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

[Synoptic-L] Re: "attitudes" to the priority of Mark

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Yes it is deliberately pejorative. But I am only deprecating a hypothetical person who (to me and the majority of NT commentators) never existed. ... No.
    Message 1 of 18 , Feb 7, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      I wrote:

      >> ....... The person who wrote such a brilliant story so full of
      >> subtleties was assuredly no mere copyist.

      Thomas Longstaff replied:

      >Most of us, even those who see Mark as later, do not think of him as a
      >"mere copyist." This is a perjorative description of how Mark would be
      >understood by those who see Mark's gospel as late.

      Yes it is deliberately pejorative. But I am only deprecating a
      hypothetical person who (to me and the majority of NT commentators)
      never existed.

      I wrote:

      >> In any case if Matthew had been written before Mark then the latter
      >> would have been a complete waste of time.

      Thomas replied:

      > ....... These arguments seem to presume (as I think one cannot) that
      >the later gospels were written to replace the earlier ones .......

      No. They assume only that any author would want to make a significant
      new contribution to the gospel story. If, as I think the majority of us
      believe, the historical order was Mark -> Matthew -> Luke -> John, then
      each would have made a significant new contribution.

      Thomas wrote:

      >I suggest that
      >there are themes and perspectives in Mark that are not found in the other
      >gospels and which would render this gospel valuable, even if it were third.

      I agree that such themes and perspectives exist. (Though I would argue
      that the Sitz im Leben for these is Rome ca. 70 CE.)
      The problem is that it takes careful study to find them. They could
      hardly constitute a selling feature (regarding popularity) for the
      average citizen of the Roman Empire in the way that the Matthean birth
      stories or the Lukan Good Samaritan could for the larger gospels.
      Surely the only way to achieve widespread popularity would have been
      to include not only subtle themes and perspectives for the more
      thoughtful readers, but also lots of good new stories for the masses.

      Thomas wrote:

      >Lamar Cope has
      >shown that if Mark were later than Matthew and Luke he would have
      >skillfully transformed a Matthean story about the Torah ("Why do you ask me
      >about the good?") into a story about Jesus' identify ("Why do you call me
      >good?").

      On the basis of Markan priority the clumsiness of the Matthean account
      is easily explained as a correction of the supposed implication that
      Jesus might not have been "good". To my mind the three Matthean
      references to "good" (good deed, what is good, who is good) are simply
      incoherent. A few modern scholars may think they can make sense of them
      without appealing to dependence on Mark, but I doubt whether a first
      century Christian could have done so.

      I wrote:

      >> But here again if this was an aim, it failed abysmally because
      >> **Matthew** became the most popular gospel. Was Au_Mark so out of touch
      >> with Christians? I don't believe so.

      Leonard Maluf replied:

      >There is an important distinction here you are missing, based on the
      >ambivalence of the term "popular". The adjective applies to Matt in the sense
      >of the German "beliebt", and we know of this "popularity" almost exclusively
      >through Matt's enthusiastic appropriation and use by a (relatively) elite
      >group of Christian intellectuals, the Fathers and Doctors of the church. The
      >people for whom Mark wrote his gospel would have been those without a voice
      >or a pen, those therefore who cannot have registered their preference in
      >terms of recorded history. So Mark's gospel is "popular" in a different sense
      >of the term.

      Good try, Leonard.
      Again I think you're wrong. But in this case it would theoretically be
      possible to test it out today. We could poll a large number of
      Christians (large enough so that the votes from intellectuals would not
      appreciably affect the result) and ask them to put the gospels in order,
      the more favourite, the higher in the list. Or we could ask missionaries
      to tell us, from their own experience, which gospels are the most
      appreciated by people who are new to Christianity, this being the
      nearest practicable approximation to the situation in the Roman Empire
      in the first century.
      Unfortunately I do not have the right contacts to be able to carry out
      either survey. Also such surveys could be spoiled if the participants
      knew the reason for them. Our best hope is if someone has already
      carried out such a survey for a different reason. Does anyone know if
      that is the case?


      Ron Price

      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

      e-mail: ron.price@...

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • Thomas R. W. Longstaff
      ... Well, then, perhaps you can understand why some of us do not find such rhetoric to be conclusive evidence for the two document hypodermic, ooops, I mean,
      Message 2 of 18 , Feb 7, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        At 11:59 AM 2/7/00 +0000, Ron Price wrote:
        >I wrote:
        >
        > >> ....... The person who wrote such a brilliant story so full of
        > >> subtleties was assuredly no mere copyist.
        >
        >Thomas Longstaff replied:
        >
        > >Most of us, even those who see Mark as later, do not think of him as a
        > >"mere copyist." This is a pejorative description of how Mark would be
        > >understood by those who see Mark's gospel as late.
        >
        > Yes it is deliberately pejorative. But I am only deprecating a
        >hypothetical person who (to me and the majority of NT commentators)
        >never existed.

        Well, then, perhaps you can understand why some of us do not find such
        rhetoric to be conclusive evidence for the two document hypodermic, ooops,
        I mean, hypothesis. ;-)

        >I wrote:
        >
        > >> In any case if Matthew had been written before Mark then the latter
        > >> would have been a complete waste of time.
        >
        >Thomas replied:
        >
        > > ....... These arguments seem to presume (as I think one cannot) that
        > >the later gospels were written to replace the earlier ones .......
        >
        > No. They assume only that any author would want to make a significant
        >new contribution to the gospel story. If, as I think the majority of us
        >believe, the historical order was Mark -> Matthew -> Luke -> John, then
        >each would have made a significant new contribution.

        Yes. Because despite your appeal to majority opinion (for which I have been
        taken to task on this list recently) many of us think that Mark's gospel
        does make a significant contribution - whether it is first or last. The
        logic of your line of reasoning, which I don't accept, would also weigh in
        the opposite direction. If there were so little of value in Mark once
        Matthew and Luke had been written, why would people even keep it around?
        Given your statements above, the questions about Mark become: Who wants it?
        Who needs it? I, on the other hand, think that there are good answers to be
        given to those questions.

        >Thomas wrote:
        >
        > >I suggest that
        > >there are themes and perspectives in Mark that are not found in the other
        > >gospels and which would render this gospel valuable, even if it were third.
        >
        > I agree that such themes and perspectives exist. (Though I would argue
        >that the Sitz im Leben for these is Rome ca. 70 CE.)
        > The problem is that it takes careful study to find them. They could
        >hardly constitute a selling feature (regarding popularity) for the
        >average citizen of the Roman Empire in the way that the Matthean birth
        >stories or the Lukan Good Samaritan could for the larger gospels.
        > Surely the only way to achieve widespread popularity would have been
        >to include not only subtle themes and perspectives for the more
        >thoughtful readers, but also lots of good new stories for the masses.

        Can you offer any firm evidence to support these statements about marketing
        strategy in the ancient world or to show that such strategies were
        functionally significant in gospel authorship? They seem to me simple
        assertions based upon what you already take to be the order of the gospels.
        I don't know of any evidence that clearly shows that the Matthean birth
        narratives or the Lukan story of the Good Samaritan would have been a means
        to achieve widespread popularity for a gospel produced in Rome - or even
        that widespread popularity was a concern of the author. Some of us have
        argued, on the other hand, that the themes in Mark are neither obscure nor
        subtle. They reflect the perspective of a gospel written for a community
        facing danger, probably from persecution. Mark's portrayal of the disciples
        is especially interesting and has long been discussed in great detail.
        There is something unique to Mark here and if it takes careful study to
        find it I certainly don't want to go on record against careful study. But I
        don't find Mark's emphasis on suffering either obscure or insignificant -
        and I do see a particular Markan perspective with respect to this theme
        (and there are other such themes).


        >Thomas wrote:
        >
        > >Lamar Cope has
        > >shown that if Mark were later than Matthew and Luke he would have
        > >skillfully transformed a Matthean story about the Torah ("Why do you ask me
        > >about the good?") into a story about Jesus' identify ("Why do you call me
        > >good?").
        >
        > On the basis of Markan priority the clumsiness of the Matthean account
        >is easily explained as a correction of the supposed implication that
        >Jesus might not have been "good". To my mind the three Matthean
        >references to "good" (good deed, what is good, who is good) are simply
        >incoherent. A few modern scholars may think they can make sense of them
        >without appealing to dependence on Mark, but I doubt whether a first
        >century Christian could have done so.

        Few things in a problem as complex as the synoptic problem are "easily
        explained." This does not seem to me to be one of them.

        While it is interesting to know what you think, it seems to me that you
        miss, or ignore, the point that I tried to make. While you may find the
        Matthean narrative clumsy, Cope does not. In fact he writes, "the formal
        clarity of the pericope is very nearly matched by logical clarity in the
        flow of thought." In Matthew the pericope reflects a Jewish custom of
        referring to the Torah as "the good," and stresses the unity of the Torah
        ("the good is one"). While you may doubt whether a first century Christian
        could have made sense of Matthew's version of this pericope and while you
        may think that Matthew's narrative is incoherent, to the contrary, I think
        that Cope has argued, eloquently, for the coherence of this narrative in a
        first century Jewish-Christian context. Furthermore, he has cited parallels
        to illustrate the coherence of the narrative; it is not just a speculative
        opinion. In short, while you may doubt that a first century Christian could
        have made sense of Matthew's narrative, Cope has given us strong evidence
        for the structural and logical integrity of the Matthean version of this
        story. If Matthew follows Mark, he has skillfully transformed a narrative
        that focuses on a Christological issue into one that deals with Torah. He
        has not, in a clumsy manner, created an incoherent narrative. Matthew is a
        better author than that. Similarly, if Mark follows Matthew, he has taken a
        narrative about the Torah (which he may or may not have fully understood)
        and transformed it into a story that focuses upon a Christological question
        important in his community. In such a case he would be far more than a mere
        copyist with nothing new and important to offer to his readers.

        Indeed, your own arguments seem self-contradictory. On the one hand you
        assert that if Matthew and Luke already existed there would be no reason
        for Mark. On the other hand, you argue that Matthew's narrative is clumsy
        and incoherent, one that you doubt a first century Christian could have
        understood. What better reason for the Markan redaction could there be than
        to bring order out of chaos, to make sensible what is otherwise incoherent?
        For reasons such as this I don't find your line of argument very
        convincing. If this is representative of the strength of the two document
        hypothesis then it does rest more firmly on its status as a majority
        opinion (to which you frequently refer) than upon evidence.

        Best wishes,

        Tom Longstaff


        Dr. Thomas R. W. Longstaff
        Crawford Family Professor of Religious Studies
        Director, African-American Studies Program
        Colby College
        4643 Mayflower Hill
        Waterville, ME 04901-8846
        Email: t_longst@...
        Office phone: 207 872-3150
        FAX: 207 872-3802
      • Yuri Kuchinsky
        ... Thomas, Well, this seems to contradict what Leonard said. Because it was he who was talking about popularity in the sense of Fit for or reflecting the
        Message 3 of 18 , Feb 7, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Thomas R. W. Longstaff wrote:
          > At 11:59 AM 2/7/00 +0000, Ron Price wrote:

          > > Surely the only way to achieve widespread popularity would have been
          > >to include not only subtle themes and perspectives for the more
          > >thoughtful readers, but also lots of good new stories for the masses.

          ...

          > I don't know of any evidence that clearly shows that the Matthean
          > birth narratives or the Lukan story of the Good Samaritan would have
          > been a means to achieve widespread popularity for a gospel produced in
          > Rome - or even that widespread popularity was a concern of the author.

          Thomas,

          Well, this seems to contradict what Leonard said. Because it was he who
          was talking about popularity in the sense of "Fit for or reflecting the
          taste and intelligence of the people at large". Certainly people at large
          would have liked the Miraculous Birth, and that exciting Resurrection
          scene that Mt provides, and that Mk fails to supply so conspicuously. So
          why did Mk take all that out? A real puzzler here...

          So once again we have this old debate between Mt priority school and Mk
          priority school. But why can't both be right?

          In my view, both ARE right! It is the Loisy-Koester Model that settles
          this old debate quite convincingly, I think.

          Regards,

          Yuri.

          Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

          Open biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - loisy-l,
          unmoderated. To post to loisy-l, send email to loisy@egroups.com

          The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
          equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 2/7/2000 7:03:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, ron.price@virgin.net writes:
          Message 4 of 18 , Feb 7, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 2/7/2000 7:03:37 AM Eastern Standard Time,
            ron.price@... writes:

            <<
            >> But here again if this was an aim, it failed abysmally because
            >> **Matthew** became the most popular gospel. Was Au_Mark so out of touch
            >> with Christians? I don't believe so.

            Leonard Maluf replied:

            >There is an important distinction here you are missing, based on the
            >ambivalence of the term "popular". The adjective applies to Matt in the
            sense
            >of the German "beliebt", and we know of this "popularity" almost
            exclusively
            >through Matt's enthusiastic appropriation and use by a (relatively) elite
            >group of Christian intellectuals, the Fathers and Doctors of the church.
            The
            >people for whom Mark wrote his gospel would have been those without a voice
            >or a pen, those therefore who cannot have registered their preference in
            >terms of recorded history. So Mark's gospel is "popular" in a different
            sense
            >of the term.

            Good try, Leonard.
            Again I think you're wrong. But in this case it would theoretically be
            possible to test it out today. We could poll a large number of
            Christians (large enough so that the votes from intellectuals would not
            appreciably affect the result) and ask them to put the gospels in order,
            the more favourite, the higher in the list.>>

            Again, Ron, you are missing my point, which is that there are two quite
            distinct meanings of the term "popular" in English. The "favorite" Gospel
            today (German, "beliebt") may well be Luke or Matthew, for a variety of
            reasons. But this is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make, which is
            that these Gospels had a relatively elite first-century individual as a
            primary intended audience, and so it makes good sense to imagine a (late)
            Gospel of Mark designed to reach a popular (should I use the German term
            "vulgaer"? I had hoped to avoid this!) first-century audience with the gospel
            message.

            Leonard Maluf
          • Ron Price
            ... It is indeed a wonder that Mark survived the first few centuries, for it was the least read and esteemed in the early Church (J.A.T.Robinson, q. in _The
            Message 5 of 18 , Feb 8, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              Thomas Longstaff wrote:

              > If there were so little of value in Mark once
              >Matthew and Luke had been written, why would people even keep it around?

              It is indeed a wonder that Mark survived the first few centuries, for
              it was the "least read and esteemed in the early Church"
              (J.A.T.Robinson, q. in _The Birth of the Codex_, C.H.Roberts &
              T.C.Skeat, OUP, 1983). However it did contain the "gospel", and at a
              time when gospel copies were scarce a Christian owning a copy would
              surely have tried to preserve it.

              I wrote:
              >> Surely the only way to achieve widespread popularity would have been
              >>to include not only subtle themes and perspectives for the more
              >>thoughtful readers, but also lots of good new stories for the masses.

              Thomas replied:

              >Can you offer any firm evidence to support these statements about marketing
              >strategy in the ancient world or to show that such strategies were
              >functionally significant in gospel authorship?

              No, I can't. But the strategies I am proposing are more plausible than
              those posited to explain going to a lot of effort to create a cut-down
              version of existing gospel(s).
              Let me counter by a different question. Do you know of any other first
              century autograph at least 80% of which was copied from someone else's
              work?

              On my shelves I have two copies (the second and third editions) of
              Duling & Perrin's excellent _The New Testament_. I would like to put to
              you two hypothetical scenarios.
              (1) A lecturer presents a year's NT introduction course covering all the
              topics in the third edition. At the beginning of the second year the
              lecturer says that the next term's work will be based on the second
              edition. What will the undergraduates think? I suggest that most will
              start to yawn and only a few unusually curious ones will relish the
              prospect of investigating the differences between the editions.
              (2) We produce electronic copies of both editions and remove from them
              all dates and other obvious indications as to which came first. We then
              present them to non-biblical literature students and ask them if they
              can deduce which edition came first. I put it to you that they would
              have no difficulty in working out the correct answer.

              The analogy should be obvious. You may of course argue that I have
              stacked the deck in choosing this example. But the point is that there
              are thousands of examples out there which follow the pattern of
              improving the presentation and expanding the content by the addition of
              new material. There are very few with the reverse pattern.

              I wrote:

              >> To my mind the three Matthean
              >>references to "good" (good deed, what is good, who is good) are simply
              >>incoherent ......

              Thomas replied:

              >it seems to me that you
              >miss, or ignore, the point that I tried to make.

              That's because in your previous posting you simply made an assertion
              without spelling it out!

              Thomas added:

              > In Matthew the pericope reflects a Jewish custom of
              >referring to the Torah as "the good," and stresses the unity of the Torah
              >("the good is one").

              But the whole point of the pericope in both Mark and Matthew is that
              the Law is inadequate: the man has to do something (v.21) which is not
              explicitly demanded by the Law. To have praised the Law and then
              proceeded to imply it was inadequate would have been highly
              inconsistent.

              Thomas added:

              > If Matthew follows Mark, he has skillfully transformed a narrative
              >that focuses on a Christological issue into one that deals with Torah. He
              >has not, in a clumsy manner, created an incoherent narrative. Matthew is a
              >better author than that.

              I disagree. It is this very same author who presents Jesus as sitting
              on two animals simultaneously (Matt 21:7).

              Thomas added:

              >Indeed, your own arguments seem self-contradictory. On the one hand you
              >assert that if Matthew and Luke already existed there would be no reason
              >for Mark. On the other hand, you argue that Matthew's narrative is clumsy
              >and incoherent, one that you doubt a first century Christian could have
              >understood.

              Yes I think there were several details of Matthew which first century
              Christians would not have understood. But this was more than compensated
              for by the presence of the birth stories, the Sermon on the Mount, the
              resurrection story, etc.. There is no contradiction here.

              I wrote:

              >> We could poll a large number of
              >> Christians .......

              Leonard Maluf replied:

              > ....... The "favorite" Gospel
              >today (German, "beliebt") may well be Luke or Matthew, for a variety of
              >reasons. But this is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make, which is
              >that these Gospels had a relatively elite first-century individual as a
              >primary intended audience, and so it makes good sense to imagine a (late)
              >Gospel of Mark designed to reach a popular (should I use the German term
              >"vulgaer"? I had hoped to avoid this!) first-century audience with the
              >gospel message.

              Your distinction between the different meanings of popularity was
              relevant against my original assertion concerning the popularity of
              Matthew in the early centuries. Its popularity could have been a result
              of the more edutated Christians' preferential selection of Matthew for
              copying. This is why I suggested investigating its *current* ("vulgaer")
              popularity. For I maintain that Matthew was popular in this sense also.
              If so, there would have been no adequate motivation to produce Mark.

              Ron Price

              Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

              e-mail: ron.price@...

              Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
            • Jeffrey B. Gibson
              ... Um ... not first century (but close enough), the 1 & 2 Maccabees? @ Macc is an epitome of the longer history of Nicholas of Damascus, is it not? Yours,
              Message 6 of 18 , Feb 8, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                Ron Price wrote:

                > Let me counter by a different question. Do you know of any other first
                > century autograph at least 80% of which was copied from someone else's
                > work?

                Um ... not first century (but close enough), the 1 & 2 Maccabees? @ Macc is an
                epitome of the longer history of Nicholas of Damascus, is it not?

                Yours,

                Jeffrey
                --
                Jeffrey B. Gibson
                7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
                Chicago, Illinois 60626
                e-mail jgibson000@...
              • Thomas R. W. Longstaff
                I apologize in advance for the length of this posting. While I do want to challenge him at some points, I will try to get beyond a personal exchange with Dr.
                Message 7 of 18 , Feb 8, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  I apologize in advance for the length of this posting. While I do want to
                  challenge him at some points, I will try to get beyond a "personal"
                  exchange with Dr. Price to raise some substantive issues with, I trust,
                  some support for the views that I present.

                  At 03:32 PM 2/8/00 +0000, Ron Price wrote:
                  >Thomas Longstaff wrote:
                  >
                  > > If there were so little of value in Mark once
                  > >Matthew and Luke had been written, why would people even keep it around?
                  >
                  > It is indeed a wonder that Mark survived the first few centuries, for
                  >it was the "least read and esteemed in the early Church"
                  >(J.A.T.Robinson, q. in _The Birth of the Codex_, C.H.Roberts &
                  >T.C.Skeat, OUP, 1983). However it did contain the "gospel", and at a
                  >time when gospel copies were scarce a Christian owning a copy would
                  >surely have tried to preserve it.

                  Indeed. I have argued elsewhere that Mark intended just that: a
                  presentation of the "gospel" - as one can see from the opening verse
                  onward. I must confess that I wonder about the second assertion above. If
                  it were the case that anyone owning a text would surely have tried to
                  preserve it, how would we account for the disappearance of so many early
                  manuscripts? It might be so, however, this seems to me a reasonable but not
                  convincing line of argument.

                  > I wrote:
                  > >> Surely the only way to achieve widespread popularity would have been
                  > >>to include not only subtle themes and perspectives for the more
                  > >>thoughtful readers, but also lots of good new stories for the masses.
                  >
                  >Thomas replied:
                  >
                  > >Can you offer any firm evidence to support these statements about marketing
                  > >strategy in the ancient world or to show that such strategies were
                  > >functionally significant in gospel authorship?
                  >
                  > No, I can't. But the strategies I am proposing are more plausible than
                  >those posited to explain going to a lot of effort to create a cut-down
                  >version of existing gospel(s).

                  Would you agree to an emendation of the statement that the strategies you
                  propose are more plausible to some people than they are to others or would
                  you argue that they are inherently more plausible to all reasonable people?
                  In particular, it seems to me that these strategies would appear more
                  plausible to those who had already decided, on other grounds, that Mark was
                  the earliest gospel.

                  > Let me counter by a different question. Do you know of any other first
                  >century autograph at least 80% of which was copied from someone else's
                  >work?

                  No, I don't. Of course there is the Diatessaron of Tatian (but that isn't
                  first century and we don't possess the autograph). There is the small Greek
                  fragment of the Gospel of Peter which seems closely dependent on the
                  canonical gospels (but I can't be sure that the percentage would equal 80%
                  or better - it has been a long time since I've compared those texts -
                  again, we probably do not possess the autograph). So, you've got me there.
                  I can't cite a first century autograph with at least 80% of the work copied
                  from someone else. Now, to be fair, let me also answer a question with a
                  question. Do you know of any other first century autographs where two
                  authors independently copy from an earlier work, displaying the same
                  pattern of agreement and disagreement that we observe when we examine the
                  texts of Matthew, Mark and Luke? Such autographs, I'm sure you'll agree,
                  will be very helpful to consider in the ongoing discussion.

                  > On my shelves I have two copies (the second and third editions) of
                  >Duling & Perrin's excellent _The New Testament_. I would like to put to
                  >you two hypothetical scenarios.
                  >(1) A lecturer presents a year's NT introduction course covering all the
                  >topics in the third edition. At the beginning of the second year the
                  >lecturer says that the next term's work will be based on the second
                  >edition. What will the undergraduates think? I suggest that most will
                  >start to yawn and only a few unusually curious ones will relish the
                  >prospect of investigating the differences between the editions.
                  >(2) We produce electronic copies of both editions and remove from them
                  >all dates and other obvious indications as to which came first. We then
                  >present them to non-biblical literature students and ask them if they
                  >can deduce which edition came first. I put it to you that they would
                  >have no difficulty in working out the correct answer.
                  >
                  > The analogy should be obvious. You may of course argue that I have
                  >stacked the deck in choosing this example. But the point is that there
                  >are thousands of examples out there which follow the pattern of
                  >improving the presentation and expanding the content by the addition of
                  >new material. There are very few with the reverse pattern.

                  Well the reason for the analogy is, as you say, obvious. The relevance of
                  the example is far less so. As a teacher of undergraduates, I doubt that
                  many of them would "start to yawn." Most of them would think that there
                  were some reason for the change and be curious about that. They would, I
                  suggest, presume that the lecturer had a good reason for changing editions
                  (and was not doing something that was arbitrary or pointless) and, if they
                  were interested in the subject area, they would be interested to know what
                  was different in these two editions. In the differences they would find key
                  points important to their instructor. Other students, not a few perhaps,
                  knowing that the examinations would be based on the earlier edition would
                  think it in their best interest to have a look at that version. There does,
                  however, seem to me an analogy between the way you describe those
                  undergraduates who would yawn and Mark who would be a "mere copyist." As I
                  didn't accept your characterization of Mark, neither do I accept your
                  characterization of undergraduates and so your analogy doesn't work for me.

                  Also, there is something strange about you asking me for a very precise
                  example of a first century autograph from an author who copies his sources
                  with at least 80% agreement while you then present your case by referring
                  to hypothetical electronic versions of Duling/Perrin. I suppose that I
                  might suggest that you are attempting to stack the deck but you'd probably
                  consider that unfair of me or assure us all that you were certainly
                  intending no such thing. I must have simply misunderstood the importance
                  and relevance of this analogy.

                  Do you have evidence that there are "thousands of examples out there which
                  follow the pattern of improving the presentation and expanding the content
                  by the addition of new material. There are very few with the reverse
                  pattern." Is this an assertion or can you provide us the data? I don't have
                  the references at hand as I write, but I believe E. P. Sanders (and others)
                  have challenged this statement. Although I don't like this form of
                  argument, it is one that you have introduced. I suggest that there are a
                  significant number of student essays that, when compared with the sources
                  they have used, neither improve the presentation nor expand the content by
                  the addition of new material.

                  It seems to me that far too often arguments about ancient methods of
                  authorship are based upon speculation about what such authors would or
                  would not do rather than on careful analyses of what, if fact, they do.
                  Known examples of conflation (except for Tatian), relevant to the synoptic
                  gospels are hard to find, but they can be found. In EVIDENCE OF CONFLATION
                  IN MARK? A STUDY IN THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM, I have undertaken a careful
                  analysis of Tatian's method of conflation and attempted to describe some of
                  the literary characteristics that can be observed in that conflated
                  document. I am careful to acknowledge that the presence of these literary
                  characteristics in another document does not constitute "proof" that the
                  document in question is a conflation - other possible explanations must
                  also be considered - but the presence of these literary characteristics
                  increases the probability that it is.

                  To test this, especially with respect to the synoptic problem, I wanted to
                  find a series of texts where we knew that Author B had copied from Author A
                  and that Author C had copied from both A and B, conflating the two. Such
                  examples, where the sequence and relationship of the authors is clearly
                  known and uncontested, are (to my knowledge, at least) rare. I did find an
                  extensive case, however, among the chronicles of the English kings.
                  Benedict of Peterborough used the anonymous Passio Sancti Thomae when
                  composing his history. Subsequently, Roger of Hovedon drew upon both of
                  these documents when writing his own account. So that my analyses would not
                  be distorted by using printed versions of these texts, I journeyed to the
                  British Museum to compare the original (handwritten) copies of these
                  manuscripts. On the basis of this I attempted to make some general
                  statements about conflation, not as "rules that govern the process," but as
                  phenomena that can frequently be observed in conflated documents, even
                  those that span several centuries. The goal was to talk about conflation
                  somewhat less speculatively but with some reference to what authors who
                  conflate actually do. I find such analyses more likely to help us to
                  understand how ancient authors work than are analogies to marketing
                  strategies designed to achieve popularity for a work or the way in which
                  undergraduates write essays (or whatever). But we may have to agree that we
                  prefer different methods of analysis.

                  >I wrote:
                  >
                  > >> To my mind the three Matthean
                  > >>references to "good" (good deed, what is good, who is good) are simply
                  > >>incoherent ......
                  >
                  >Thomas replied:
                  >
                  > >it seems to me that you
                  > >miss, or ignore, the point that I tried to make.
                  >
                  > That's because in your previous posting you simply made an assertion
                  >without spelling it out!

                  I'm sorry. I had intended a reference to Lamar Cope's published work on
                  this pericope where the complete analysis can be found. To have copied all
                  of that from his book (MATTHEW: A SCRIBE TRAINED FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN)
                  would have made a very long message (even longer than this one is becoming).

                  >Thomas added:
                  >
                  > > In Matthew the pericope reflects a Jewish custom of
                  > >referring to the Torah as "the good," and stresses the unity of the Torah
                  > >("the good is one").
                  >
                  > But the whole point of the pericope in both Mark and Matthew is that
                  >the Law is inadequate: the man has to do something (v.21) which is not
                  >explicitly demanded by the Law. To have praised the Law and then
                  >proceeded to imply it was inadequate would have been highly
                  >inconsistent.

                  You write: "The whole point of the pericope in both Mark and Matthew is
                  that the Law is inadequate." It seems to me that you are doing exactly what
                  you accuse others of doing. Here you make an assertion without spelling it
                  out, and without offering any evidence whatsoever to support that
                  assertion. In literature that I have cited, Cope has argued, in part, that
                  this narrative, far from being incoherent as you assert, is actually
                  carefully modeled on Old Testament passages. His analyses, carefully
                  constructed, lead him to conclude that (1) there is a consistency in
                  viewpoint toward the validity of the Torah, (2) that there is a consistency
                  of terminology in speaking of the Law and the commandments, and (3) that
                  there is an application of the concept of perfection, which fits Matthew's
                  view of total discipleship. While you may not agree with Cope's analysis,
                  as I do, for you to ignore it completely while making unsupported
                  assertions of your own seems to me a strange way to carry on dialogue,
                  especially when you accuse others of simply making assertions without
                  spelling them out.

                  >Thomas added:
                  >
                  > > If Matthew follows Mark, he has skillfully transformed a narrative
                  > >that focuses on a Christological issue into one that deals with Torah. He
                  > >has not, in a clumsy manner, created an incoherent narrative. Matthew is a
                  > >better author than that.
                  >
                  > I disagree. It is this very same author who presents Jesus as sitting
                  >on two animals simultaneously (Matt 21:7).

                  Touche. And, I presume, that settles that. But this seems to me yet another
                  unsupported assertion that ignores those who have argued that this is not a
                  clumsy and incoherent comment in Matthew. Presumably you reject the
                  suggestion (to choose but one of several that have been offered) that
                  behind this phrase there is an allusion to Zechariah 9:9, and a common
                  Hebrew parallelism that has been misunderstood by later copyists who
                  preserved and reproduced the Greek manuscripts of the gospels. Since you
                  have established your view that Matthew is a clumsy author, this becomes a
                  prime example of that clumsiness, and you need do no more than point it
                  out. The problem is that similarly difficult passages occur in Mark as
                  well. In Mark 6, for example, your "brilliant" author has Jesus cross to
                  the other side of the lake and end up on the same side - only about five
                  miles further along the northern shore of the lake (if we accept the
                  traditional site for the multiplication of the loaves and fishes). Such
                  evidence does not seem to me at all decisive in considering the synoptic
                  problem. Is Mark a clumsy storyteller if he gets some of the geography
                  mixed up? I don't think so, but others may.

                  >Thomas added:
                  >
                  > >Indeed, your own arguments seem self-contradictory. On the one hand you
                  > >assert that if Matthew and Luke already existed there would be no reason
                  > >for Mark. On the other hand, you argue that Matthew's narrative is clumsy
                  > >and incoherent, one that you doubt a first century Christian could have
                  > >understood.
                  >
                  > Yes I think there were several details of Matthew which first century
                  >Christians would not have understood. But this was more than compensated
                  >for by the presence of the birth stories, the Sermon on the Mount, the
                  >resurrection story, etc.. There is no contradiction here.

                  You mention the resurrection story. I'll agree that Matthew's resurrection
                  story is coherent, but one might suggest that Mark was one of those early
                  (Gentile) Christians who did not understand Matthew - or at least the kind
                  of Jewish tradition preserved throughout that gospel and in the
                  resurrection narratives. For example, Mark 16:1 could be, and usually is,
                  understood to mean that the women were prevented from anointing the body of
                  Jesus earlier than the first day of the week because of the sabbath. In
                  Jewish tradition, however (Mishnah, Sabbath 23.5), anointing the body is
                  one of the things that is expressly permissable on the sabbath. In Matthew
                  (presumably) the women would have anointed the body but the posting of the
                  guard prevented it. That seems to me more coherent than what Mark has
                  written. Most Jews, reading that the women could not anoint the body
                  because it was the sabbath would probably have been very puzzled. Indeed,
                  Matthew's account of the women at the tomb requires an understanding of
                  Jewish burial custom that most later Christians - perhaps even Mark in Rome
                  - no longer knew. (Lest this be considered a simple assertion, the
                  discussion of the history and relevance of M Sab. 23:5 and other texts is
                  spelled out more fully in my article published in New Testament Studies in
                  1981, which will soon be republished, with some revision, in a volume
                  forthcoming from Sheffield Academic Press. I really can't repeat all of
                  that here).

                  With apologies to list members for the length of this posting and the hope
                  that I have dealt with some of the issues substantively this time (rather
                  than with simple assertions for which no evidence is offered), I'll close.

                  Best to all.

                  Tom Longstaff


                  Dr. Thomas R. W. Longstaff
                  Crawford Family Professor of Religious Studies
                  Director, African-American Studies Program
                  Colby College
                  4643 Mayflower Hill
                  Waterville, ME 04901-8846
                  Email: t_longst@...
                  Office phone: 207 872-3150
                  FAX: 207 872-3802
                • Mark Goodacre
                  Thanks to Ron Price and Thomas Longstaff for an interesting ... Isn t that the truth! The E.P. Sanders study is _The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition_
                  Message 8 of 18 , Feb 8, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thanks to Ron Price and Thomas Longstaff for an interesting
                    exchange. Two minor comments:


                    > Do you have evidence that there are "thousands of examples out there which
                    > follow the pattern of improving the presentation and expanding the content
                    > by the addition of new material. There are very few with the reverse
                    > pattern." Is this an assertion or can you provide us the data? I don't
                    > have the references at hand as I write, but I believe E. P. Sanders (and
                    > others) have challenged this statement. Although I don't like this form of
                    > argument, it is one that you have introduced. I suggest that there are a
                    > significant number of student essays that, when compared with the sources
                    > they have used, neither improve the presentation nor expand the content by
                    > the addition of new material.

                    Isn't that the truth! The E.P. Sanders study is _The Tendencies of
                    the Synoptic Tradition_ (SNTSMS 9; Cambridge: Cambridge
                    University Pres, 1969). It is a great and much underrated study.
                    One still sees errors being made in synoptic criticism that would
                    not have been made had the authors managed to consult Sanders.
                    I do not accept the Griesbach theory myself, but many a poor
                    argument against it is based on fallacies dealt with in Sanders's
                    data.

                    Ron Price wrote:

                    > > I disagree. It is this very same author who presents Jesus as sitting
                    > >on two animals simultaneously (Matt 21:7).

                    Thomas Longstaff replied:

                    > Touche. And, I presume, that settles that. But this seems to me yet
                    > another unsupported assertion that ignores those who have argued that this
                    > is not a clumsy and incoherent comment in Matthew. Presumably you reject
                    > the suggestion (to choose but one of several that have been offered) that
                    > behind this phrase there is an allusion to Zechariah 9:9, and a common
                    > Hebrew parallelism that has been misunderstood by later copyists who
                    > preserved and reproduced the Greek manuscripts of the gospels. Since you
                    > have established your view that Matthew is a clumsy author, this becomes a
                    > prime example of that clumsiness, and you need do no more than point it
                    > out.

                    Regardless of one's views on the relative priority of Matthew &
                    Mark, one might add that Matthew might not be such a fool here as
                    he is sometimes made out to be. There are indeed two animals
                    here, but Jesus is not depicted as riding on both of them in some
                    kind of acrobatic feat. What Matthew says (I think) is that he
                    mounts "them", viz. the garments. If I may paste from an old
                    message of mine to Synoptic-L (April 6 1998):

                    "What if the AUTWN here refers not to the animals but to the hIMATIA?:

                    KAI EPEQHKAN EP AUTWN TA hIMATIA, KAI EPEKAQISEN EPANW AUTWN

                    How might we test this possibility? Well, Matt. 21.8 goes on to
                    speak about the crowd throwing hEAUTWN TA hIMATIA on the ground,
                    apparently stressing "their own" garments, as if the focus in the
                    previous clause was not on AUTWN = animals but AUTWN = garments.

                    I wonder if this is a case of paying too much attention to Synoptic
                    parallels when one is doing exegesis? Mark speaks of Jesus
                    mounting AUTON = the donkey (11.7) and we cast our eye across the
                    synopsis to see AUTWN in Matt. and all too readily assume that this
                    is donkeys.

                    This doesn't help us with the oddity of Matthew deciding to be so
                    'literal' over Zech. 9.9 but it does, at least, prevent one from
                    reading the text as if it is something from Monty Python."

                    Mark
                    ---------------------------
                    Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                    Dept of Theology
                    University of Birmingham Fax.: +44 (0)121 414 6866
                    Birmingham B15 2TT Tel.: +44 (0)121 414 7512

                    http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                    All-in-One Biblical Resources Search
                    New Testament Gateway
                    Mark Without Q
                    Aseneth Home Page
                  • Thomas R. W. Longstaff
                    ... Thank you, Mark. Both of those comments were helpful. I was pretty sure that Ed had challenged the often heard statement about later authors nearly always
                    Message 9 of 18 , Feb 8, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 01:24 AM 2/9/00 +0000, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                      >Thanks to Ron Price and Thomas Longstaff for an interesting
                      >exchange. Two minor comments:

                      Thank you, Mark. Both of those comments were helpful. I was pretty sure
                      that Ed had challenged the often heard statement about later authors nearly
                      always improving the texts that they copy but didn't have the book handy to
                      check.

                      Thanks, too, for another of the possible readings of Matthew that makes
                      sense of the passage about riding on donkey. You are quite right that
                      making sense of this passage does not depend on any particular solution to
                      the synoptic problem.

                      Best,

                      trwl
                    • Maluflen@aol.com
                      In a message dated 2/8/2000 10:36:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, ron.price@virgin.net writes:
                      Message 10 of 18 , Feb 9, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 2/8/2000 10:36:13 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                        ron.price@... writes:

                        << Your distinction between the different meanings of popularity was
                        relevant against my original assertion concerning the popularity of
                        Matthew in the early centuries. Its popularity could have been a result
                        of the more edutated Christians' preferential selection of Matthew for
                        copying. This is why I suggested investigating its *current* ("vulgaer")
                        popularity. For I maintain that Matthew was popular in this sense also.
                        If so, there would have been no adequate motivation to produce Mark.>>

                        OK, this partially reflects a grasp of my distinction, but still not quite.
                        Mark had to be sure not only that the Gospel was "liked" by simple people,
                        who probably did like Matthew's Gospel, but that they were getting its real
                        challenge -- to them, in particular, and in particular circumstances. All of
                        which doesn't, of course, do anything to "prove" Markan posteriority; it
                        simply provides a fully intelligible setting and justification for a
                        hypothetically late Mark. Does Mark's Gospel make some points of evangelical
                        challenge more effectively to an audience of simple people in first-century
                        Roman pews than could the earlier, more sophisticated gospels? If so, then
                        the Mark we possess is intelligible as a late Gospel whose author drew from
                        Matt and Lk.

                        Leonard Maluf
                      • Ron Price
                        ... I ll take that as a compliment! But I do not have such a title. My qualifications are stated on my Web site. ... I think that to most people the strategies
                        Message 11 of 18 , Feb 10, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Thomas Longstaff wrote:

                          > ....... exchange with Dr. Price .......

                          I'll take that as a compliment! But I do not have such a title. My
                          qualifications are stated on my Web site.

                          I wrote:

                          >> the strategies I am proposing are more plausible than
                          >>those posited to explain going to a lot of effort to create a cut-down
                          >>version of existing gospel(s).

                          Thomas replied:

                          >Would you agree to an emendation of the statement that the strategies you
                          >propose are more plausible to some people than they are to others or would
                          >you argue that they are inherently more plausible to all reasonable people?

                          I think that to most people the strategies I propose are more plausible.

                          Thomas added:

                          > Do you know of any other first century autographs where two
                          >authors independently copy from an earlier work, displaying the same
                          >pattern of agreement and disagreement that we observe when we examine the
                          >texts of Matthew, Mark and Luke?

                          No.

                          I wrote:

                          >> I would like to put to you two hypothetical scenarios.
                          >>(1) A lecturer presents a year's NT introduction course covering all the
                          >>topics in the third edition [ of Duling & Perrin ] . At the beginning
                          of the second year the
                          >>lecturer says that the next term's work will be based on the second edition.

                          Thomas replied:

                          > Most of [ the students ] would think that there
                          >were some reason for the change .......

                          I think you may have missed the phrase "covering all the topics" in my
                          scenario. A lot of old ground would have to be gone over if the students
                          had to go back to the second edition. About the equivalent of reading
                          Mark after reading Matthew.

                          I wrote:

                          >>(2) We produce electronic copies of both editions and remove from them
                          >>all dates and other obvious indications as to which came first. We then
                          >>present them to non-biblical literature students and ask them if they
                          >>can deduce which edition came first. I put it to you that they would
                          >>have no difficulty in working out the correct answer.

                          Thomas replied:
                          > ....... I must have simply misunderstood the importance
                          >and relevance of this analogy.

                          The relevance of this analogy may be a matter of debate. But its
                          *point* is that when an author produces a new edition of a book (s)he
                          invariably adds new material. It is comparatively rare for an author to
                          produce a new edition which is shorter than the previous one. This is
                          the main reason why I suggested in my scenario that the literature
                          students would have no difficulty in deciding which was the later
                          edition.

                          If textbooks are not deemed relevant, we could look at the NT itself.
                          Most critical scholars take Ephesians to be an expansion of Colossians
                          and 2 Peter to be an expansion of Jude. Taking the synoptics as 'sub
                          judice', that is a 2-0 vote in favour of expansion.

                          Thomas added:

                          >Do you have evidence that there are "thousands of examples out there which
                          >follow the pattern of improving the presentation and expanding the content
                          >by the addition of new material. There are very few with the reverse
                          >pattern." Is this an assertion or can you provide us the data?

                          No, I don't have the data. It's an extrapolation from the few
                          textbooks I know where I am familiar with successive editions. Are you
                          saying I'm wrong in this?

                          Thomas added:
                          > I suggest that there are a
                          >significant number of student essays that, when compared with the sources
                          >they have used, neither improve the presentation nor expand the content by
                          >the addition of new material.

                          I wasn't referring to student essays. I would not want to compare
                          Mark's gospel with a student essay.

                          Thomas added:

                          >Known examples of conflation (except for Tatian), relevant to the synoptic
                          >gospels are hard to find, but they can be found.

                          Here we begin to get to the root of the problem.
                          Historical conclusions, especially where the data is scarce, depend on
                          an assessment of probabilities. I am not saying that it is impossible to
                          defend each determinative issue which relates to the supposed dependence
                          of Mark on Matthew. What I am saying is that many of the explanations
                          which you offer are improbable. Conflation is unusual. The idea that
                          "One alone is good" (Matt 19:17) refers to the Law may not be impossible
                          but it is very odd. Conjectural textual emendation of Matt 21:7 to
                          explain the sitting on two animals is most unlikely. (Mark Goodacre's
                          alternative explanation that the AUTWN refers to the garments rather
                          than the animals is also unlikely, for he admits that the mention of two
                          animals is a case of taking Zech 9:9 literally. But if Au_Matt wanted to
                          prove the fulfilment of scripture, as he frequently did elsewhere, and
                          if he didn't understand Hebrew parallelism, then he would have been
                          forced into presenting Jesus as sitting on two animals.) If we
                          notionally multiply all the improbabilities (as we must if we are to
                          make a logical assessment) we arrive at a hypothesis which is **very**
                          improbable.

                          I wrote:

                          >> But the whole point of the pericope in both Mark and Matthew is that
                          >>the Law is inadequate: the man has to do something (v.21) which is not
                          >>explicitly demanded by the Law. To have praised the Law and then
                          >>proceeded to imply it was inadequate would have been highly
                          >>inconsistent.

                          Thomas replied:

                          >You write: "The whole point of the pericope in both Mark and Matthew is
                          >that the Law is inadequate." It seems to me that you are doing exactly what
                          >you accuse others of doing. Here you make an assertion without spelling it
                          >out, and without offering any evidence whatsoever to support that
                          >assertion.

                          Firstly I didn't *accuse* you of anything. I merely stated a fact: you
                          hadn't spelt something out.
                          Secondly I *did* offer some evidence. Note the colon after
                          "inadequate" and the second part of the sentence, plus a further
                          sentence.

                          Thomas wrote:

                          > While you may not agree with Cope's analysis,
                          >as I do, for you to ignore it completely while making unsupported
                          >assertions of your own seems to me a strange way to carry on dialogue

                          I have not read any work by Cope. I had never even heard of this
                          author before you mentioned him/her.
                          If you provide the reference then I will try to locate a copy of the
                          article, but obviously it will be too late to influence the immediate
                          discussion.

                          Thomas wrote:

                          > Presumably you reject the
                          >suggestion (to choose but one of several that have been offered) that
                          >behind this phrase there is an allusion to Zechariah 9:9, and a common
                          >Hebrew parallelism that has been misunderstood by later copyists who
                          >preserved and reproduced the Greek manuscripts of the gospels.

                          I entirely agree with those who say that there is an allusion to Zech
                          9:9 and that the text in Matthew arises from a misunderstanding of
                          Hebrew parallelism.
                          But I would argue that it is Au_Matt's misunderstanding. I don't think
                          you'll find many Text Critics supporting such an unlikely change as you
                          appear to be suggesting.

                          Thomas wrote:

                          > In Mark 6, for example, your "brilliant" author has Jesus cross to
                          >the other side of the lake and end up on the same side .......

                          It is true that Au_Mark's knowledge of Palestinian geography was
                          flawed. Though I suspect that few of his early readers would have been
                          aware of this, so for them it would not have appeared as a blemish in
                          the Markan account. Even a genius isn't perfect. But Au_Mark's fault
                          here was probably lack of knowledge rather than clumsiness.

                          Thomas wrote:

                          > Most Jews, reading that the women could not anoint the body
                          >because it was the sabbath would probably have been very puzzled.

                          There is abundant evidence that Au_Mark misunderstood or
                          misrepresented Jewish customs, notably in Jesus' trial before the
                          Sanhedrin. (See e.g. S.G.F.Brandon, _The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth_,
                          London, Batsford, 1968)
                          But part of the brilliance of Au_Mark as a story teller was that he
                          produced such a plausible account that even today with the benefit of a
                          plethora of critical tools, many scholars still accept that there *was*
                          such a trial, in spite of the account's many inconsistencies and the
                          presence of a clear motive: to exonerate the Romans and implicate the
                          Jews in the death of Jesus.


                          Ron Price

                          Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                          e-mail: ron.price@...

                          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                        • Thomas R. W. Longstaff
                          I don t want to respond further to Ron Price. Each of us has made points that, I hope, will be valuable in the ongoing discussion. On many of them we differ,
                          Message 12 of 18 , Feb 10, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I don't want to respond further to Ron Price. Each of us has made points that, I hope, will be valuable in the ongoing discussion. On many of them we differ, and will continue to differ. That much is clear. Having made the points that I thought were important, I have no need to repeat them nor any desire to have the "last word." I reply only because I have one further contribution to this thread that I hope readers will find helpful.

                            Ron Price writes:

                              I have not read any work by Cope. I had never even heard of this
                            author before you mentioned him/her.
                              If you provide the reference then I will try to locate a copy of the
                            article, but obviously it will be too late to influence the immediate
                            discussion.

                            The book I referred to (not the only one Cope has written, by the way) is:

                            Cope, O. Lamar. Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, No. 5. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1976.

                            Most academic libraries, I believe, subscribe to the CBQMS.

                            For those interested, a bibliography of Cope's work can be found at http://www.colby.edu/rel/2gh/BiblioOLC.htm. This is reasonably complete but does not include, for example Beyond the Q impasse : Luke's use of Matthew by Allan J. McNicol, David L. Dungan and
                            David Barrett  Peabody,  to which volume Cope was also a contributing author.

                            Best wishes,

                            Tom Longstaff

                            Dr. Thomas R. W. Longstaff
                            Crawford Family Professor of Religious Studies
                            Director, African-American Studies Program
                            Colby College
                            4643 Mayflower Hill
                            Waterville, ME 04901-8846
                            Email: t_longst@...
                            Office phone: 207 872-3150
                            FAX: 207 872-3802
                          • Stephen C. Carlson
                            ... In addition to this book, if there s difficulty locating it, another good discussion is found in: Lamar Cope, The Argument Revolves: The Pivotal Evidence
                            Message 13 of 18 , Feb 10, 2000
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 03:01 PM 2/10/00 -0500, Thomas R. W. Longstaff wrote:
                              > The book I referred to (not the only one Cope has written, by the way) is:
                              >
                              > Cope, O. Lamar. Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven. The
                              >Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, No. 5. Washington, D.C.: The
                              >Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1976.

                              In addition to this book, if there's difficulty locating it, another
                              good discussion is found in:

                              Lamar Cope, "The Argument Revolves: The Pivotal Evidence for Markan
                              Priority is Reversing Itself" in William R. Farmer, ed., New Synoptic
                              Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond (Macon, Ga.: Mercer
                              University Press, 1983): 143-157.

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