[Synoptic-L] a priori fatigues
- maybe this didn't get out
so here it is.
---------- 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
plus a couple of evthys "immediately's" in the interpretation. good ol'
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,
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.
this is in not a lucan fatigue on mark.
you are simply watching mark at work,
characteristically expanding, dramatizing and using vocabulary he
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.
----------------------- Internet Header --------------------------------
Received: from mailer3.bham.ac.uk (mailer3.bham.ac.uk [18.104.22.168])
by spdmgaab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.7) with ESMTP id
Thu, 28 Oct 1999 06:35:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from bham.ac.uk ([22.214.171.124])
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)
for Synoptic-L-outgoing@...; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:22:39 +0100
Received: from ds-img-2.compuserve.com ([126.96.36.199]
by bham.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
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@...>
- 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:The problem I find with this is the idea of Mark borrowing details forward from Luke's
> 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
> plus a couple of evthys "immediately's" in the interpretation. good ol'
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' ifI do not want to suggest "arbitrary distance" to signs of editorial fatigue
> you want to demand arbitrary distance to 'fatigues'. (on 'distance', see
> steve notley's comments on mark 1.2)
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 theWould you care to elaborate? How do you know that the lawyer's question was not a
> 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.
"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?
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
The New Testament Gateway
Mark Without Q
Aseneth Home Page
- 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
> The point is re-inforced by the fact that, assuming Markan Priority over Matthew as wellMark seems to be an author who is very interested in the use of parallelisms and structural
> 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).
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?
Jeffrey H. Krantz
Church of the Advent
Mercer School of Theology
>on which Luke omits the details in the story and then shows fatiguethis misses the point.
>when he reproduces them in the interpetation?
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.)