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

Syn - Lukan priority

Expand Messages
  • Michael Davies
    Hi. I ve come over to visit from Crosstalk because nobody there knows why the Farrer hypothesis is superior to the Lukean priority hypothesis. It seems to be
    Message 1 of 20 , Apr 26, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi. I've come over to visit from Crosstalk because nobody there
      knows why the Farrer hypothesis is superior to the
      Lukean priority hypothesis.

      It seems to be agreed that if we discard the Q theory, which
      I will for the sake of discussion, then it follows that Luke used
      Matthew. As simple as that. But I cannot see why it should not
      be that Matthew used Luke. Seems to me that most arguments
      for dependence of Lk on Mt fit Mt on Lk equally well.

      And there are two rather obvious arguments available that
      Mt used Lk. First, the consensus within Q scholarship that
      by and large Lk sayings are form critically more primitive than Mt
      sayings (which consensus is not something that emerges from
      the Q theory per se). Second, the objection thrown up against the
      Farrer hypothesis that Lk would not have hacked Mt's lovely
      Sermon into bits and redistributed it disappears if Mt took Lk's
      bits and made a Sermon out of them. These aren't rock solid
      arguments, but they should give priority to the Mt used Lk view
      unless there is some strong reason to think the contrary. Which
      reason nobody ever shares with me, so that's why I'm asking.

      Mark G (correctly, I think) finds it annoying that the "consensus of
      scholarship" argument re: Q seems to involve a great many scholars
      who are part of the consensus because it's the consensus by which
      process the consensus increases so naturally bringing in ever more
      younger scholars into the consensus and so we have in many cases
      scholarship by faith alone. Is the same thing true for scholarship
      that rejects Q and, by faith alone, asserts that Lk used Mt and
      not vice versa? If not, what's the argument? Where's the evidence?

      Steve
      Stevan Davies
      Professor of Religious Studies
      College Misericordia, Dallas, Pennsylvania, USA
      The Gospel of Thomas Homepage
      http://www.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... Well, Steve, it seems that Mark Goodacre s argument in his recent article Fatigue in the Synoptics, NTS 44 (1998): pp.45-58 can also be used to explain
      Message 2 of 20 , Apr 26, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        At 12:33 4/26/98 -0400, Michael Davies wrote:
        >It seems to be agreed that if we discard the Q theory, which
        >I will for the sake of discussion, then it follows that Luke used
        >Matthew. As simple as that. But I cannot see why it should not
        >be that Matthew used Luke. Seems to me that most arguments
        >for dependence of Lk on Mt fit Mt on Lk equally well.

        Well, Steve, it seems that Mark Goodacre's argument in his
        recent article "Fatigue in the Synoptics," NTS 44 (1998):
        pp.45-58 can also be used to explain when Lukan dependence
        on Matthew is more probable than Matthew's dependence on
        Luke.

        I think that Mark has identified one of the few directional
        indicators we really possess in source criticism: editorial
        fatigue, that is, the failure of a secondary author to sustain
        a consistent course of redaction of a source document. In
        the article, Goodacre has found convincing examples of Luke's
        failure to consistently redact a source like Matthew (or Q) as
        well as Mark, Matthew's editorial fatigue of a source like
        Mark, but not instances of Matthew's fatigue in redacting a
        source like Luke. This pattern of evidence indicates, strongly,
        in my opinion, that Luke is dependent on Matthew, but Matthew
        is not dependent on Luke either directly or indirectly via a
        shared source.

        It is possible to falsify part of Mark's conclusions by finding
        instances where it may be said that Matthew shows fatigue of
        Luke, but, given the examples of Luke's fatigue of Matthew, this
        kind of counter-evidence could only support Q (by showing mutual
        fatigue of a shared source), not Matthean dependence on Luke
        simpliciter.

        Stephen Carlson

        --
        Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
        scarlson@... : and songs chant the words.
        http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
      • Yuri Kuchinsky
        On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, Mark Goodacre wrote: ... Seems like a classic example of setting up a false alternative, Mark. Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto || Webpage
        Message 3 of 20 , Apr 27, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, Mark Goodacre wrote:

          ...

          > But overall I think that one has to debate with positions that are
          > properly argued by reputable scholars. If someone decides to mount a
          > serious, carefully argued case for Matthew's use of Luke, then we can
          > judge the plausibility of the argument. Until that day, it's Luke's
          > use of Matthew or Q.

          Seems like a classic example of setting up a false alternative, Mark.

          Yuri.

          Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto || Webpage for those who think
          they have heard of every biblical heresy:

          http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

          The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
          equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
        • Mark Goodacre
          Steve Davies ... This is an interesting question, but I think that the first statement here is the wrong way round. It is not that Luke s use of Matthew
          Message 4 of 20 , Apr 27, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            Steve Davies

            > It seems to be agreed that if we discard the Q theory, which
            > I will for the sake of discussion, then it follows that Luke used
            > Matthew. As simple as that. But I cannot see why it should not be
            > that Matthew used Luke. Seems to me that most arguments for
            > dependence of Lk on Mt fit Mt on Lk equally well.

            This is an interesting question, but I think that the first statement
            here is the wrong way round. It is not that Luke's use of Matthew
            follows from discarding the Q theory but rather that the Q theory
            follows from discarding the possibility of Luke's use of Matthew.
            Tuckett is clear about this:

            "The case for the existence of Q, like the case for Markan
            priority, is a cumulative one. It is also in some sense a
            negative one, since the Q hypothesis is essentially the
            alternative to the possibility that Luke knows Matthew. (The
            theory that Matthew knew Luke is hardly ever proposed today.)
            If Luke did not know Matthew, the only real alternative theory
            is that both evangelists depend on common source material"
            (Anchor Bible Dictionary, p. 268).

            But Steve Davies's question really concerns the part that is in
            brackets in the above quotation. Why not Matthew's use of Luke? I
            note that Hengel, in his recent *Paul From Damascus to Antioch*
            proposes that Matthew knew Luke in the context of arguing for an
            early date for Luke-Acts, the author of which he identifies as Luke
            the companion of Paul.

            Hengel's proposal helps us to see the problem. It is difficult to
            argue for absolute dates for Matthew and Luke -- some put one
            earlier; others put the other earlier, and the judgements often
            depend on matters on which there is no consensus, e.g. was the author
            of Luke-Acts a companion of Paul? Is the eschatology of Matthew
            more primitive than that of Luke or vice versa? etc.

            What we can do with more confidence is analyze the relative dates
            of Matthew and Luke. In other words, on the assumption that there is
            dependence one way or the other (for the sake of argument), why
            should it be Luke's use of Matthew and not Matthew's use of Luke?

            One solution is the attempt to find "Mattheanisms" in Luke. Goulder
            has written at length on this; so too has Gundry and most recently
            the International Institute for Gospel Studies who in *Beyond the
            Q Impasse* use the term "one-way indicators". The existence of some
            "Lukanisms" in Matthew does, however, cause one to hesitate a
            little over this argument.

            I would therefore propose two reasons for preferring Luke's use of
            Matthew to Matthew's use of Luke:

            1. "Fatigue": I am grateful to Stephen Carlson for his lucid
            summary of my article -- and for the plug.

            2. Luke's literary ability. There are many plausible reasons
            for Luke's creative re-ordering and re-working of the double
            tradition material from Matthew but none for the reverse (a
            controversial claim, I realise).

            But overall I think that one has to debate with positions that are
            properly argued by reputable scholars. If someone decides to mount a
            serious, carefully argued case for Matthew's use of Luke, then we can
            judge the plausibility of the argument. Until that day, it's Luke's
            use of Matthew or Q.

            All the best

            Mark
            --------------------------------------
            Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
            Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham
            Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre.htm
          • Jim Deardorff
            ... Hi Stephen and Mark, What you quoted above didn t escape me, Stephen: Matthew s editorial fatigue of a source like Mark,... !! Did you forget that it was
            Message 5 of 20 , Apr 27, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              At 08:31 PM 4/26/98, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

              >Well, Steve, it seems that Mark Goodacre's argument in his
              >recent article "Fatigue in the Synoptics," NTS 44 (1998):
              >pp.45-58 can also be used to explain when Lukan dependence
              >on Matthew is more probable than Matthew's dependence on
              >Luke.
              >
              >I think that Mark has identified one of the few directional
              >indicators we really possess in source criticism: editorial
              >fatigue, that is, the failure of a secondary author to sustain
              >a consistent course of redaction of a source document. In
              >the article, Goodacre has found convincing examples of Luke's
              >failure to consistently redact a source like Matthew (or Q) as
              >well as Mark, Matthew's editorial fatigue of a source like
              >Mark, but not instances of Matthew's fatigue in redacting a
              >source like Luke. ...

              Hi Stephen and Mark,

              What you quoted above didn't escape me, Stephen: "Matthew's editorial
              fatigue of a source like Mark,..." !!

              Did you forget that it was explained a few weeks ago that there was nothing
              convincing about Mark G.'s example of Matthew referring once to Herod as
              king at Mt 14:9? The writer of Matthew or of the source used by him, either
              one, has to be allowed to have slipped up occasionally by using an incorrect
              term. The error could be on that account just as easily as if that writer
              had slipped up in correcting Mark. And if it is instead more a matter of
              loose terminology on the part of the writer of Matthew or of Matthew's
              source document, then it is to be expected that the correct title (tetrarch)
              would be given first, as it was, and the informal or loose terminology
              second, just as a pronoun follows rather than precedes its defining noun.

              It's not that the writer of Mark didn't made a lot of slip-ups himself, but
              he was much less informed about the Palestinian area and Judaism than was
              the writer of Matthew. So some of his slip-ups represented ignorance on the
              part of a gentile Gospel writer situated in Rome. Pierson Parker listed a
              lot of these in his article "The Posteriority of Mark," some of which seem
              valid. Example: Mk 8:27 speaks of "the villages of Caesarea Philippi" when
              Caesarea Philippi itself was but a town. The point is, the writer of Mark
              could easily have guessed wrong when reading in Matthew where Herod, in the
              beheading story, is once referred to as tetrarch and once as king, choosing
              "king," a title he understood for sure. Of course, the other AH possibility
              is that it was the translator of Matthew from Hebraic into Greek who, making
              frequent references to Mark and Luke, slipped up there. (But that
              possibility doesn't need to be invoked here.)

              If reconsidering the AH, keep in mind that its modified version allows that
              the writer of Matthew heavily redacted an extensive source, which I contend
              was the Logia. Thus he had multitudinous opportunities to slip up.

              To his credit Mark G. did use the word "apparently" there in his paper
              ("Matthew apparently corrects this to 'tetrarch'"), since it is apparent
              only to someone whose mind is already set upon Markan priority.

              I might add that it may take someone whose mind is set upon the value of
              external evidence to point this out -- external evidence for which no good
              reason exists for that evidence to have been distorted or falsified at the
              time.

              The other examples cited by Goodacre have similar common-sense explanations,
              as I pointed out earlier, but this is when viewed from the AH or similar
              framework. However, that is a proper framework in which to view them when
              refuting Marcan-priority argumentation. To avoid unnecessary repetition (or
              fatigue), I haven't repeated the earlier explanations here.

              Mark G. asserted that it is not possible to find the same phenomenon of
              fatigue in Mark. But when viewed from the AH framework, in which
              abbreviations of Matthew constitute the largest category of Marcan editorial
              alterations, I think it is possible, as follows.

              Ex. #1: the writer of Mark reads through Matthew's account of the
              temptations in the wilderness, grows weary and summarizes it in one verse
              (Mk 1:13). To inject something different to lend authority to the gospel he
              is writing, he adds the bit about "wild beasts," not knowing that none worse
              than scorpions or wild goats or pigs were extant in that wilderness.

              Ex. #2: The writer of Mark reads through Mt 11:1-14, grows weary of the
              thought of translating/extracting from it and rendering it sensible for
              gentiles, and so omits it, except for noticing that the quotation in Mt
              11:10 would fit in with what he had written in Mk 1:3. And so he inserts
              that piece there and assumes it stemmed from Isaiah. He didn't have the
              industriousness or energy (or good sense?) to check if it might not have
              stemmed from Malachi.

              Ex. #3: The writer of Mark, after reading over the Sermon on the Mount and
              noticing its many Judaisms, anti-gentile statements and philosophy he didn't
              strongly support (e.g., humility, turning the other cheek), decided to omit
              practically all of it, following Mk 1:20. In resuming at Mt 7:28-29 = Mk
              1:22, he decided to relocate the first healing and omit the healing of the
              centurion's servant; the latter because, in my opinion, he did not wish to
              imply that the centurion, a gentile, should consider himself unworthy to
              have Jesus under his roof, while many Jews had done so without problem. And
              he didn't wish to include the pericope's irrelevant Judaisms towards its
              end. Anyway, he needed a context for Jesus' listeners being astonished, and
              naturally chose Capernaum from Mt 8:5, and so inserted that at Mk 1:21.
              What he failed to pay proper attention to, after deciding over the preceding
              important omissions and alterations, was that if Jesus' listeners were so
              astounded at his teaching and his authority, he should give some examples of
              that teaching for the readers, because that should have been of most
              interest. This failure can be argued to have been due to fatigue -- he
              could otherwise have extracted a few teachings from the Sermon on the Mount,
              one would think, and have inserted them here, or perhaps have invented one.

              If this argument is reversed, one needs to argue that the writer of Matthew
              exhibited an inordinate amount of creativity and energy (lack of fatigue) to
              have constructed the whole Sermon on the Mount just from some six widely
              scattered verses in Mark.

              Ex. #4: The writer of Mark makes one of his editorial transplantations of
              material (naming the disciples) into the section where he had been following
              Mt 12 (inventing a setting in the hills, where it is most improbable that
              one would go calling for disciples). In resuming his following of Matthew
              at Mt 12:17 but deciding to omit the Isaiah verse, he apparently overlooked
              the briefly described healing miracle of Mt 12:22. He was by then perhaps
              too "fatigued" to realize that his inclusion of the Beelzebel discussion in
              Matthew, involving Jesus casting out demons, logically required inclusion of
              the healing miracle first, wherein a demoniac had been healed.

              (Alternatively, the writer of Mark at that point was still preoccupied with
              his addition (a more substantive one than usual) in which he had Jesus'
              friends claim he was beside himself. And so his mistake there may have been
              caused by that distraction more than by fatigue.)

              Ex. #5: The writer of Mark was quite preoccupied with correcting Matthew's
              account of the instructions to the disciples, and in transplanting its
              location within his own text. In so doing he became careless (had grown too
              fatigued?) and failed to properly alter the end of the transplanted section
              (at Mk 6:13) so that it would tie in realistically with the beginning of the
              Herod & John pericope at Mk 6:14. That is, in Mk 6:7-13 it was the
              disciples, not Jesus, who cast out many demons and healed the sick. From Mk
              6:14a the reader first presumes this is what Herod heard of, until the
              awkward correction of 6:14b is encountered, which brings Jesus momentarily
              back into the picture after a 7-verse absence. But then, Jesus is not
              involved or mentioned in the succeeding 16 verses.

              Ex. #6: In making so many extractions and omissions from Matthew, the writer
              of Mark, upon omitting Mt 15:13-14, again became fatigued, or stayed
              insufficiently alert. What was omitted there was the parable of "Every
              plant which my Father has not planted will be rooted up," followed by the
              blind falling into the pit. He picked up on Matthew again at Mt 15:15 = Mk
              7:17, where Peter has to show his ignorance and ask "Explain the parable to
              us." In Mark one then has to assume that the saying in question was the one
              about it being what comes out of a man, not what goes in, which defiles him.
              To my mind this does not qualify as a parable, since it refers quite
              directly to words coming out of one's mouth rather than being an analogy
              cast within a different context. (However, I believe that the writer of
              Matthew had slipped up a bit here in using the singular "parable" instead of
              the plural.) However, the plant parable obviously does qualify as a parable.

              Sorry if this got too long, but usually just one example of something is not
              nearly enough to demonstrate a point. Most of the above examples stem from
              H. G. Jameson's book.

              Jim Deardorff
              Corvallis, Oregon
              E-mail: deardorj@...
              Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
            • Stevan Davies
              ... I think this is way too simple a statement unless it s the case that all Q theorists are simpleminded... for, after all, it is a POSSIBILITY that cannot be
              Message 6 of 20 , Apr 27, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                Mark wrote:

                > This is an interesting question, but I think that the first statement
                > here is the wrong way round. It is not that Luke's use of Matthew
                > follows from discarding the Q theory but rather that the Q theory
                > follows from discarding the possibility of Luke's use of Matthew.
                > Tuckett is clear about this:
                >
                > "The case for the existence of Q, like the case for Markan
                > priority, is a cumulative one. It is also in some sense a
                > negative one, since the Q hypothesis is essentially the
                > alternative to the possibility that Luke knows Matthew. (The
                > theory that Matthew knew Luke is hardly ever proposed today.)
                > If Luke did not know Matthew, the only real alternative theory
                > is that both evangelists depend on common source material"
                > (Anchor Bible Dictionary, p. 268).

                > the Q theory
                > follows from discarding the possibility of Luke's use of Matthew.

                I think this is way too simple a statement unless it's the case
                that all Q theorists are simpleminded... for, after all, it is a
                POSSIBILITY that cannot be discarded. It has to be argued against
                as the less likely of the two alternatives, which I presume is what
                Q theorists do. But see Powell's interpretation of the arguments
                that the possibility that Luke used Matthew must be discarded.

                > Hengel's proposal helps us to see the problem. It is difficult to
                > argue for absolute dates for Matthew and Luke -- some put one
                > earlier; others put the other earlier, and the judgements often
                > depend on matters on which there is no consensus, e.g. was the author
                > of Luke-Acts a companion of Paul? Is the eschatology of Matthew
                > more primitive than that of Luke or vice versa? etc.

                I do not have any idea how the relative dates of the two can be
                discovered without bringing in whole rafts of presuppositions all
                of which will probably depend on a unilinear view of Christian
                change as though there was one trajectory for the whole movement
                and each text sits on a relative place thereon.

                > What we can do with more confidence is analyze the relative dates
                > of Matthew and Luke. In other words, on the assumption that there is
                > dependence one way or the other (for the sake of argument), why
                > should it be Luke's use of Matthew and not Matthew's use of Luke?

                The latter is the question, the former is an odd thing to say.
                I, for one, don't know of any "confident" way to analyze the relative
                dates.

                > One solution is the attempt to find "Mattheanisms" in Luke. Goulder
                > has written at length on this; so too has Gundry and most recently
                > the International Institute for Gospel Studies who in *Beyond the
                > Q Impasse* use the term "one-way indicators". The existence of some
                > "Lukanisms" in Matthew does, however, cause one to hesitate a
                > little over this argument.

                OK. Then perhaps we can put that one aside.

                > I would therefore propose two reasons for preferring Luke's use of
                > Matthew to Matthew's use of Luke:
                >
                > 1. "Fatigue": I am grateful to Stephen Carlson for his lucid
                > summary of my article -- and for the plug.

                I'll get a copy and read it soon. Miseri does have NTS.

                > 2. Luke's literary ability. There are many plausible reasons
                > for Luke's creative re-ordering and re-working of the double
                > tradition material from Matthew but none for the reverse (a
                > controversial claim, I realise).

                Controversial? That's not the word. Unacceptable, may be better.
                The world seems full of people who object to the Farrer theory
                on the grounds that Matthew has ordered and worked Q creatively
                in a manner with more literary merit than Luke did. It follows
                that Matthew re-ordered and re-worked Luke for more easily
                understood reasons than vice versa. You seem to have trouble
                against your opponents in explaining why Luke would have
                reworked Matthew's carefully constructed sermons (not that you
                don't think you can overcome this trouble)... but they surely could
                respond with cogent reasons why Matthew would make carefully
                constructed sermons out of Luke's sayings.

                > But overall I think that one has to debate with positions that are
                > properly argued by reputable scholars. If someone decides to mount a
                > serious, carefully argued case for Matthew's use of Luke, then we can
                > judge the plausibility of the argument. Until that day, it's Luke's
                > use of Matthew or Q.

                If that's not the same as "I believe in Q because it is the
                consensus of scholarship" I don't know what it is. Since Goulder's
                arguments are not generally thought to be "serious, carefully
                argued" with all the Matthean inventiveness and lectionarism
                they contain, and Farrer's suggestions are only part of an article
                that otherwise contains what some think to be nonsense, I cannot
                go along with the idea that there is a wealth of "serious, carefully
                argued" material vis a vis Luke's use of Matthew. I don't think
                we can count your book yet, it being not written and all.

                Have you read Evan Powell's work? Or is he not reputable enough?
                He's against Q but favors a Mt used Lk theory. Indeed, he may
                have anti-Q arguments you don't know of.

                *The Unfinished Gospel* Symposium Books
                cheap copy at
                http://www.hamiltonbook.com/subject2/bbs.html

                Univ. Birmingham doesn't have a copy. [And it's a bit light
                on the works of yours truly!]

                or his "The Myth of the Lost Gospel" which I have in front of me.

                Jerome Neyery's review of *The Unfinished Gospel* claims that to
                say Q did not exist is "like saying that the world is really flat
                and not round." Q theory "is like evolution; it's not longer really a
                hypothesis, it's something that can be built upon." These statements
                seem akin to your paragraph above dismissing Matthew used
                Luke out of hand.

                Powell's arguments include the following:

                1. Luke would [not] have 'deconstructed' Matthew's discourses.
                ... It is certaily plausible, given Matthew's editorial skills, that
                he assembled the discourses from material scattered throughout his
                sources, including Luke.

                2. Luke contains none of the expansions and modifications that
                Matthew makes to Mark. Again, here is another strong argument
                that Luke did not know Matthew, but one which has no bearing upon
                whether Matthew knew Luke.

                3. Luke would [not] have abbreviated some of Matthew's important
                traditions such as the Lord's Prayer and the Beatitudes.

                4. Luke has removed every Q saying from the Marcan context it has in
                Matthew. Once again, this data adds to the absurdity of the notion
                that Luke used Matthew, but says nothing about the reverse.

                "when the double tradition material is not verbatim, often it appears
                that Matthew's is the more refined and/or edited version, and Luke's
                is the more primitive. Indeed, when the texts are placed
                side-by-side, Matthew's text at face value often appears as if it
                could be an edited version of Luke's. Conversely, it is rare to find
                an instance in which it appears that Luke's text could have been an
                edited version of Matthew's."

                "Scholarship has marshaled a fine collection of arguments to
                demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the author of Luke
                could not have known the Gospel of Matthew. However, ech of these
                argumens work on ly in one direction; none have any bearing
                upon whether Matthew could have known Luke."

                And so forth....

                Steve
              • Jim Deardorff
                ... Steve, **Does Powell not give a single substantive argument to support this belief? If not, this is akin to saying, It is unthinkable that Luke would have
                Message 7 of 20 , Apr 27, 1998
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 05:11 PM 4/27/98 -0400, Stevan Davies wrote:
                  > ....
                  >Have you read Evan Powell's work? Or is he not reputable enough?
                  >He's against Q but favors a Mt used Lk theory. Indeed, he may
                  >have anti-Q arguments you don't know of.
                  >
                  >*The Unfinished Gospel* Symposium Books
                  >cheap copy at
                  >http://www.hamiltonbook.com/subject2/bbs.html
                  >
                  >Univ. Birmingham doesn't have a copy. [And it's a bit light
                  >on the works of yours truly!]
                  >
                  >or his "The Myth of the Lost Gospel" which I have in front of me.
                  >
                  >Powell's arguments include the following:
                  >
                  >1. Luke would [not] have 'deconstructed' Matthew's discourses.
                  >... It is certaily plausible, given Matthew's editorial skills, that
                  >he assembled the discourses from material scattered throughout his
                  >sources, including Luke.

                  Steve,

                  **Does Powell not give a single substantive argument to support this belief?
                  If not, this is akin to saying, "It is unthinkable that Luke would have done
                  this... or that." In other words, just the usual theological commitment in
                  action, where logical argumentation is replaced by fiat.

                  >2. Luke contains none of the expansions and modifications that
                  >Matthew makes to Mark. Again, here is another strong argument
                  >that Luke did not know Matthew, but one which has no bearing upon
                  >whether Matthew knew Luke.

                  I find this to be circular, when viewed from an AH perspective. What Mark
                  omits from Matthew, which the writer of Luke then reinstated into his own
                  gospel, is by definition "Q." So, these "expansions and modifications"
                  consist of "Q".

                  >3. Luke would [not] have abbreviated some of Matthew's important
                  >traditions such as the Lord's Prayer and the Beatitudes.

                  See ** above.

                  >4. Luke has removed every Q saying from the Marcan context it has in
                  >Matthew. Once again, this data adds to the absurdity of the notion
                  >that Luke used Matthew, but says nothing about the reverse.

                  Again see ** above. This kind of theological commitment is designed to
                  suppress discussion of the valid reason(s), at least from a psychological
                  viewpoint, why the writer of Luke would have done this to Matthean text not
                  in Mark.

                  >"when the double tradition material is not verbatim, often it appears
                  >that Matthew's is the more refined and/or edited version, and Luke's
                  >is the more primitive. Indeed, when the texts are placed
                  >side-by-side, Matthew's text at face value often appears as if it
                  >could be an edited version of Luke's. Conversely, it is rare to find
                  >an instance in which it appears that Luke's text could have been an
                  >edited version of Matthew's."

                  With the AH, one does have to contend with the later translator of Matthew
                  having had Luke in front of him (plus Mark). This was responsible for the
                  many lengthy strings of verbatim material, and would likely explain this
                  "editing" observation.

                  >"Scholarship has marshaled a fine collection of arguments to
                  >demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the author of Luke
                  >could not have known the Gospel of Matthew. However, ech of these
                  >argumens work only in one direction; none have any bearing
                  >upon whether Matthew could have known Luke." ...

                  >Steve

                  And one could say the same the other way around. Scholars whom I
                  respect to a considerable extent, such as Jameson, B.C. Butler, W. R.
                  Farmer, Jon Wenham... have marshaled an impressive collection of arguments
                  to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the author of Luke knew the
                  Gospel of Matthew. With the AH, this would have been the Gospel of Matthew
                  in Hebraic form, I find.

                  Jim Deardorff
                  Corvallis, Oregon
                  E-mail: deardorj@...
                  Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                • Mark Goodacre
                  I would like to comment on several things in Steve Davies s interesting post. 1. I said that the Q theory follows from discarding the possibility ... Fair
                  Message 8 of 20 , Apr 28, 1998
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I would like to comment on several things in Steve Davies's
                    interesting post.

                    1. I said that "the Q theory follows from discarding the possibility
                    of Luke's use of Matthew" to which Steve Davies responded:
                    >
                    > I think this is way too simple a statement unless it's the case that
                    > all Q theorists are simpleminded... for, after all, it is a
                    > POSSIBILITY that cannot be discarded. It has to be argued against as
                    > the less likely of the two alternatives, which I presume is what Q
                    > theorists do.

                    Fair enough -- for "possibility" substitute "likelihood" if you
                    prefer. But the rhetoric is usually pretty pronounced,
                    "inconceivable", "impossible", "must have been a crank" etc.

                    2. Steve also wrote:

                    > I do not have any idea how the relative dates of the two can be
                    > discovered without bringing in whole rafts of presuppositions all of
                    > which will probably depend on a unilinear view of Christian change
                    > as though there was one trajectory for the whole movement and each
                    > text sits on a relative place thereon.

                    I quite agree -- I think that this is an astute remark. Indeed
                    there is often a hint of circularity in such arguments because
                    "unilinear view[s] of Christian change" are sometimes partly based on
                    a particular synoptic theory.

                    3. On my claim that "There are many plausible reasons for Luke's
                    creative re-ordering and re-working of the double tradition
                    material from Matthew but none for the reverse", Steve wrote:

                    > The
                    > world seems full of people who object to the Farrer theory on the
                    > grounds that Matthew has ordered and worked Q creatively in a manner
                    > with more literary merit than Luke did. It follows that Matthew
                    > re-ordered and re-worked Luke for more easily understood reasons
                    > than vice versa.

                    I would respond that "easily understood" is not the same thing as
                    "plausible". Simple answers are not always the best ones. The
                    preference for Matthew's ordering of the double tradition material is
                    indeed based, among other things, on the fact that it is easy to
                    recognise what he is trying to do: he is linking together
                    thematically related sayings material into five big teaching blocks.
                    This has been seen for a long time.

                    What Luke is attempting to do is more subtle and is not so widely
                    perceived. He is constructing, in Luke Johnson's words, "a
                    plausible, sequential narrative" that is "essentially linear, moving
                    the reader from one event to another . . . Instead of inserting great
                    blocks of discourse into the narrative, Luke more subtly interweaves
                    deeds and sayings" (ABD, ad loc).

                    4. I am grateful for the reference to Evan Powell, and a cheap
                    source for the book. I have not read him and will look it out as you
                    suggest. If there are any apparently good arguments for Matthew's
                    use of Luke, I will attempt to take them seriously.

                    5. The situation with Farrer and Goulder is misrepresented a bit by
                    Steve. There are some oddities and bad arguments in Farrer's "On
                    Dispensing", but we should not let those obscure us from seeing the
                    nuggets in there. Farrer's influence gave birth to a legacy of Q
                    scepticism that one still finds (to some extent) in Oxford today.

                    Further, it is incorrect that "Goulder's arguments are not generally
                    thought to be 'serious, carefully argued'". They are taken
                    seriously, and careful counter-arguments are produced, by Tuckett,
                    Catchpole, Neirynck, Stanton and other such authorities on Q. Some,
                    like me (God forbid!), even agree with some of his arguments -- Ed
                    Sanders's name springs to mind.

                    Thanks for the stimulus. Please excuse me if I write another Email
                    responding to the interesting arguments from Powell.

                    Mark
                    -------------------------------------------
                    Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
                    Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham
                    Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre.htm
                  • Stevan Davies
                    I just read Mark s article *Fatigue in the Synoptics*. It came as quite a suprise to me, being a whole line of thought that I d never run across before. Didn t
                    Message 9 of 20 , Apr 28, 1998
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I just read Mark's article *Fatigue in the Synoptics*. It came as
                      quite a suprise to me, being a whole line of thought that I'd never
                      run across before. Didn't take long to convince me that he really
                      is on to something here, although he definitely doesn't claim credit
                      for having come up with the idea. If he can really back up the
                      claim that "On the Q theory it does strain plausibility that Luke
                      should *often* show fatigue in double tradition material and that
                      Matthew should *never* do so, especially given Mt's observable
                      tendency to become fatigued in his editing of Mark" then he should
                      have a very nice point against Q (and Mt's use of Lk). The keys
                      are "often" and "never." I suppose he is engaged in the tedious
                      effort to back up "often" moreso than in his NTS essay.

                      About halfway through, having bought into the idea, I started
                      thinking of how this relates to the theory that Mark used Thomas.
                      Turns out A) I did make a "fatigue argument" in that regard and
                      B) having checked again, I can only find that one (probably because
                      Mark is more thoroughly rewriting than either Mt or Lk).

                      Here's my "fatigue" argument:

                      =============================
                      GTh. 99

                      B. The disciples said to Him, "Your brothers and your mother are
                      standing outside.

                      D. He said to them, "Those here who do the will of my Father are my
                      brothers and my mother.

                      E. It is they who will enter the Kingdom of my Father.

                      Mk. 3:31-35

                      A. Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent
                      someone in to call him.

                      B. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and
                      brothers are outside looking for you.

                      C. Who are my mother and my brothers? he asked.

                      D. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said,
                      Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my
                      brother and sister and mother."

                      Element A is evidently Markan redaction, connecting the pericope with
                      his introductory material at 3:20-21.

                      Mark B, in which Jesus is sitting inside surrounded by a crowd is
                      consistent with 3:20: "Then Jesus entered a house, and again a
                      crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to
                      eat," and is to be found as a redactional motif also at 2:1-4
                      where the crowd similarly causes difficulties: "Since they could not
                      get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening
                      in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat
                      the paralyzed man was lying on." Mark's tendency to
                      portray Jesus speaking to a crowd is too ubiquitous in his gospel to need
                      further comment. It is quite likely that the more original
                      form of this pericope contained "disciples" rather than "crowd." Matthew
                      understands the members of the crowd to be Jesus'
                      disciples and revises Mark accordingly, back coincidentally toward
                      Thomas 99.

                      Mark often adds rhetorical questions as introductions to, or revisions of,
                      traditional sayings, e.g. 2:19, 4:21, 4:30, 7:18, 12:16,
                      which he also seems to have done in C. The question is unnecessary;
                      Thomas 99 makes exactly the same point without it.
                      Mark's descriptive phrase "Then he looked at those seated in a circle
                      around him and said, Here are my mother and my
                      brothers!" is probably redactional insofar as it presupposes the redactional
                      Markan setting and provides an answer to the redactional rhetorical
                      question.

                      Thomas' blanket statement "It is they who will enter the kingdom of my
                      Father" may have been too sweeping for Mark. He turns
                      immediately (in chapter four) to casting doubt on the ability of the crowds
                      to understand parables, and throughout his gospel
                      casts doubt upon the worthiness of the disciples.

                      Examining the statements regarding Jesus' family members, we find that
                      Thomas' order is:
                      B. Brothers/mother
                      D. Brothers/mother

                      Mark's order is
                      A. Mother/brothers
                      B. Mother/brothers
                      C. Mother/brothers
                      D1. Mother/brothers
                      D2. Brothers/sisters/mother.

                      If Mark's A and C are conceded to be redactional, and Mark's B is
                      practically a reiteration of A, and D1 is the answer to C,
                      Mark is using a phrase consistently in both redaction and revision.
                      But he shifts at D2, which is the grand conclusion of the
                      pericope, to the usage found in Thomas (adding "sisters" for good
                      measure). There is no reason for this shift except, perhaps,
                      that here Mark reverts to the order in his source.
                      ============================

                      [And, surely, "crowds" contain women, whereas "disciples"
                      are men.]

                      The whole argument that Mark used Thomas can be found on my
                      website.

                      Steve
                      Stevan Davies
                      Professor of Religious Studies
                      College Misericordia, Dallas, Pennsylvania, USA
                      The Gospel of Thomas Homepage
                      http://www.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
                    • Jim Deardorff
                      ... Yes, I was allowing the fatigue factor to be a bit broader in some examples. I failed to make it at all clear, I guess, that four of my six examples do
                      Message 10 of 20 , Apr 29, 1998
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 12:28 AM 4/29/98, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                        >At 01:21 4/27/98 -0700, Jim Deardorff wrote:
                        >>Mark G. asserted that it is not possible to find the same phenomenon of
                        >>fatigue in Mark. But when viewed from the AH framework, in which
                        >>abbreviations of Matthew constitute the largest category of Marcan editorial
                        >>alterations, I think it is possible, as follows.
                        >
                        >I understand Mark's use the term "fatigue" as an almost technical term
                        >for a specific pattern of evidence that can be distinguished from the
                        >normal clusminess or incoherence that may characterize a source. See
                        >page 52 of Mark's article. More specifically, I would define the
                        >the occurrence of fatigue in B's redaction of A's text when:
                        >
                        > (1) B differs from A in B's characteristic expression at one point
                        > in the text, AND
                        > (2) B agrees with A in A's characteristic expression at a later
                        > point in the text.

                        Yes, I was allowing the fatigue factor to be a bit broader in some examples.
                        I failed to make it at all clear, I guess, that four of my six examples do
                        however obey the above definition of "fatigue." Here's how they do it.
                        Please let me know if I'm still not clear enough.

                        I'll start with my example #6 of the "parable" of Mk 7:17 versus Mt
                        15:13-15. Let B refer to the writer of Mark, and A to the writer of Matthew.

                        (1) Mk 7:17a,b of B differs from Mt 15:13-14 of A, by omission of the
                        parable of the plant and of the blind man leading the blind. In
                        substitution B wrote "And when he had entered the house, and left the
                        people..,". Omission of material is B's primary characteristic of redactive
                        expression; that plus his little substitution brings about a very
                        substantial difference. Then,

                        (2) in Mk 7:17c B agrees with A at Mt 15:15 in having the question be asked
                        about "the parable." The redaction by B is evident if one realizes that the
                        defilement discussion does not constitute a parable.

                        My example #5 qualifies also. Relocation of pericopes found in Mt 8-11, so
                        as to give disagreement of pericope order in the Mk 3-6 region of B's text
                        relative to A's, is another charactistic of redactor B's handiwork. The
                        relocation of pericope Mk 6:7-13 is then step (1) here, which causes B's
                        text to differ from A's at this point. Then step (2) occurs at Mk 6:14
                        where a reference to "Jesus" suddenly appears, in agreement with its
                        parallel at Mt 14:1. The redaction by B is very evident here upon realizing
                        that if Herod had heard only of healings performed by Jesus' disciples at
                        that point, as stated, he would have wondered what great spirits inhabited
                        *their* bodies, not that of Jesus.

                        My example #4 qualifies similarly. In relocating his naming of the
                        disciples relative to Matthew's order (Mk 3:16-19), then omitting the Isaiah
                        verse of Mt 12:17-21, then making a little substitution of his own (Mk
                        3:20-21), B was acting characteristically. This was step (1). In so doing,
                        he also omitted the demoniac healing of Mt 12:22. Then in step (2) he
                        resumed his agreement with Matthew in following his Beelzebub discussion at
                        Mk 3:22, which parallels Mt 12:24. B's redaction is evident here when you
                        realize that in Mark there is nothing immediately prior about "Jesus casting
                        out demons" to have prompted the Beelzebub discussion, while in Matthew
                        there is (Mt 12:22).

                        Similarly with example #3. In omitting the Sermon on the Mount and then the
                        healing of the centurion (due to its humiliation for gentiles), B was acting
                        characteristically. Immediately following this omission B added a little
                        insertion for a setting, as necessary. All this was step (1), which of
                        course caused Mark to differ (greatly) from Matthew. Then, at Mk 1:22, he
                        agreed very closely with Matthew at Mt 7:28b-29, which was step (2). This
                        looks like a redaction on the part of B because he failed to supply examples
                        of Jesus' teachings that would have caused the astonishment in his listeners.

                        I'd better stop here, though your discussion below was interesting.

                        >Now, Mark G. (to distinguish him from the traditional author of the
                        >Second Gospel) in his article seems to restrict fatigue to single
                        >pericopes, but I think that it can occur throughout an entire book
                        >or even between volumes as well. In fact, I feel that some of
                        >Goulder's Lucan muddles (section 9, pp. 102-3 of LUKE: A New Paradigm)
                        >may be examples of fatigue. For example, compare the instructions
                        >to the Seventy-Two (diff. the Twelve of Matthew, Mark) not to take
                        >a purse or shoes at 10:4 with the question to the Twelve at 21:35
                        >about their experience without both. ...


                        Jim Deardorff
                        Corvallis, Oregon
                        E-mail: deardorj@...
                        Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                      • Stephen C. Carlson
                        ... I understand Mark s use the term fatigue as an almost technical term for a specific pattern of evidence that can be distinguished from the normal
                        Message 11 of 20 , Apr 29, 1998
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 01:21 4/27/98 -0700, Jim Deardorff wrote:
                          >Mark G. asserted that it is not possible to find the same phenomenon of
                          >fatigue in Mark. But when viewed from the AH framework, in which
                          >abbreviations of Matthew constitute the largest category of Marcan editorial
                          >alterations, I think it is possible, as follows.

                          I understand Mark's use the term "fatigue" as an almost technical term
                          for a specific pattern of evidence that can be distinguished from the
                          normal clusminess or incoherence that may characterize a source. See
                          page 52 of Mark's article. More specifically, I would define the
                          the occurrence of fatigue in B's redaction of A's text when:

                          (1) B differs from A in B's characteristic expression at one point
                          in the text, AND
                          (2) B agrees with A in A's characteristic expression at a later
                          point in the text.

                          Now, Mark G. (to distinguish him from the traditional author of the
                          Second Gospel) in his article seems to restrict fatigue to single
                          pericopes, but I think that it can occur throughout an entire book
                          or even between volumes as well. In fact, I feel that some of
                          Goulder's Lucan muddles (section 9, pp. 102-3 of LUKE: A New Paradigm)
                          may be examples of fatigue. For example, compare the instructions
                          to the Seventy-Two (diff. the Twelve of Matthew, Mark) not to take
                          a purse or shoes at 10:4 with the question to the Twelve at 21:35
                          about their experience without both.

                          The six examples that you've cited do not fall under this precise
                          definition, and therefore do not constitute examples of "fatigue"
                          but perhaps some other form of editorial weariness. I did notice
                          on page 47, n.9, of Mark G.'s article a possible example of Mark's
                          "fatigue" of a source like Matthew: Mk6:4, which differs from
                          Matthew as unparalleled material, uses the "Baptizer" for John in
                          Mark's characteristic language, but Mk6:5 agrees with Mt14:8, in
                          Matthew's characteristic language in calling him the "Baptist."

                          If this example of fatigue on the part of Mark holds up with other
                          such examples, there is no need to "forge a convincing argument
                          against [Matthew's fatigue] from the perspective of Matthean
                          priority," because one can postulate a shared source between
                          Matthew and Mark (e.g. a proto-Matthew) of which both Matthew and
                          Mark show fatigue. In fact, this is the position that Harold
                          Riley later endorsed from a Griesbachian perspective in THE FIRST
                          GOSPEL (Macon, Ga.: Mercer U. Press, 1992). As you are well
                          aware, Jim, there are modified Augustinian hypotheses that also
                          posit a shared proto-Matthew.

                          Stephen Carlson

                          --
                          Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
                          scarlson@... : and songs chant the words.
                          http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
                        • Stephen C. Carlson
                          ... OK, I ll bite. How about chiasmus? Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, scarlson@mindspring.com
                          Message 12 of 20 , Apr 29, 1998
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 08:55 4/28/98 -0400, Stevan Davies wrote:
                            >Here's my "fatigue" argument:
                            ...
                            >Examining the statements regarding Jesus' family members, we find that
                            >Thomas' order is: >B. Brothers/mother >D. Brothers/mother
                            >
                            >Mark's order is
                            >A. Mother/brothers >B. Mother/brothers >C. Mother/brothers
                            >D1. Mother/brothers >D2. Brothers/sisters/mother.
                            ...
                            > But he shifts at D2, which is the grand conclusion of the
                            >pericope, to the usage found in Thomas (adding "sisters" for good
                            >measure). There is no reason for this shift except, perhaps,
                            >that here Mark reverts to the order in his source.

                            OK, I'll bite. How about chiasmus?

                            Stephen Carlson
                            --
                            Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
                            scarlson@... : and songs chant the words.
                            http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
                          • Mark Goodacre
                            ... I am grateful for this comment. I did think a good deal about the question of the argument s reversibility, and attempted to anticipate the point now
                            Message 13 of 20 , Apr 29, 1998
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Stephen Carlson wrote:

                              > I understand Mark's use the term "fatigue" as an almost technical
                              > term for a specific pattern of evidence that can be distinguished
                              > from the normal clusminess or incoherence that may characterize a
                              > source.

                              I am grateful for this comment. I did think a good deal about the
                              question of the argument's reversibility, and attempted to anticipate
                              the point now being made by Jim Deardorff, whose examples, though
                              interesting, do not constitute "fatigue" in the sense in which I
                              defined it. Let me quote:

                              "Matthean priorists, however, might object that there are many
                              well-known examples of incoherence in Mark and that, perhaps,
                              these could be explained as Marcan fatigue with Matthew or
                              Luke. Is the argument from fatigue therefore reversible?
                              Could Marcan incoherence provide a good counter- argument?

                              I do not think so. There are undoubtedly several
                              inconsistencies and clumsy expressions in Mark's Gospel,
                              incoherences that on the standard view Matthew and Luke have
                              taken care to tidy-up. But this is different from the phenomenon
                              of fatigue. The examples above are not merely cases where Matthew
                              and Luke show signs of incoherence in relation to a coherent
                              Marcan account. Rather, in most cases, Matthew and Luke differ
                              from Mark at the beginning of the pericope, at the point where
                              they are writing most characteristically, and they agree with
                              Mark later in the pericope, where they are writing less
                              characteristically. It is not possible to find the same
                              phenomenon in Mark." (pp. 51-52).

                              Jim Deardorff asks:

                              > Did you forget that it was explained a few weeks ago that there was
                              > nothing convincing about Mark G.'s example of Matthew referring once
                              > to Herod as king at Mt 14:9? The writer of Matthew or of the source
                              > used by him, either one, has to be allowed to have slipped up
                              > occasionally by using an incorrect term.

                              I attempted to anticipate this kind of criticism in the article by
                              noting that it is specifically characteristic of Matthew to have
                              written hO TETRAARCHS in 14.1, just as "he will specify that Pilate
                              (Mark 15.1, 4, 9, 12, 14, 15, 43, 44) is properly called 'the
                              governor' (hO hHGEMWN, Matt. 27.2, 11, 14, 15, 21, 27, 28.14), and
                              'the high priest' (Mark 14.53) is 'Caiaphas the high priest' (Matt.
                              26.57) or in his Birth Narrative, that Herod the Great is a 'king'
                              (2.1, 3) and that Archelaus is not (2.22). It is characteristic of
                              Matthew, then, to say 'Herod the Tetrarch' in 14.1 and
                              uncharacteristic to call him 'the king' in 14.9" (p. 52).

                              One might add that it is also a question of clustering of issues.
                              Styler, who made much of this pericope, commented not just
                              on the terminology but also the incoherence of the king's "grieving"
                              (Matt. 14.9) and the losing of the "flashback" set-up of the pericope
                              in 14.13.

                              Finally, Stephen Carlson also wrote:

                              >Now, Mark G. (to distinguish him from the traditional author of the
                              >Second Gospel) in his article seems to restrict fatigue to single
                              >pericopes, but I think that it can occur throughout an entire book
                              >or even between volumes as well.

                              This is a good point, and the example chosen (Luke 10.4, Seventy and
                              21.35, Twelve) an interesting one. I ought to add that one of my
                              examples is the Sower + Interpretation, so (on some definitions)
                              across two pericopes. But someone ought to explore the question of
                              "fatigue" more broadly across whole Gospels (+ Acts). I seem to
                              remember that Drury and Gundry both hint at this without
                              developing it.

                              Mark

                              --------------------------------------
                              Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
                              Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham
                              Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre.htm
                            • Jim Deardorff
                              ... Hello Mark, In the Matthean examples of Pilate called governor and Caiaphas the high priest, the writer of Matthew (or the writer of Matthew s source) did
                              Message 14 of 20 , Apr 29, 1998
                              • 0 Attachment
                                At 04:05 PM 4/29/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                                >Stephen Carlson wrote:
                                >
                                >> I understand Mark's use the term "fatigue" as an almost technical
                                >> term for a specific pattern of evidence that can be distinguished
                                >> from the normal clusminess or incoherence that may characterize a
                                >> source.
                                >
                                >I am grateful for this comment. I did think a good deal about the
                                >question of the argument's reversibility, and attempted to anticipate
                                >the point now being made by Jim Deardorff, whose examples, though
                                >interesting, do not constitute "fatigue" in the sense in which I
                                >defined it. Let me quote:
                                >
                                > "Matthean priorists, however, might object that there are many
                                > well-known examples of incoherence in Mark and that, perhaps,
                                > these could be explained as Marcan fatigue with Matthew or
                                > Luke. Is the argument from fatigue therefore reversible?
                                > Could Marcan incoherence provide a good counter- argument?
                                >
                                > I do not think so. There are undoubtedly several
                                > inconsistencies and clumsy expressions in Mark's Gospel,
                                > incoherences that on the standard view Matthew and Luke have
                                > taken care to tidy-up. But this is different from the phenomenon
                                > of fatigue. The examples above are not merely cases where Matthew
                                > and Luke show signs of incoherence in relation to a coherent
                                > Marcan account. Rather, in most cases, Matthew and Luke differ
                                > from Mark at the beginning of the pericope, at the point where
                                > they are writing most characteristically, and they agree with
                                > Mark later in the pericope, where they are writing less
                                > characteristically. It is not possible to find the same
                                > phenomenon in Mark." (pp. 51-52).
                                >
                                >Jim Deardorff asks:
                                >
                                >> Did you forget that it was explained a few weeks ago that there was
                                >> nothing convincing about Mark G.'s example of Matthew referring once
                                >> to Herod as king at Mt 14:9? The writer of Matthew or of the source
                                >> used by him, either one, has to be allowed to have slipped up
                                >> occasionally by using an incorrect term.

                                >I attempted to anticipate this kind of criticism in the article by
                                >noting that it is specifically characteristic of Matthew to have
                                >written hO TETRAARCHS in 14.1, just as "he will specify that Pilate
                                >(Mark 15.1, 4, 9, 12, 14, 15, 43, 44) is properly called 'the
                                >governor' (hO hHGEMWN, Matt. 27.2, 11, 14, 15, 21, 27, 28.14), and
                                >'the high priest' (Mark 14.53) is 'Caiaphas the high priest' (Matt.
                                >26.57) or in his Birth Narrative, that Herod the Great is a 'king'
                                >(2.1, 3) and that Archelaus is not (2.22). It is characteristic of
                                >Matthew, then, to say 'Herod the Tetrarch' in 14.1 and
                                >uncharacteristic to call him 'the king' in 14.9" (p. 52).


                                Hello Mark,

                                In the Matthean examples of Pilate called governor and Caiaphas the high
                                priest, the writer of Matthew (or the writer of Matthew's source) did not
                                slip up. At Mt 14:9 he did. A slip-up by definition results in
                                uncharacteristic language, since errors occur less frequently than
                                non-errors. So your argument above boils down to the thought that the
                                writer of Matthew or of Matthew's source would not, or would never, slip up.
                                That's untenable, of course, even if you picture him as one who generally
                                improves the text of his source. The writer of Matthew has to be allowed to
                                have made some errors.

                                >One might add that it is also a question of clustering of issues.
                                >Styler, who made much of this pericope, commented not just
                                >on the terminology but also the incoherence of the king's "grieving"
                                >(Matt. 14.9) and the losing of the "flashback" set-up of the pericope
                                >in 14.13.

                                The incoherence of Herod's grieving has to fall in the error category also,
                                if no satisfactory explanation for it can be conceived. I wonder, though, if
                                the writer of Matthew wasn't shifting blame from Herod to Herodias here, for
                                her role in the adultery between the two. If so, it may have been Herod's
                                basic idea of having John's head, not just Herodias's idea alone, that was
                                presented in the source used by the writer of Matthew. By omitting this
                                thought, and also altering Herod's glee that the daughter had indeed asked
                                for John's head into sorrow, he could shift the blame. However, I don't know
                                why the writer of Matthew would have wished to go so far in this direction,
                                except that he doesn't have anything bad to say about the Herodians in his
                                gospel.

                                Regarding "the losing of the 'flashback' set-up of the pericope", there's a
                                new explanation for this available at:
                                http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/nazareth.htm .

                                It involves the writer of Matthew having "punished" Nazareth for its
                                rejection of Jesus by omitting the name of the town in a couple spots, and
                                finds that the flashback set-up was originally lost at Mt 14:1 rather than
                                at 14:13.

                                I realize you haven't yet had time to respond, Mark, to the explanation of
                                how four of the six examples of Marcan dependence upon Matthew I presented
                                exhibit your step-(1)-step-(2) pattern of fatigue. I now see that a fifth
                                does also, to be demonstrated soon.

                                Jim Deardorff
                                Corvallis, Oregon
                                E-mail: deardorj@...
                                Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                              • james r. covey
                                ... Luke 21:35, RSV: for it will come upon all who dwell upon the face of the whole earth. i must be missing something. james ... James R. Covey WWW Systems
                                Message 15 of 20 , Apr 29, 1998
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  re missive of 29/04/98 12:05 PM signed -Mark Goodacre- :

                                  >>Now, Mark G. (to distinguish him from the traditional author of the
                                  >>Second Gospel) in his article seems to restrict fatigue to single
                                  >>pericopes, but I think that it can occur throughout an entire book
                                  >>or even between volumes as well.
                                  >
                                  >This is a good point, and the example chosen (Luke 10.4, Seventy and
                                  >21.35, Twelve) an interesting one.

                                  Luke 21:35, RSV:
                                  "for it will come upon all who dwell upon the face of the whole
                                  earth."

                                  i must be missing something.

                                  james



                                  -------------------------
                                  James R. Covey
                                  WWW Systems Developer
                                  Cochran Interactive Inc.
                                  http://www.cochran.com
                                  direct ph. # 902.422.8915
                                  office fax # 902.425.8659
                                  jrcovey@...
                                • Stevan Davies
                                  ... Thanks for the compliment of thinking I d understand. But I don t. Please explain. Steve Stevan Davies Professor of Religious Studies College Misericordia,
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Apr 29, 1998
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > >Examining the statements regarding Jesus' family members, we find that
                                    > >Thomas' order is: >B. Brothers/mother >D. Brothers/mother
                                    > >
                                    > >Mark's order is
                                    > >A. Mother/brothers >B. Mother/brothers >C. Mother/brothers
                                    > >D1. Mother/brothers >D2. Brothers/sisters/mother.
                                    > ...
                                    > > But he shifts at D2, which is the grand conclusion of the
                                    > >pericope, to the usage found in Thomas (adding "sisters" for good
                                    > >measure). There is no reason for this shift except, perhaps,
                                    > >that here Mark reverts to the order in his source.
                                    >
                                    > OK, I'll bite. How about chiasmus?
                                    >
                                    > Stephen Carlson

                                    Thanks for the compliment of thinking I'd understand. But I don't.
                                    Please explain.

                                    Steve
                                    Stevan Davies
                                    Professor of Religious Studies
                                    College Misericordia, Dallas, Pennsylvania, USA
                                    The Gospel of Thomas Homepage
                                    http://www.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
                                  • Stephen C. Carlson
                                    ... What you re missing is a typo for Lk22:35 (He said to them, When I sent you out without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything? They said, No,
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Apr 29, 1998
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      At 02:11 4/29/98 -0400, james r. covey wrote:
                                      >Luke 21:35, RSV:
                                      > "for it will come upon all who dwell upon the face of the whole
                                      >earth."
                                      >
                                      >i must be missing something.

                                      What you're missing is a typo for Lk22:35 (He said to them, "When I
                                      sent you out without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?"
                                      They said, "No, not a thing.")

                                      Stephen Carlson
                                      --
                                      Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
                                      scarlson@... : and songs chant the words.
                                      http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
                                    • Stephen C. Carlson
                                      ... It seems to me that the rhetorical device of chiasmus, or inverted parallelism, should be an adequate reason for shift from Mother/ brothers to
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Apr 30, 1998
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        At 04:09 4/29/98 -0400, Stevan Davies wrote:
                                        >> >Mark's order is
                                        >> >D1. Mother/brothers >D2. Brothers/sisters/mother.
                                        >> ...
                                        >> > But he shifts at D2, which is the grand conclusion of the
                                        >> >pericope, to the usage found in Thomas (adding "sisters" for good
                                        >> >measure). There is no reason for this shift except, perhaps,
                                        >> >that here Mark reverts to the order in his source.
                                        >>
                                        >> OK, I'll bite. How about chiasmus?
                                        >
                                        >Thanks for the compliment of thinking I'd understand. But I don't.
                                        >Please explain.

                                        It seems to me that the rhetorical device of chiasmus, or inverted
                                        parallelism, should be an adequate reason for shift from Mother/
                                        brothers to brothers/sister/mother without having to appeal to a
                                        source theory.

                                        Stephen Carlson
                                        --
                                        Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
                                        scarlson@... : and songs chant the words.
                                        http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
                                      • Stevan Davies
                                        ... The one instance doesn t prove any particular source theory, but unless we are to think Mark invented the whole story, Mark is using some source or other.
                                        Message 19 of 20 , May 1, 1998
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          > It seems to me that the rhetorical device of chiasmus, or inverted
                                          > parallelism, should be an adequate reason for shift from Mother/
                                          > brothers to brothers/sister/mother without having to appeal to a
                                          > source theory.
                                          >
                                          > Stephen Carlson

                                          The one instance doesn't prove any particular source theory, but
                                          unless we are to think Mark invented the whole story, Mark is
                                          using some source or other. Furthermore he is redacting it in
                                          certain characteristic Marcan ways... particularly the
                                          repetition/rhetorical question of 3:33-34. This should lead then
                                          to the question to you, is chiasmus a redactional tendency of
                                          Mark's? If it isn't then the fatigue idea is relatively strong.

                                          Steve

                                          Stevan Davies
                                          Professor of Religious Studies
                                          College Misericordia, Dallas, Pennsylvania, USA
                                          The Gospel of Thomas Homepage
                                          http://www.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
                                        • Stephen C. Carlson
                                          ... I m not sure where you re going, but the chiasmus could come from Mark s source (i.e. Jesus or oral tradition), yet not from Thomas (no chiasmus). ... I
                                          Message 20 of 20 , May 3, 1998
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            At 09:00 5/1/98 -0400, Stevan Davies wrote:
                                            >The one instance doesn't prove any particular source theory, but
                                            >unless we are to think Mark invented the whole story, Mark is
                                            >using some source or other. Furthermore he is redacting it in
                                            >certain characteristic Marcan ways... particularly the
                                            >repetition/rhetorical question of 3:33-34. This should lead then
                                            >to the question to you, is chiasmus a redactional tendency of
                                            >Mark's?

                                            I'm not sure where you're going, but the chiasmus could come
                                            from Mark's source (i.e. Jesus or oral tradition), yet not from
                                            Thomas (no chiasmus).

                                            >If it isn't then the fatigue idea is relatively strong.

                                            I don't the fatigue idea is strong here in Mk3:31-35 vs. Tm99.
                                            Let's revisit the definition:

                                            Fatigue in B's redaction of A's text occurs when:
                                            (1) B differs from A in B's characteristic expression
                                            about an issue at one point in the text, AND
                                            (2) B agrees with A in A's characteristic expression
                                            about the same issue at a later point in the text.

                                            (I've added the qualification relating to the same "issue" in
                                            response to some of Jim Deardorff's examples, in a response I
                                            lost to a computer freeze-up, but it does not affect the analysis
                                            here.)

                                            Mark G.'s article uses the concept of writing characteristically
                                            in order to prevent the argument from fatigue being reversible.
                                            I suggest we take this concept seriously. First, there is a
                                            problem in identifying characteristic language. Footnote 26,
                                            p. 52 (NTS 44), states: "I am of course aware that one often
                                            defines what is characteristic of Matthew and Luke by how they
                                            differ from Mark and thus one is partly bound into a circle. It is
                                            not, however, the only means of establishing what is characteristic
                                            of each evangelist and in each case one has to ask whether the
                                            'fatigue' explanation is more or less plausible than the alternatives."

                                            Here is the issue is X="mother and brothers" and Y="brother and mothers".
                                            In the parallels, Mk3:31 32 33 34 have X and Mk3:35 Th99:1 2 have Y.
                                            But is X ("mother and brothers") characteristic of Mark? Although X
                                            occurs 4 times here, it does not occur outside of Mk3:31-34 in Mark,
                                            and the opposite Y occurs at Mk10:29 30. On the other hand, is Y
                                            characteristic of Thomas? It is very hard to tell, because this phrase
                                            occurs only in Th99. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence that
                                            either Mark or Thomas are writing characteristically here, and, hence,
                                            this example does not constitute a good example of fatigue. Furthermore,
                                            Mark G.'s comments invite us to consider whether other explanations
                                            are more plausible. I have suggest chiasmus on the part of Mark or,
                                            more likely, in his source, which is not Thomas, by the way. Most of
                                            Mark G.'s examples of fatigue occur in the redaction of narrative,
                                            where an evangelist has the best opportunity to write characteristically,
                                            but Thomas has so little narrative that it may impossible to detect any
                                            fatigue in Thomas, in either direction.

                                            Stephen Carlson
                                            --
                                            Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
                                            scarlson@... : and songs chant the words.
                                            http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.