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

Re: "Fatigue" pattern in Marcan dependence?

Expand Messages
  • Jim Deardorff
    ... Mark, I do need to question your use of the word non-characteristically here. In some of the examples you presented in your NTS article, the key point
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 30 10:39 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      At 11:15 AM 4/30/98 +0000, Mark Goodacre wrote:
      >I am grateful to Jim Deardorff for the interesting argument from
      >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.

      Mark, I do need to question your use of the word "non-characteristically"
      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 KAI
      >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:
      >Matt. 13.9: [ ] hO ECWN WTA AKOUETW

      Jameson's point (on p. 120 of his text), however, was that the redactor
      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).

      >TWN hUPOKRITWN . . .
      > [...]

      Here, Mt 15:2-3a most closely parallels Mk 7:5b. Both are followed by the
      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.

      Jim Deardorff
      Corvallis, Oregon
      E-mail: deardorj@...
      Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.