Re: [Fwd: [Synoptic-L] Re: What did Papias say.....]
- In a message dated 8/2/1999 11:55:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
<< Maluflen@... wrote:
> In a message dated 8/1/1999 1:29:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,do
> x99swain@... writes:
> I think probably a reference to literary or rhetorical order, Mark didn't
> his gospelPeter's
> in such an order but wrote to the XREIA of his hearers and followed
> style, whereas Matthew did set things in literary/rhetorical order.
> I think this explaination is needlessly formulated in terms of the theory
> Marcan priority. Even if Mark was writing to respond to the XREIAI of his[Larry]
> 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
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
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
sense if they don't, but are rather the Elder's defense of Marcan authority
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 SUNTASSEINmeaning
> contains the root-word "order", I wonder if the term had a technical
> in which that etymology was lost or at least somewhat disguised: simply "topossible
> 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
> (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
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.
- Maluflen@... wrote:
> In a message dated 8/2/1999 11:55:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time,A fair distinction, but I yet maintain that you've read other folks' conclusions
> 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.
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 otherwiseI know what you mean....all too often evidence like Papias, and even internal
> 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.
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
> << Now to the question. The issue is what do we make of Papias' words. WeIt wasn't meant pejoratively, we all have our pet theories and need to fit
> 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!].
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.