Re: "Fatigue" pattern in Marcan dependence?
- At 11:15 AM 4/30/98 +0000, Mark Goodacre wrote:
>I am grateful to Jim Deardorff for the interesting argument fromMark, I do need to question your use of the word "non-characteristically"
>Jameson, but the argument is not one from "fatigue" as I define it
>because it does not involve an author writing characteristically at
>the beginning of a pericope where he is different from the supposed
>source and non-characteristically later in the pericope where he is
>similar to the supposed source.
here. In some of the examples you presented in your NTS article, the key
point was that, later in the pericope, the word or expression used there by
the assumed redactor "makes no sense" or "is inexplicable" or "it makes no
sense at all." Thus instead of "non-characteristically" I believe that
"illogically" is a more precise word to describe that part of your
procedure. (Of course, no one here is going to complain about objecting to
illogicality as an important component of redaction criticism!) Thus,
Jameson's arguments do fit in here, since he also was pointing out illogic
-- the illogic in interrupting a discourse with KAI ELEGEN or similar
expression for no good literary or other reason.
>Further, it seems to me that this phenomenon (introduction of KAIJameson's point (on p. 120 of his text), however, was that the redactor
>ELEGEN etc. just after fresh material has been inserted into a Markan
>discourse on the assumption of Matthean priority) is testable. The
>question is: does Mark introduce expressions like KAI ELEGEN
>elsewhere during discourses where he is not, on the assumption of
>Matthean priority, introducing fresh material? Yes he does:
>Mark 4.9: *KAI ELEGEN* hO ECEI WTA AKOUEIN AKOUETW
>Matt. 13.9: [ ] hO ECWN WTA AKOUETW
inserted the expression immediately following a spot where he had made a
significant alteration from his source, with the alteration having been
either an omission, an addition, a quotation from elsewhere, a marked
rearrangement of Matthew's phrases, or a transposition of Matthew's order.
(I did include "rearrangement" in my earlier summary of this.) This was a
significant rearrangement in order: from hundredfold-sixty-thirty, to
thirtyfold-sixtyfold-hundredfold. Thus Mk 4:9 = Mt 13:9 is one of the
examples that Jameson used to support his argument (since Mt 13:9 doesn't
have the break in the discourse).
>Mark 7.6: *hO DE EIPEN AUTOIS*, KALWS EPROFHTEUSEN HSAIAS PERI hUMWNHere, Mt 15:2-3a most closely parallels Mk 7:5b. Both are followed by the
>TWN hUPOKRITWN . . .
>Matt. 15.7: [ ] hUPOKRITAI, KALWS EPROFHTEUSEN PERI hUMWN HSAIAS . .
parallel narration, i.e., "He answered them" (Mt 15:3a) and "And he said to
them" (Mk 7:6a). So Jameson was either correct or being conservative, I
believe, in not including this. The situation is a bit muddied due to Mark
containing its usual redundancies ("change for the sake of change" the AH
can explain it as), with Mk 7:1-2 repeating much of Mk 7:5, and with Mark's
explanation to gentile readers interspersed.
It might be argued that Jameson should have included this. Mark omits Mt
15:3b-7a and in its place has Mk 7:3-4. These significant alterations
immediately precede the "And he said to them" of Mk 7:6a, which may not
appear to have a Matthean parallel.
Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm