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

[Synoptic-L] re: Fatigued in Jerusalem

Expand Messages
  • yochanan bitan
    shalom list, below is steven notley s response to your responses on mk 10.52. several good points are made. i would enter in but i am waiting for a comment
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 28, 1999
      shalom list,
      below is steven notley's response to your responses on mk 10.52.
      several good points are made.

      i would enter in but i am waiting for a comment from anyone about the greek
      nature of "edwken ainon"? is anyone able to confirm its existence or lack
      thereof in pre-christian sources?

      randall buth

      ---------- Forwarded Message ----------

      From: INTERNET:notley@..., INTERNET:notley@...
      TO: yochanan bitan, ButhFam
      DATE: 28/10/99 01:07

      RE: Fatigued in Jerusalem

      Randy,
      Read the responses. Good examples of special pleading. I can
      not find any criterion given by Goodacre in his article saying how far
      apart is an acceptable distance for the editorial insertion from the
      fatigue. Note that distance was not repeated in Carlson's three
      criteria (which I will deal with below).
      Goodacre's only response seems to be that Mark could not
      possibly make such a quick and obvious "fatigue." Does someone need to
      remind him that this is the same person who gave us Mark 1:2-3!
      On that occasion the Evangelist moves the citation of Malachi 3:1 from
      its original context as seen in Matt 11:10/Lk 7:27 and inserts it to
      precede
      a citation from Isaiah. He then returns to follow his source (as
      attested by the triple tradition citation of Isaiah 40:3). His hand is
      betrayed by the fact that the Malachi citation is misattributed because
      of his prior reference to Isaiah.
      That is, of course, unless someone would like to suggest that
      Matthew and Luke <independently!> thought, "Let's not mis-cite Malachi 3:1
      here
      where we find it in Mark, but use it later (in the identical location!)"
      [NB
      Remember guys you can not assume Q without presuming Markan
      priority--the very point you are trying to prove! That is called
      circular reasoning.]
      It sounds like a serious critique of Goodacre's article is
      needed. I have re-read it and as we noted last year it is woefully
      short on objective analysis. Over and over again, Matthew and Luke are
      analyzed on the basis of an already assumed synoptic relationship with
      Markan priority as its a priori cornerstone.
      Lukan omissions (i.e. where he does not follow Mark) are assumed
      to
      constitute fatigues when these "Markan" details surface later in the
      Lukan narrative. But that is <only!> true, if one first assumes that he
      has Mark in front of him. One could equally argue that these details
      have "percolated" up in the narrative of Mark in a secondary stage of
      the tradition.
      There is not a single proposed Lukan fatigue in Goodacre's
      article
      which is not the product of a priori Markan priority.
      By the way, do Luke's "omissions" meet the requirement of
      Carlon's
      first criterion? ("B [Luke] differs from A [Mark] at one point in
      language characteristic of B [Luke]"). One would be hard pressed to
      prove that "omissions" are characteristic language of Luke.
      I am afraid that what we witness in Carlton's criteria is a
      quick
      raising of the bar to eliminate Markan fatigues, after the bar has been
      lowered to identify "fatigues" in Matthew and Luke. In fact, if we
      applied Carlson's criteria to Goodacre's article, there would be no
      identifiable Lukan fatigues.
      On Carlson's comments, note that he has assumed that I am arguing
      for Markan dependence upon Matthew. Thus, he comments: "hUPAGE (where
      Mark differs from Matthew) is not characteristic of Mark, because
      Matthew often uses it, and for element." Yet, his point misses the
      mark. I stated quite clearly that the data indicates Mark is dependent
      upon a source which looks very much like Luke. That certainly isn't
      Matthew.
      Thus, Carlson has given no real consideration to the flow of the
      data, if one were to ask whether Mark might be relying on Luke or a
      source which looks very much like Luke. As usual a type of synoptic
      myopia exists where only two alternatives are considered reasonable for
      due
      consideration. Markan priorists rarely realize that their arguments are
      irrelevant for those of us who already recognize that Matthew knew Mark,
      but remain unconvinced that Luke knew Mark.
      As I stated earlier, none of Goodacre's examples measure up to
      Carlson's three criteria. My own assessment is that Mark 10:52 comes a
      lot closer than Goodacre's examples of Lukan fatigues, when measured by
      Carlson's criteria.

      Mark is B and Luke is A:
      IF (1) B differs from A at one point in language characteristic of B>
      Luke uses the imperative of "hupagein" only twice and then only in the
      plural. He does not employ it in Acts and its appearance is .09/1000
      words. Mark, on the other hand, uses the imperative of hupagein 17
      times (.80/1000 words), <more than any of the writers of the NT!>

      Thus, Mark does differ from Luke at a point in language which is
      characteristic of Mark.

      AND (2) B later agrees with A in language characteristic of A
      "he followed him" is found both in Luke and Mark and thus could not be
      considered characteristic of Luke (i.e. non-Markan). Together with
      Goodacre's examples, Mark 10:52 fails to meet up to all three of
      Carlson's criteria. If, however, the same low measure seen in
      Goodacre's article is applied here, then point 1 and the following point
      indicate a Markan fatigue.

      AND (3) this pattern creates a difficulty.
      I think this needs no further comment.

      In summation, after re-reading Goodacre's article, Mark 10:52 is as much
      of a fatigue as any Lukan fatigue put forward by Goodacre. One can only
      avoid this conclusion by changing the definition of what constitues a
      "fatigue." But in that case, we need to look again at Goodacre's
      examples, and I think we will find they also fall woefully short. Or we
      <arbitrarily> assume that Mark was unable to fatigue so quickly—a
      presumption I am not willing to grant in light of his editorial work
      elsewhere in his gospel.

      fatigued in Jerusalem,
      Steve
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... I am beginning to prefer it if Steven could join the list himself and participate directly rather than go through an intermediary. I apologize for
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 28, 1999
        At 06:27 AM 10/28/99 -0400, yochanan bitan wrote:
        >below is steven notley's response to your responses on mk 10.52.
        >several good points are made.

        I am beginning to prefer it if Steven could join the list himself
        and participate directly rather than go through an intermediary.

        I apologize for forgetting that the original post was with respect
        to Markan fatigue of Luke. My only excuse is that I responded to
        Mark's response and did not have the original post more immediately
        in mind. At any rate, it does not appear that the analysis is much
        compromised because hUPAGE is a minor agreement at Mk10:52 and the
        bit about following a triple agreement. Thus, Matthew's text and
        Luke's text stand in much the same place, although hUPAGW (19/15/5)
        presents a slightly more compelling case for it being relatively
        more characteristic of Mark.

        For most good ideas, there is an initial intuitive phase, followed
        by a subsequent systematization phase. I think that Mark's article
        has the initial intuition, and that now is the time to follow it
        up with systemization, as I have attempted to do, perhaps not
        completely successfully. Steven's comments are useful in that
        regard.

        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
      • Mark Goodacre
        On 28 Oct 99, at 6:27, yochanan bitan wrote, forwarding a message from Steven Notley: [I agree with Stephen Carlson that it would be nice to have Steven Notley
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 1, 1999
          On 28 Oct 99, at 6:27, yochanan bitan wrote, forwarding a message from Steven
          Notley:

          [I agree with Stephen Carlson that it would be nice to have Steven Notley on
          board directly so that we do not need to be going through an intermediary].

          > Read the responses. Good examples of special pleading. I can not
          > find any criterion given by Goodacre in his article saying how far apart
          > is an acceptable distance for the editorial insertion from the fatigue.
          > Note that distance was not repeated in Carlson's three criteria (which I
          > will deal with below).

          Well, no-one enjoys charges of special pleading, even less so when it seems as
          little justified as it is in this context. The point of the theory of editorial fatigue is
          that, to quote from the article again, "In telling the same story as his predecessor,
          a writer makes changes in the early stages which he is unable to sustain
          throughout" (p. 46). I attempted to point out in the previous Email on this topic
          that the example suggested, Mark 10.52, has Mark supposedly introducing the
          fresh element at the end of the pericope and not towards the beginning. This
          makes me doubt that the suggested example really qualifies as a good counter-
          example to the cases of Matthew's and Luke's fatigue with Mark. The
          terminology of "fatigue" is chosen because of the idea that an evangelist makes
          changes in the "early stages" (p. 47 etc.) that he is unable to sustain throughout.

          I attempt specifically to deal with the existence of little Markan incoherences of
          the kind to which you are drawing attention in Mark 10.52 (pp. 52-4) and to
          differentiate them from the kind of thing I am claiming for Matthew and Luke. I
          attempt there to make clear that on the whole the crucial difference between
          Matthew/Luke and Mark are at "the beginning of the pericope" where
          Matthew/Luke are writing most characteristically; the similarities occur later on
          where they are writing less characteristically.

          > Goodacre's only response seems to be that Mark could not
          > possibly make such a quick and obvious "fatigue."

          No, my response was rather to attempt to ground the analysis in terms of the
          article itself, so that we could be sure we were talking about the same thing. It is
          not that "Mark could not possibly make such a quick and obvious 'fatigue'" but
          rather that this kind of Markan incoherence does not really qualify as a good
          counterexample to the cases given in the paper because the alleged fresh element
          occurs in the same verse as the alleged docile reproduction.

          > Does someone need to
          > remind him that this is the same person who gave us Mark 1:2-3! On that
          > occasion the Evangelist moves the citation of Malachi 3:1 from its
          > original context as seen in Matt 11:10/Lk 7:27 and inserts it to precede a
          > citation from Isaiah. He then returns to follow his source (as attested
          > by the triple tradition citation of Isaiah 40:3). His hand is betrayed by
          > the fact that the Malachi citation is misattributed because of his prior
          > reference to Isaiah.

          Even if this were the case, it does not alter the fact that the Mark 10.52 reference
          does not qualify as editorial fatigue according to the definition I attempted to set
          up in the paper. But in any case, I am not sure that the Mark's use of Luke theory
          helps one out of the problems of Mark 1.2-3. On this theory Mark imports an
          unattributed citation from Matt. 11.10 // Luke 7.27 into a context in which he has
          a reference to Isaiah. This is possible but no more plausible than the reverse
          theory that Matthew and Luke both saved the Malachi/Exod. quotation for later in
          their Gospels, knowing it not to be from Isaiah.

          > That is, of course, unless someone would like to suggest that
          > Matthew and Luke <independently!> thought, "Let's not mis-cite Malachi
          > 3:1 here where we find it in Mark, but use it later (in the identical
          > location!)" [NB Remember guys you can not assume Q without presuming
          > Markan priority--the very point you are trying to prove! That is called
          > circular reasoning.]

          You are right to pick up on a problem with the Two-Source Theory here. The
          point has been made coherently by Goulder, "On Putting Q to the Test" and
          "Luke's Knowledge of Matthew", re-inforced by Sanders & Davies in _Studying
          the Synoptic Gospels_. I assume that this paragraph is not aimed at me.

          > It sounds like a serious critique of Goodacre's article is
          > needed. I have re-read it and as we noted last year it is woefully
          > short on objective analysis. Over and over again, Matthew and Luke are
          > analyzed on the basis of an already assumed synoptic relationship with
          > Markan priority as its a priori cornerstone.

          Gosh -- I think I preferred "special pleading" to "woefully short on objective
          analysis"! But to press this would be to miss the point. What the article is
          attempting to do, of course, is to paint a picture of synoptic relationships that
          explains all the relevant data. That means that one has to assume the synoptic
          relationship under discussion in order to make the point. What I then ask is for
          good counter-examples to be presented from the perspective of other theories. I
          have looked for them and cannot find them. You are now offering me one, at
          Mark 10.52. But for reasons already stated, I think that this is a weak counter-
          example. The difficulty is that good counter-examples are not, I think, available.

          > Lukan omissions (i.e. where he does not follow Mark) are assumed
          > to constitute fatigues when these "Markan" details surface later in the
          > Lukan narrative. But that is <only!> true, if one first assumes that he
          > has Mark in front of him. One could equally argue that these details have
          > "percolated" up in the narrative of Mark in a secondary stage of the
          > tradition.

          I do not follow the last sentence. What does "percolated up" mean? And to what
          "secondary stage of the tradition" are we referring?

          > There is not a single proposed Lukan fatigue in Goodacre's
          > article
          > which is not the product of a priori Markan priority.

          If you mean that one has to assume Markan priority in order to make the point
          that Luke is on occasions fatigued with his source, of course that is the case. One
          has to assume the thesis in order to explain how it makes good sense of the data.
          What one then does is to ask if, having assumed the theory, it does make good
          sense of the data. In the case of Luke's use of Mark, I think it does make good
          sense of the data.

          > By the way, do Luke's "omissions" meet the requirement of
          > Carlon's
          > first criterion? ("B [Luke] differs from A [Mark] at one point in
          > language characteristic of B [Luke]"). One would be hard pressed to
          > prove that "omissions" are characteristic language of Luke.

          This is covered on p. 53. Incidentally, I am not sure that one should limit the
          statement to "language" as Stephen does here. One of the difficulties about over-
          stressing language is that Luke (in particular) liked to vary his synonyms -- he has
          a large vocabulary and one does not want mistake minor variation in language for
          editorial fatigue.

          > In summation, after re-reading Goodacre's article, Mark 10:52 is as much
          > of a fatigue as any Lukan fatigue put forward by Goodacre. One can only
          > avoid this conclusion by changing the definition of what constitues a
          > "fatigue." But in that case, we need to look again at Goodacre's
          > examples, and I think we will find they also fall woefully short. Or we
          > <arbitrarily> assume that Mark was unable to fatigue so quickly—a
          > presumption I am not willing to grant in light of his editorial work
          > elsewhere in his gospel.

          Gosh -- "woefully short" again! I'll try harder next time : ) But once again, there
          is no question of "changing the definition". As I made clear first in the article, then
          in my previous Email on this, and now have re-stressed, "editorial fatigue"
          attempts to describe the phenomenon of an evangelist reworking material at the
          *beginning of a pericope* and subsequently lapsing into the wording of his source.


          Not-quite-so-fatigued in Birmingham

          Mark
          --------------------------------------
          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
          Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
          University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
          Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

          http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
          The New Testament Gateway
          Mark Without Q
          Aseneth Home Page
        • Stephen C. Carlson
          ... Yes, I m beginning to think that stressing the linguistic aspect is too stringent, especially because of the Lukan Vocabulary Fallacy. Perhaps it is
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 1, 1999
            At 04:56 PM 11/1/99 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
            >This is covered on p. 53. Incidentally, I am not sure that one should limit the
            >statement to "language" as Stephen does here. One of the difficulties about over-
            >stressing language is that Luke (in particular) liked to vary his synonyms -- he has
            >a large vocabulary and one does not want mistake minor variation in language for
            >editorial fatigue.

            Yes, I'm beginning to think that stressing the linguistic aspect is too
            stringent, especially because of the Lukan Vocabulary Fallacy. Perhaps
            it is merely a sufficient condition but not a necessary condition.

            Ultimately, the case for fatigue boils down to which scenario for the
            cause of a difficulty is more plausible: the secondary author created
            the difficulty because he did not sustain a plan of redaction or the
            difficulty was original to one text and the later author fixed the
            difficulty.

            In the case where the texts first disagree and then agree at point
            that creates a difficulty in one of the texts, then it looks more
            plausible that the difficulty is due to fatigue. (A finding of
            fatigue can be bolstered by showing characteristic language and
            indicators of redaction.) On the other hand, if the texts first
            agree and then disagree at a point that creates a difficulty,
            then it is more safely presumed that the difficulty was original.

            These presumptions, which are based on the order of the agreement
            and disagreement, should be intuitive: if a later author is to
            fix a difficulty, it is much more likely to occur by changing
            the text at the point the difficulty is noticed, i.e., at the
            second point in the text. On the other hand, if a secondary
            author is fatigued, the difference between the texts is more
            likely to occur at a sooner point.

            As for Mark 10:52, it still remains to be shown that there is a
            difficulty. The mere fact that an eager person disobeys Jesus'
            command (by following Jesus instead going away) is not a good
            example, because earlier in Mark the leper disobeyed Jesus'
            command to silence (Mark 1:44-45) with full approval of the
            Evangelist.

            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
          • Mark Goodacre
            From: Mark Goodacre To: M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] re: Fatigued in Jerusalem
            Message 5 of 6 , Nov 3, 1999
              From: Mark Goodacre <M.S.Goodacre@...>
              To: M.S.Goodacre@...
              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] re: Fatigued in Jerusalem
              Send reply to: M.S.Goodacre@...
              Date sent: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:48:03 -0000

              On 1 Nov 99, at 22:07, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

              > Yes, I'm beginning to think that stressing the linguistic aspect is too
              > stringent, especially because of the Lukan Vocabulary Fallacy. Perhaps
              > it is merely a sufficient condition but not a necessary condition.

              Yes -- the difficulty is that here, as elsewhere, one does not want to give
              Luke an unfair disadvantage because of his large vocabulary.

              >
              > Ultimately, the case for fatigue boils down to which scenario for the
              > cause of a difficulty is more plausible: the secondary author created
              > the difficulty because he did not sustain a plan of redaction or the
              > difficulty was original to one text and the later author fixed the
              > difficulty.

              Agreed -- one needs to focus on plausibility. Does this example or that
              make a good, plausible account of the data?

              > In the case where the texts first disagree and then agree at point
              > that creates a difficulty in one of the texts, then it looks more
              > plausible that the difficulty is due to fatigue. (A finding of
              > fatigue can be bolstered by showing characteristic language and
              > indicators of redaction.) On the other hand, if the texts first
              > agree and then disagree at a point that creates a difficulty,
              > then it is more safely presumed that the difficulty was original.
              >
              > These presumptions, which are based on the order of the agreement
              > and disagreement, should be intuitive: if a later author is to
              > fix a difficulty, it is much more likely to occur by changing
              > the text at the point the difficulty is noticed, i.e., at the
              > second point in the text. On the other hand, if a secondary
              > author is fatigued, the difference between the texts is more
              > likely to occur at a sooner point.

              I think that this is a fine summary of the case as I see it.
              >
              > As for Mark 10:52, it still remains to be shown that there is a
              > difficulty. The mere fact that an eager person disobeys Jesus'
              > command (by following Jesus instead going away) is not a good
              > example, because earlier in Mark the leper disobeyed Jesus'
              > command to silence (Mark 1:44-45) with full approval of the
              > Evangelist.


              Indeed disobedience of Jesus' commands by those who have been healed is
              common in Mark -- most famously at 7.36:

              " Jesus commanded them not to tell anyone. But the more he did so, the
              more they kept talking about it."

              Mark
              --------------------------------------
              Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
              Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
              University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
              Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

              http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
              The New Testament Gateway
              Mark Without Q
              Aseneth Home Page
            • K. Hanhart
              ... Dear Jochanan and Steven, I am emptying my mailbox, so I am reacting to your contribution of last September. I am indeed someone who would like to
              Message 6 of 6 , Apr 4, 2000
                yochanan bitan wrote:
                >
                > shalom list,
                > below is steven notley's response to your responses on mk 10.52.
                > several good points are made.
                >
                > i would enter in but i am waiting for a comment from anyone about the greek
                > nature of "edwken ainon"? is anyone able to confirm its existence or lack
                > thereof in pre-christian sources?
                >
                > randall buth
                >
                > ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
                >
                > From: INTERNET:notley@..., INTERNET:notley@...
                > TO: yochanan bitan, ButhFam
                > DATE: 28/10/99 01:07
                >
                > RE: Fatigued in Jerusalem
                >
                > Randy,
                > Read the responses. Good examples of special pleading. I can
                > not find any criterion given by Goodacre in his article saying how far
                > apart is an acceptable distance for the editorial insertion from the
                > fatigue. Note that distance was not repeated in Carlson's three
                > criteria (which I will deal with below).
                > Goodacre's only response seems to be that Mark could not
                > possibly make such a quick and obvious "fatigue." Does someone need to
                > remind him that this is the same person who gave us Mark 1:2-3!
                > On that occasion the Evangelist moves the citation of Malachi 3:1 from
                > its original context as seen in Matt 11:10/Lk 7:27 and inserts it to
                > precede
                > a citation from Isaiah. He then returns to follow his source (as
                > attested by the triple tradition citation of Isaiah 40:3). His hand is
                > betrayed by the fact that the Malachi citation is misattributed because
                > of his prior reference to Isaiah.
                > That is, of course, unless someone would like to suggest that
                > Matthew and Luke <independently!> thought, "Let's not mis-cite Malachi 3:1
                > here
                > where we find it in Mark, but use it later (in the identical location!)"

                Dear Jochanan and Steven,

                I am emptying my mailbox, so I am reacting to your contribution of last
                September.
                I am indeed "someone who would like to suggest...". That is, in fact,
                what I have thought all along. The Gospel writers are interdependent.
                After all they were of service to one and the same Messianic movement
                and their readers would be aware of that as well. If an author devised a
                new format for his version of the story and/or if he wanted to correct a
                predecessor or improve on his message, he would alter [or omit] the
                wording of that particular passage, but made sure that traces of that
                earlier passage or of ideas expressed in it, would recur elsewhere in
                his own version. So that nothing would be left out! That's how tradition
                works.
                To give a striking example.
                (1) Mark, the earliest gospel we have, makes Jesus' enemies (!) in
                Nazareth slander him. with the slur, "Is not this the temple-builder,
                the "son of Mary"? Matthew improves the text - it was a shocking one! -:
                "Is not this the carpenter's son? Isnot his mother called Mary?"
                However, while Matthew has chosen a different format with a different
                opening, he shows his awareness of the 'slur' in Mark 6 and in his
                genealogy he mentions the four well-known women (Mt 1,2ff). He corrects
                possibly wrong deduction from the Markan story by stating that "what was
                conceived in her, is from the Holy Spirit" (1,21).
                (2) So also the anonymous citation of Malachi 3,1. As I see it, Mark
                offers a post-70 revision of an earlier work in the aftermath of the
                tragedy of the destruction of the temple. Many hold that there must have
                been something like an "Urmarkus". But after the trauma of 70 Mark
                writes a new version of a Passover Haggadah to be used in the ecclesia
                for the celebration of Pesach. Mk 1, 2+3 is a midrash. The [unknown]
                earlier version may well have had the citation of Isaiah 40 in the
                context of the Baptist's preaching. But Mark now adds the words of
                Malachi to it in midrashic fashion, precisely because he wants to refer
                the reader to the context of the "refiner's fire" with regard to the
                descendants of Levi (Mal 3,2). It fits well in Mark's post 70 format
                with its contrast Galilee / Judea. Matthew has a different format. But
                he and Luke show awareness of Mark's reference to Malachi with regard to
                John the Baptist. All three wrote, I assume, after 70.

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