AHEAD of you into Galilee" (16,8). It is awkward
          >Greek which would explain Matthew's reluctance to use it as frequently
          >as Mark did.
          >
          Karel,
          How do we know that Mark did not copy every instance of KAI
          EUTHUJ, the historic present, and PALIN from a documentary source also
          used independently by Matthew and Luke? What Professor Ben Hemelsoet
          says of Mark would then equally apply to this prior source.

          If a writer depends heavily on documentary source material, the style of
          the book may be the style of the writer of the source material, and not
          the style of the writer of the book in which the source material is
          incorporated.

          The hypothesis that all three synoptists copied independently from the
          same documentary source would also explain why both Matthew and Luke
          contain KAI EUTHUJ, the historic present, and PALIN where Mark does
          not. For instance, KAI EUTHUJ occurs in Mt 13.20 and in Lk 6.49, neither
          of these having parallels in Mark. These occurrences are not explained
          by Professor Hemelsoet. Similarly, there are instances of the historic
          present, and of PALIN in Matthew and/or Luke which are not parallelled
          in Mark.

          It is not sufficient to posit a "reluctance" of Matthew or Luke to use
          these idioms. We need a hypothesis which explains the occurrences of KAI
          EUTHUJ, the historic present, and PALIN in Matthew where there is no
          occurrence in Mark and/or Luke, in Mark where there is no occurrence in
          Matthew and/or Luke, and in Luke where there is no occurrence in Matthew
          and/or Mark. The hypothesis that all three synoptists copied
          independently from a common documentary source accounts for all these
          phenomena. They were all idioms characteristic of the style of the
          writer of the common source, each synoptist independently copying from
          the source.

          Best wishes,
          BRIAN WILSON

          E-MAIL : brian@... *** HOMEPAGE RECENTLY UPDATED ***
          SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
          10 York Close, Godmanchester,
          Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK *** SEE HOMEPAGE FOR FIRST DRAFT OF PAPER ***
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 1/19/1999 4:36:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, ButhFam@compuserve.com writes:
          Message 4 of 6 , Feb 10, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 1/19/1999 4:36:49 AM Eastern Standard Time,
            ButhFam@... writes:

            <<
            tote as a mattheanism shows that mark did not copy from matthew. however >>

            How does this differ from: euaggelion in the absolute as a markanism shows
            that matthew did not copy from mark?

            Oh, I know. Brian will love it!

            Leonard Maluf
          • K. Hanhart
            ... Dear Brian, Euthus and palin are normal Greek adverbs and the historical present is a phenomenon of syntax also common in classical Greek literature.
            Message 5 of 6 , Mar 2, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Brian E. Wilson wrote:
              >
              > Karel Hanhart wrote-
              > >
              > >I was impressed by the suggestion of Prof Ben Hemelsoet of the Kath.
              > >Univ. of Amsterdam that the adverb 'euthus' refers to the theme of 1,3:
              > >"MAKE STRAIGHT the way of JHWH" [EUTHEIAS POIEITE]. Although Mark wrote
              > >reasonably good Greek, his mother tongue appears to have been Aramaic.
              > >Like all immigrants he experiments with his second language but not
              > >always sucessfully. He wishes to convey the immediate healing effects of
              > >Jesus' ministry but he wishes at the same time to remind the reader of
              > >the "Way of JHWH". It could perhaps be translated with: "straightway".
              > >The theme of "The Way" governs the entire Gospel which ends with the
              > >promise "he is GOING AHEAD of you into Galilee" (16,8). It is awkward
              > >Greek which would explain Matthew's reluctance to use it as frequently
              > >as Mark did.
              > >
              > Karel,
              > How do we know that Mark did not copy every instance of KAI
              > EUTHUJ, the historic present, and PALIN from a documentary source also
              > used independently by Matthew and Luke? ...the book may be the style of the writer of the source material, and not the style of the writer of the book in which the source material is incorporated.
              >
              > The hypothesis that all three synoptists copied independently from the
              > same documentary source would also explain why both Matthew and Luke
              > contain KAI EUTHUJ, the historic present, and PALIN where Mark does
              > not. For instance, KAI EUTHUJ occurs in Mt 13.20 and in Lk 6.49, neither
              > of these having parallels in Mark. These occurrences are not explained
              > by Professor Hemelsoet. Similarly, there are instances of the historic
              > present, and of PALIN in Matthew and/or Luke which are not parallelled
              > in Mark.
              >
              > It is not sufficient to posit a "reluctance" of Matthew or Luke to use
              > these idioms. We need a hypothesis which explains the occurrences of KAI
              > EUTHUJ, the historic present, and PALIN in Matthew where there is no
              > occurrence in Mark and/or Lk 6,49.


              Dear Brian,

              'Euthus' and 'palin' are normal Greek adverbs and the historical present
              is a phenomenon of syntax also common in classical Greek literature.
              Their occurrence in Mt or Lk without a parallel in Mark does not offer
              hard evidence. 'Euthus' in Lk 6,49 is an example of normal usage. You
              probably overlooked the fact that 'euthus' in Mk 4,16 is parallelled by
              Mt 13,20, Matthew slightly improving the Markan text.
              You may be quite right that all three synoptic authors used documents
              and oral traditions either in Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek. They were
              available at any rate.
              Mark's use of 'euthus' derives from the Hebrew 'yashruw' in the opening
              passage of his Gospel (1,3 - Isa 40,3). Both the word 'Gospel' and this
              citation hail from Isaiah, as you well know. Mark 1,2.3 is a midrash, I
              take it, on an earlier pre-70 document (used in the ecclesia) he had
              before him. I call this document Mark I. This opening midrash in
              canonical Mark includes the reference to Mal 3,1 hinting at the coming
              judgment on the temple priests (Mal 3,3).
              The argument for Markan priority is the fact that "the way" is an
              important theme. In this opening passage Mark emphasizes that Jesus in
              his ministry was 'upright' in the eyes of God and walked straight in
              God's ways - typically Biblical language. I do believe that Mark
              overemphasized the point. Its overly frequent use makes the story sound
              almost childish. Mt went along with Mark's point but used 'euthus' less
              frequently.
              with greetings Karel
            • Brian E. Wilson
              ... Karel, How do we know that Mark did not take virtually all his material from a documentary source also used by Matthew and Luke? The fact you describe,
              Message 6 of 6 , Mar 3, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                >Karel Hanhart wrote-
                >
                >The argument for Markan priority is the fact that "the way" is an
                >important theme. In this opening passage Mark emphasizes that Jesus in
                >his ministry was 'upright' in the eyes of God and walked straight in
                >God's ways - typically Biblical language. I do believe that Mark
                >overemphasized the point. Its overly frequent use makes the story sound
                >almost childish. Mt went along with Mark's point but used 'euthus' less
                >frequently.
                >
                Karel,
                How do we know that Mark did not take virtually all his material
                from a documentary source also used by Matthew and Luke? The "fact" you
                describe, and the other data to which you refer, are all consistent with
                the Gospel of Mark being a cut down version of such a documentary
                source. "The way" could have been an important theme in the common
                source. The word "euthus", the historic present and the use of "palin"
                could have been characteristic of the common source, these idioms
                frequently being retained by Mark but usually edited out by Matthew or
                Luke. The description of Jesus in his ministry being "upright" could
                have been copied by Mark from the common source. And so on. And so on.

                All the data you describe is perfectly consistent with all three
                synoptists having copied from a common documentary source, and therefore
                consistent with the hypothesis of Markan priority being false.

                Best wishes,
                BRIAN WILSON

                E-MAIL : brian@... homepage -
                SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
                10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.