Re: Syn - Thomasine priority
> It seems to me that the rhetorical device of chiasmus, or invertedThe one instance doesn't prove any particular source theory, but
> 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
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.
Professor of Religious Studies
College Misericordia, Dallas, Pennsylvania, USA
The Gospel of Thomas Homepage
- At 09:00 5/1/98 -0400, Stevan Davies wrote:
>The one instance doesn't prove any particular source theory, butI'm not sure where you're going, but the chiasmus could come
>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
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
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 C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
scarlson@... : and songs chant the words.
http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35