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

Re: [Fwd: [Synoptic-L] Re: What did Papias say.....]

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 8/1/1999 1:29:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, x99swain@wmich.edu writes:
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 2, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 8/1/1999 1:29:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      x99swain@... writes:

      <<
      > 2. What, according to Papias, is the activity that Matthew undertook
      > with respect to TA LOGIA. That is to say, what is the meaning of
      > SUNETAXATO?
      >

      I think probably a reference to literary or rhetorical order, Mark didn't do
      his gospel
      in such an order but wrote to the XREIA of his hearers and followed Peter's
      preaching
      style, whereas Matthew did set things in literary/rhetorical order.
      >>

      I think this explaination is needlessly formulated in terms of the theory of
      Marcan priority. Even if Mark was writing to respond to the XREIAI of his
      hearers, (and even in the unlikely event that he wrote first) he certainly
      engaged in a form of SUNTASSEIN to produce his gospel, and, in spite of the
      exact wording of Papias' remarks, his activity should not be distinguished
      from that of Matt in this respect. Though etymologically speaking SUNTASSEIN
      contains the root-word "order", I wonder if the term had a technical meaning
      in which that etymology was lost or at least somewhat disguised: simply "to
      compose", as in composing a literary work. The rough Latin equivalent of
      SUNTASSEIN is of course componere, which can have that meaning (though it is
      not its primary meaning). I think "drawing up", or "drafting" is a possible
      (and even frequent) meaning of SUNTASSEIN. Does anyone know for sure?

      Leonard Maluf
    • Larry J. Swain
      ... I m not at all clear how you went from my remarks to thinking that I m arguing for Marcan priority. It seems that anyone who is not explicity arguing for
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 2, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Maluflen@... wrote:

        > In a message dated 8/1/1999 1:29:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
        > x99swain@... writes:
        >
        > I think probably a reference to literary or rhetorical order, Mark didn't do
        > his gospel
        > in such an order but wrote to the XREIA of his hearers and followed Peter's
        > preaching
        > style, whereas Matthew did set things in literary/rhetorical order.
        > >>
        >
        > I think this explaination is needlessly formulated in terms of the theory of
        > Marcan priority. Even if Mark was writing to respond to the XREIAI of his
        > hearers, (and even in the unlikely event that he wrote first) he certainly
        > engaged in a form of SUNTASSEIN to produce his gospel, and, in spite of the
        > exact wording of Papias' remarks, his activity should not be distinguished
        > from that of Matt in this respect.

        I'm not at all clear how you went from my remarks to thinking that I'm arguing
        for Marcan priority. It seems that anyone who is not explicity arguing for
        Matthean priority from the subject line on must therefore be arguing Marcan
        priority. Had you read my remarks you would have noticed that I stated that
        while Papias' remarks could be taken to apply to order, that they make as much
        sense if they don't, but are rather the Elder's defense of Marcan authority and
        usefulness as a gospel. So please show me where my remarks here are "needlessly
        formulated in terms of the theory of
        Marcan priority."

        Now to the question. The issue is what do we make of Papias' words. We haven't
        yet jumped to the level of how we fit what we think Papias is saying in with our
        pet theories of gospel origins. Had you read my remarks further you would have
        noted that I was in fact attempting to get at SUNTASSEIN as a word which speaks
        of a particular kind of order-hence the use of the English words
        literary/rhetorical in modifying the use of the word "order: in those remarks you
        cite above and elsewhere in my remarks. My suggestion is that Papias is saying
        that Mark is not a polished, literary, rhetorical work but comes from the
        preaching of Peter; Matthew is a polished, literary, rhetorical work done in the
        Hebrew style of arguementation.



        > Though etymologically speaking SUNTASSEIN
        > contains the root-word "order", I wonder if the term had a technical meaning
        > in which that etymology was lost or at least somewhat disguised: simply "to
        > compose", as in composing a literary work. The rough Latin equivalent of
        > SUNTASSEIN is of course componere, which can have that meaning (though it is
        > not its primary meaning). I think "drawing up", or "drafting" is a possible
        > (and even frequent) meaning of SUNTASSEIN. Does anyone know for sure?

        If you go with such a general definition, how do you take Papias' words then?
        Mark didn't compose but Matthew did compose? Thus, Mark didn't write a gospel,
        but just put notes in order from Peter's preaching and Matthew actually sat down
        and composed? Yes, it can be understood as to compose or write a book, but given
        the meaning of the word and its usage in such contexts I would say that it isn't
        just the act of putting quill to parchment that is in view, but rather a putting
        in order of ideas etc.

        Larry Swain
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 8/2/1999 11:55:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, x99swain@wmich.edu writes: ... do ... Peter s ... of ... [Larry]
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 2, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 8/2/1999 11:55:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
          x99swain@... writes:

          << Maluflen@... wrote:

          > In a message dated 8/1/1999 1:29:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
          > x99swain@... writes:
          >
          > I think probably a reference to literary or rhetorical order, Mark didn't
          do
          > his gospel
          > in such an order but wrote to the XREIA of his hearers and followed
          Peter's
          > preaching
          > style, whereas Matthew did set things in literary/rhetorical order.
          > >>
          >
          > I think this explaination is needlessly formulated in terms of the theory
          of
          > Marcan priority. Even if Mark was writing to respond to the XREIAI of his
          > hearers, (and even in the unlikely event that he wrote first) he certainly
          > engaged in a form of SUNTASSEIN to produce his gospel, and, in spite of the
          > exact wording of Papias' remarks, his activity should not be distinguished
          > from that of Matt in this respect.

          [Larry]
          <<I'm not at all clear how you went from my remarks to thinking that I'm
          arguing
          for Marcan priority.>>

          I never said you were arguing for Marcan priority, but only that you
          formulated your comments on Mark and Matthew in terms of Marcan priority,
          which is different.

          <<It seems that anyone who is not explicity arguing for
          Matthean priority from the subject line on must therefore be arguing Marcan
          priority. >>

          Ooops! I hope I don't come off that way!

          << Had you read my remarks you would have noticed that I stated that
          while Papias' remarks could be taken to apply to order, that they make as
          much
          sense if they don't, but are rather the Elder's defense of Marcan authority
          and
          usefulness as a gospel. So please show me where my remarks here are
          "needlessly formulated in terms of the theory of Marcan priority.">>

          Your contrary to fact condition in the above is a bit harsh, but otherwise
          you make a good point. After reading over what you wrote (or at least what
          you cite above), I admit to a bit of hypersensitivity to the ghost of Marcan
          priority in my response.

          << Now to the question. The issue is what do we make of Papias' words. We
          haven't yet jumped to the level of how we fit what we think Papias is saying
          in with our pet theories of gospel origins [ouch again!]. Had you read my
          remarks further [another contrary-to-fact condition!] you would have noted
          that I was in fact attempting to get at SUNTASSEIN as a word which speaks of
          a particular kind of order-hence the use of the English words
          literary/rhetorical in modifying the use of the word "order: in those remarks
          you cite above and elsewhere in my remarks. My suggestion is that Papias is
          saying that Mark is not a polished, literary, rhetorical work but comes from
          the preaching of Peter; Matthew is a polished, literary, rhetorical work done
          in the Hebrew style of arguementation.>>

          I don't believe I have any problem with all this (apart from my parenthetical
          expletives). As you will see in a minute, the problem is not that I wrote
          without reading Swain, but that I wrote without reading Papias.


          > Though etymologically speaking SUNTASSEIN
          > contains the root-word "order", I wonder if the term had a technical
          meaning
          > in which that etymology was lost or at least somewhat disguised: simply "to
          > compose", as in composing a literary work. The rough Latin equivalent of
          > SUNTASSEIN is of course componere, which can have that meaning (though it

          > is not its primary meaning). I think "drawing up", or "drafting" is a
          possible
          > (and even frequent) meaning of SUNTASSEIN. Does anyone know for sure?

          <<If you go with such a general definition, how do you take Papias' words
          then?
          Mark didn't compose but Matthew did compose? >>

          But Papias doesn't say Mark OU SUNETAXE, does he? He only says Matthew did,
          and this statement need not imply that Mark didn't. At least I think it need
          not imply that, though at this point I really would want to read the text.
          [He jumps up from his computer and bolts over to a book-shelf laden with
          wonderful resources, such as Aland's Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum -- then
          promptly returns from reading the text of Papias]. No; you're right. In
          context, the verb has to have a more specific meaning and Papias clearly is
          trying to contrast the work of Matthew to the work of Mark by the use of that
          term. Once again I ought to have deferred to the experts.

          Leonard Maluf
        • Larry J. Swain
          ... A fair distinction, but I yet maintain that you ve read other folks conclusions which they ve drawn from these words of Papias. I could say the same
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 2, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Maluflen@... wrote:

            > In a message dated 8/2/1999 11:55:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
            > x99swain@... writes:
            >
            >
            > I never said you were arguing for Marcan priority, but only that you
            > formulated your comments on Mark and Matthew in terms of Marcan priority,
            > which is different.
            >

            A fair distinction, but I yet maintain that you've read other folks' conclusions
            which they've drawn from these words of Papias. I could say the same thing using
            Matthew first, but it comes a little unnaturally since Papias is recorded as
            having written about Mark first and contrasting Matthew with Mark. I'm attempting
            to be very careful in this discussion about allowing presuppositions of the origin
            of the gospels affect how Papias is to be read---humanly impossible since I have
            my own ideas on the subject, but worth the effort. Perhaps I took too much
            umbrage at your words...

            > Your contrary to fact condition in the above is a bit harsh, but otherwise
            > you make a good point. After reading over what you wrote (or at least what
            > you cite above), I admit to a bit of hypersensitivity to the ghost of Marcan
            > priority in my response.
            >

            I know what you mean....all too often evidence like Papias, and even internal
            evidence from the gospels is read to support the thesis already concluded....If A,
            then this means B, and then C and we come to A.....this forum has amazingly
            steered clear of this sort of reasoning, but it occurs in many textbooks on the
            New Testement. So if you're hypersensitive so am I and I was gruffer than need
            be.

            > << Now to the question. The issue is what do we make of Papias' words. We
            > haven't yet jumped to the level of how we fit what we think Papias is saying
            > in with our pet theories of gospel origins [ouch again!].

            It wasn't meant pejoratively, we all have our pet theories and need to fit
            evidence into the construct.

            So all that said and done....what do we make of Papias? My own thinking on this
            has been that discussions on gospel origins have been guilty of treating Papias
            and other such evidence as "external" and evidence from the gospels themselves as
            "internal"; then the old school chose to take the external evidence, since
            mid-century the internal evidence is hailed and the external dismissed as simply
            wrong in many cases. So my thinking has been along the lines of treating it all
            as "evidence" and trying to make sense of the evidence in a cohesive, sensible
            fashion. Ok, Jeffrey, my .02, now someone else can take Papias on.

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