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

Re: [Synoptic-L] re: Fatigued in Jerusalem

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 of 6 , Apr 4 6:30 AM
          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.