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

[Synoptic-L] a priori fatigues

Expand Messages
  • yochanan bitan
    maybe this didn t get out so here it is. randall buth ... From: yochanan bitan, INTERNET:ButhFam@compuserve.com TO: synoptic list,
    Message 1 of 4 , Nov 2, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      maybe this didn't get out
      so here it is.
      randall buth

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

      From: yochanan bitan, INTERNET:ButhFam@...
      TO: synoptic list, INTERNET:Synoptic-L@...
      DATE: 28/10/99 06:35

      RE: [Synoptic-L] a priori fatigues


      i thought a little follow-up might be good
      to point out the apriory nature of alleged lucan fatigues of mark.

      e.g. luk 8.4-15
      this only becomes a potential lucan fatigue if the details are forced
      through marcan eyes.
      when read within a lucan framework they are consistent and short.
      "having sprouted (becomes 'joy'...),
      withered (becomes 'fall away'),
      "not having moisture" (becomes "not having root" during the 'trial')
      a mentioning of "root" is not logically necessary in both sections.

      mark has simply been at work as his expansive self:
      adding "not enough earth"
      (to luke's 'rocky ground')
      adding "immediately (sprouted up)"
      (to luke's 'sprouted')
      adding "scorched in the sun,
      (to luke's 'withered' and to luke's explanation of 'trial')
      adding "because of no root"
      (to luke's 'without moisture' and from luke's explanation 'not having
      root')
      plus a couple of evthys "immediately's" in the interpretation. good ol'
      mark!

      luke's wording is not characteristically lucan or marcan.
      fuein is only in
      luke 2xx, here, and never acts. riza is only here and synoptics, not in
      acts. granted, these may be accidental omissions. that is just the point,
      though.
      we are dealing with 'omissions' and non-characteristic vocabulary.
      criterion 1 as a replacement vocabulary is not fulfilled.

      and when we look for criterion 2, 'continuation/return to the source
      vocabulary' we find the opposite of marcan-priory expectations:
      'with joy' can be called lucan. it occurs in luke and acts (it is
      quasi-lucan, not in 2Acts, reflecting luke's sources but "lucan" as far as
      mark is concerned), but ONLY ONCE in mark, here. maybe mark has borrowed
      from luke ?! i am not saying that such a borrowing is a "fatigue" here, but
      that the borrowing and expansion is from luke to mark not mark to luke.

      afistanai in luke is lukan (luke 4, acts 6, but only here as a
      semi-technical term), but skandalizesthai is characteristically markan, vis
      a vis luke (mark 8, luke 2, acts 0). there is no perceptible 'flow' here in
      either direction. this simply shows the dificulty and complexity of working
      with this kind of material.

      criterion 3, a logical problem, is not fulfilled in either case. mark is
      expansive and reasonably consistent, luke is cryptic and reasonably
      consistent. this is a nice pericope for studying vocaublary flow and
      semitic flow, but that would take us way beyond this note.

      bottom line:
      this is in not a lucan fatigue on mark.
      you are simply watching mark at work,
      characteristically expanding, dramatizing and using vocabulary he
      likes.

      back to mark 10.52, there you have a fatigue, or a marcan 'bump' if
      you want to demand arbitrary distance to 'fatigues'. (on 'distance', see
      steve notley's comments on mark 1.2)

      another markan bump is the question about the greatest commandment. in the
      original culture this was not a trick question. yet mark puts it in a
      "trick" context and introduces it with 'answered' just after his source
      said 'no more questions'. good ol' mark.

      braxot
      randall buth





      ----------------------- Internet Header --------------------------------
      Sender: owner-synoptic-l@...
      Received: from mailer3.bham.ac.uk (mailer3.bham.ac.uk [147.188.128.54])
      by spdmgaab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.7) with ESMTP id
      GAA03296;
      Thu, 28 Oct 1999 06:35:30 -0400 (EDT)
      Received: from bham.ac.uk ([147.188.128.127])
      by mailer3.bham.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #16)
      id 11gmfU-00009o-00; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:20:28 +0100
      Received: from majordom by bham.ac.uk with local (Exim 2.12 #2)
      id 11gmhb-00045T-00
      for Synoptic-L-outgoing@...; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:22:39 +0100
      Received: from ds-img-2.compuserve.com ([149.174.206.135]
      helo=spdmgaab.compuserve.com)
      by bham.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
      id 11gmha-0003vC-00
      for Synoptic-L@...; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:22:38 +0100
      Received: (from mailgate@localhost)
      by spdmgaab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.7) id GAA12102
      for Synoptic-L@...; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 06:21:59 -0400 (EDT)
      Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 06:21:28 -0400
      From: yochanan bitan <ButhFam@...>
      Subject: [Synoptic-L] apriory fatigues
      To: synoptic list <Synoptic-L@...>
      Message-ID: <199910280621_MC2-8AC8-E7DE@...>
      MIME-Version: 1.0
      Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
      Content-Type: text/plain;
      charset=ISO-8859-1
      Content-Disposition: inline
      Sender: owner-synoptic-l@...
      Precedence: bulk
    • Mark Goodacre
      Thanks for the further feedback and discussion. ... The problem I find with this is the idea of Mark borrowing details forward from Luke s interpretation into
      Message 2 of 4 , Nov 3, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for the further feedback and discussion.

        On 2 Nov 99, at 14:44, yochanan bitan wrote (some omitted):

        > mark has simply been at work as his expansive self:
        > adding "not enough earth"
        > (to luke's 'rocky ground')
        > adding "immediately (sprouted up)"
        > (to luke's 'sprouted')
        > adding "scorched in the sun,
        > (to luke's 'withered' and to luke's explanation of 'trial')
        > adding "because of no root"
        > (to luke's 'without moisture' and from luke's explanation 'not having
        > root')
        > plus a couple of evthys "immediately's" in the interpretation. good ol'
        > mark!

        The problem I find with this is the idea of Mark borrowing details forward from Luke's
        interpretation into his telling of the parable. We come back again to the question of
        plausibility. Which is more likely: that Mark has read the Lukan parable + interpretation
        and taken care to borrow forward the details from the interpretation into his story, or
        Markan Priority, on which Luke omits the details in the story and then shows fatigue
        when he reproduces them in the interpetation? It is simply that this kind of textual
        complex, parable + interpretation, with intervening verses, presents just the kind of
        scenario on which one might expect to see editorial fatigue at work.

        The point is re-inforced by the fact that, assuming Markan Priority over Matthew as well
        as over Luke, Matthew does just the same thing: Mark 4.7 has the thorns choking
        (SUMPNIGW) the seed, 'and it yielded no grain' (KAI KARPON OUK EDWKEN).
        In Matt 13.7 they only choke (PNIGW) the seed. In the Interpretation (Mark 4.19 //
        Matt 13.22), however, anxieties and love of riches choke (SUMPNIGW) the word,
        'and it proves unfruitful' (KAI AKARPOS GINETAI).

        As for the comments on vocabulary, I think I would grant (see the earlier exchange with
        Stephen Carlson) that that characteristic language will not take us all of the way in
        discussions of examples of fatigue like this. It can be helpful in showing which way the
        wind is blowing, but I don't think I would want to go any further than that.


        > back to mark 10.52, there you have a fatigue, or a marcan 'bump' if
        > you want to demand arbitrary distance to 'fatigues'. (on 'distance', see
        > steve notley's comments on mark 1.2)


        I do not want to suggest "arbitrary distance" to signs of editorial fatigue
        but would like to reinforce the point that the phenomenon only really makes sense if one
        is talking about changes made in the early stages / beginning of a pericope etc. On
        "distance" see also my comments on Mark 1.2, in response to the above!

        > another markan bump is the question about the greatest commandment. in the
        > original culture this was not a trick question. yet mark puts it in a
        > "trick" context and introduces it with 'answered' just after his source
        > said 'no more questions'. good ol' mark.

        Would you care to elaborate? How do you know that the lawyer's question was not a
        "trick question" in "the original culture"? Is the alleged source to which you refer Luke
        20.40 and if so, why is that problematic here?


        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
      • jkrantz@optonline.net
        I ve been following this thread for a bit, and find a lot compelling about the notion of editorial fatigue , but in this particular example from Mark and
        Message 3 of 4 , Nov 4, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          I've been following this thread for a bit, and find a lot compelling about the notion of editorial
          "fatigue", but in this particular example from Mark and Matthew, I really don't see fatigue at
          work.


          > The point is re-inforced by the fact that, assuming Markan Priority over Matthew as well
          > as over Luke, Matthew does just the same thing: Mark 4.7 has the thorns choking
          > (SUMPNIGW) the seed, 'and it yielded no grain' (KAI KARPON OUK EDWKEN).
          > In Matt 13.7 they only choke (PNIGW) the seed. In the Interpretation (Mark 4.19 //
          > Matt 13.22), however, anxieties and love of riches choke (SUMPNIGW) the word,
          > 'and it proves unfruitful' (KAI AKARPOS GINETAI).

          Mark seems to be an author who is very interested in the use of parallelisms and structural
          elements in his story telling. It is, in fact, far easier for me to imagine Mark adding the detail
          fruitlessness to the earlier portion of the story, so as to heighten the emphasis on fruitfulness,
          than it is to imagine Matthew, seeing this clear parallel, omitting a portion of it.

          If this were the case, though, it would argue in favor of an editorial process operating in the
          opposite direction suggested by the other "fatigues," no?

          Jeff K.



          Jeffrey H. Krantz
          Church of the Advent
          Mercer School of Theology
          http://www.agapenetwork.org
        • yochanan bitan
          ... this misses the point. if there was no omission, there is no fatigue. the only way one can call this an omission is to assume that luke was obliged to
          Message 4 of 4 , Nov 5, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            >on which Luke omits the details in the story and then shows fatigue
            >when he reproduces them in the interpetation?

            this misses the point.
            if there was no omission, there is no fatigue. the only way one can call
            this an omission is to assume that luke was obliged to produce the kinds of
            details like we see in mark.
            now, if the details were contradictory (carlson's point 3), then we
            would have a case for fatigue and omission. but if they are logically
            consistent, then there is no case for omission and no case for fatigue.
            here, 8.4-15, luke's story reads fine as is. therefore, no evidence of
            omission or fatigue. [whether mark is fuller is is logically irrelevant,
            and as mentioned, literarily suspect. e.g. mark's OT citations are
            regularly longer, like we see here and as a parallel development in
            multiple stories within rabbinic literature.]

            (as for mark's getting details from later in the same story, all that would
            require is a reading of the pericope before rewriting it in his words. if
            fact the amount of rewriting that is obvious in all our gospels requires
            such an assumption and something you and i agree on when we see matthew
            doing that with mark. details float up and down within pericopes without
            any problem, especially when you consider that a later detail will be more
            recent if the whole story was just read.)

            braxot
            randall buth
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.