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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Fallacies at the Heart of Q

Expand Messages
  • Yuri Kuchinsky
    ... [Mark Goodacre:]
    Message 1 of 14 , Jul 6, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      ----------
      > From: Maluflen@...
      > To: M.S.Goodacre@...; Synoptic-L@...
      > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Fallacies at the Heart of Q
      > Date: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 9:20 AM

      [Mark Goodacre:]
      <<The question that the Farrer Theory forces us to ask is this: does Luke's
      knowledge of Mark seem to be independent of Matthew's knowledge of Mark?
      Or are there signs that Luke knows not only Mark but also Matthew's
      reworking of Mark? >>

      > Compared to the evidence that exists, this final question seems to me to
      > imply a minimalist statement of Luke's indebtedness to Matthew.

      Dear Mark and Leonard,

      I'm glad to see that the idea of Lk being independent of Mt is being
      challenged. This part of 2ST is clearly untenable. Also I don't think it
      would be too surprising if some dependence of Mk on Mt can be demonstrated.

      But also we should not assume that Lk is necessarily all late and dependent
      on both Mk and Mt. In this, I agree with the recent post by Richard
      Anderson who pointed out that Luke's theology seems more primitive in a
      number of respects.

      You may recall that in my previous post of Apr 25, 2000 to Synoptic-L,
      entitled "Anointing Scene", I have argued for the priority of the Anointing
      Scene pericope in Lk, compared to Mt/Mk versions. So this is one example
      where Lk seems to contain some material that precedes both Mt and Mk.

      Now I have found some additional evidence that supports the priority of the
      Pepysian version of this pericope, and thus supports the idea that Lk
      preserves both the location of this pericope, and its original shape,
      better than Mt and Mk.

      More about this, in my next post.

      Best wishes,

      Yuri.

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

      Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated

      The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
      equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... Many thanks for your message, and your response has brought up many issues, including the need for me to clarify aspects of my statement. First, my
      Message 2 of 14 , Jul 7, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        At 07:44 AM 7/6/00 -0500, David Barrett Peabody wrote:
        >I, therefore, find it difficult to accept your claim that "few scholars who
        >have argued for Markan priority have even taken the trouble to discuss the
        >parts of Mark that appear less primitive than Matthew and/or Luke."
        >Consequently, I would also challenge your faulting of Dungan's observation
        >below on the basis of this claim.

        Many thanks for your message, and your response has brought up many
        issues, including the need for me to clarify aspects of my statement.

        First, my faulting of Dungan's observation was more of a back-handed
        dig against supporters of Markan priority, because I feel that many
        scholars in favor of Markan priority have simply not been thorough
        enough to consider the parts of Mark that appear less primitive, much
        less taken the step of explaining away the primitivity of those
        passages as due to an overlapping Q. For example, Stein's SYNOPTIC
        PROBLEM devotes 44 pages to establishing Markan priority (1987:
        45-88) but never raises the issue of parts of Mark being more
        primitive nor invokes Q. In fact, given Stein's methodology of
        proving Markan priority then proving Q (shared by Tuckett 1992),
        invoking Q in his argument for Markan priority would put the cart
        before the horse.

        Later on, Stein does discuss the Mark/Q overlap (1987: 100, 124-125),
        even citing Dungan's piece, but Dungan's criticisms are vis-a-vis
        primitivity are completely ignored. Rather, the troubling aspect
        to Stein is the existence of a literary relationship between Matthew
        and Luke that Mark cannot explain. Stein is not a pioneer here,
        because he basically follows Tuckett's treatment of the issue in
        REVIVAL, who wrote: "In fact, however, an overlap of sources is
        usually only postulated where Mark's account appears to offer a
        different version from the other two, but this different version
        need not necessarily be secondary." (1979: 77)

        Second, I intended, perhaps too unclearly, by "Markan priority"
        to mean priority of Mark over Matthew and Luke simpliciter as is
        commonly accepted now, not the priority of an Urmarkus that is
        no longer largely adopted. Also, Dungan's observation is about
        the use of Q to explain away alleged nonprimitivities, not about
        the use of Urmarkus.

        Koester is indeed a modern scholar who supports some kind of a
        proto-Mark, but this is due more to his theory about Morton
        Smith's Secret Mark than to purely intra-synoptic evidence.

        Thank you for citing Sanders's compilation of 46 or so suggested
        exceptions to the priority of Mark (1969: 290-293, *1985: 199-203);
        only two of these involve a Mark/Q overlap. In this connection,
        however, Sanders conceded that the broad view shown by the scholars
        who suggested these exceptions "has not become widely spread, and
        rigidity seems to be the rule." (1969: 279). Many of those cited
        by Sanders, e.g. J. Weiss, Bultmann, argued for an Urmarkus rather
        than pure Markan priority, and the others (Taylor, Black) really
        did not *argue* for Mark's priority. For example, Taylor wrote:
        "Significant of the stability of critical opinion is the fact
        that, in a modern commentary, it is no longer necessary to prove
        the priority of Mark." (Taylor 1952: 11, followed by a one sentence
        summary of Streeter 1924).

        This brings us to Streeter's FOUR GOSPELS (1924). It is true
        that Streeter addressed the Mark/Q overlaps on pp. 186-191,
        but Streeter did so to disavow his earlier (1911) position that
        Mark used Q. Streeter could have addressed the parts of Mark
        that were alleged to be secondary when he considered Jameson's
        revival of the traditional Augustinian Hypothesis; however,
        Streeter disposed of that hypothesis only by arguing that
        Mark is not an abbreviation (1924: 158). None of Streeter's
        arguments later in the chapter really addressed alleged
        nonprimitive features of Mark, except in respect to Urmarkus,
        where the concern is more about an extra-Markan connection
        between Matthew and Luke rather than alleged nonprimitivity:
        "The essential point that emerges is that in the great
        majority of cases where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark,
        the EXISTING TEXT OF MARK SEEMS THE MORE PRIMITIVE and
        original." (180, emphasis original) These remaining cases
        Streeter handled by textual criticism (181).

        Interestingly, Streeter did later admit "three cases where
        Matthew's account appears to be in some ways more original
        than Mark's" (259), but Streeter's explanation is to posit
        a Mark/M overlap. (259-261)

        In short, few scholars have (a) argued for Mark's priority,
        (b) recognized that parts of Mark are secondary, and (c) appealed
        to a Mark/Q overlap as the answer. Styler, cited by Dungan,
        is one example. Are there others?

        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
      • Brian E. Wilson
        Stephen Carlson wrote -- ... H. T. Fleddermann in Mark and Q (Leuven, 1995) claims to show -- (1) Everywhere in the overlap texts Mark is secondary to Q --
        Message 3 of 14 , Jul 7, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Stephen Carlson wrote --
          >
          >Few scholars have (a) argued for Mark's priority, (b) recognized that
          >parts of Mark are secondary, and (c) appealed to a Mark/Q overlap as
          >the answer. Styler, cited by Dungan, is one example. Are there
          >others?
          >
          H. T. Fleddermann in "Mark and Q" (Leuven, 1995) claims to show --

          "(1) Everywhere in the overlap texts Mark is secondary to Q" -- (heading
          of section on pages 209-210)

          "(2) In the overlap texts Mark reflects the redactional text of Q" --
          (heading of section on pages 211-213)

          "(3) The differences between Mark and Q in the overlap texts stem from
          Marcan redaction" -- (heading of section on pages 213 to 214).

          Best wishes,
          BRIAN WILSON

          E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk
          Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
          > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
          > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
        • Yuri Kuchinsky
          ... [omissions] ... I don t know if this is really so, Stephen. I m familiar with Koester s arguments in this regard, but I never got the impression that the
          Message 4 of 14 , Jul 7, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            ----------
            > From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
            > To: Synoptic-L@...
            > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Fallacies at the Heart of Q
            > Date: Friday, July 07, 2000 6:41 AM

            [omissions]

            > Koester is indeed a modern scholar who supports some kind of a
            > proto-Mark, but this is due more to his theory about Morton
            > Smith's Secret Mark than to purely intra-synoptic evidence.

            I don't know if this is really so, Stephen. I'm familiar with Koester's
            arguments in this regard, but I never got the impression that the Secret
            Mark really plays such a big role for him in this area. And in any case,
            according to Koester, Secret Mark was not a part of the proto-Mark, but a
            possible intermediate stage between it and the canonical Mk.

            One may also note that Alfred Loisy also argued for a proto-Mark that
            seemed very similar to the one Koester argues for currently but, for
            obvious reasons, Loisy could not have known about the Secret Mark.

            In general, among other things, both Loisy and Koester argue that proto-Mk
            is a good way to explain numerous agreements of Mt and Lk against the
            canonical Mk.

            Best regards,

            Yuri.

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

            Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy

            The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
            equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            ... Then you ought to be familiar with Koester s article History and Development of Mark s Gospel (From Mark to SECRET MARK and Canonical Mark ) in Bruce C.
            Message 5 of 14 , Jul 7, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              At 05:51 PM 7/7/00 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
              >> From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
              >> Koester is indeed a modern scholar who supports some kind of a
              >> proto-Mark, but this is due more to his theory about Morton
              >> Smith's Secret Mark than to purely intra-synoptic evidence.
              >
              >I don't know if this is really so, Stephen. I'm familiar with Koester's
              >arguments in this regard, but I never got the impression that the Secret
              >Mark really plays such a big role for him in this area.

              Then you ought to be familiar with Koester's article "History and
              Development of Mark's Gospel (From Mark to SECRET MARK and 'Canonical
              Mark')" in Bruce C. Corley, ed., COLLOQUY ON NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES:
              A Time for Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches (Macon, Ga.: Mercer U.
              Press, 1983), where Koester argues that ad hoc approaches to the
              Minor Agreements are less viable due to the "recent discovery of
              a SECRET GOSPEL OF MARK." (p.36)

              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
            • Stephen C. Carlson
              ... However, Fleddermann does not (a) argue for Mark s priority, he assumes it. Fleddermann does not actually (b) recognize that parts of Mark are secondary
              Message 6 of 14 , Jul 8, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                At 04:14 PM 7/7/00 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                >Stephen Carlson wrote --
                >>Few scholars have (a) argued for Mark's priority, (b) recognized that
                >>parts of Mark are secondary, and (c) appealed to a Mark/Q overlap as
                >>the answer. Styler, cited by Dungan, is one example. Are there
                >>others?
                >>
                >H. T. Fleddermann in "Mark and Q" (Leuven, 1995) claims to show --
                >"(1) Everywhere in the overlap texts Mark is secondary to Q"
                >"(2) In the overlap texts Mark reflects the redactional text of Q"
                >"(3) The differences between Mark and Q in the overlap texts stem from
                >Marcan redaction"

                However, Fleddermann does not (a) argue for Mark's priority, he assumes
                it. Fleddermann does not actually (b) recognize that parts of Mark are
                secondary to Matthew and Luke, because (see p.19) he compares Mark to his
                reconstruction of Q, which by his method is more primitive than either.
                Finally, Fleddermann does not (c) posit a Mark/Q overlap to save Markan
                priority by accounting for instances of alleged primitivity of either
                Matthew or Luke. Rather, Fleddermann takes the set of Mark/Q overlaps
                as a given and attempts to assess the relationship between Mark and Q.

                Dungan properly criticized Styler for appealing to Q to bolster his
                case for Markan priority. Since few scholars have followed Styler's
                here lead after Dungan's criticism, Dungan was successful and, in
                that respect, should not be faulted.

                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
              • Yuri Kuchinsky
                ... Yes, Stephen, I m familiar with this article by Koester, but I don t know how much can be based on this one phrase that you cite. The larger meaning of
                Message 7 of 14 , Jul 9, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----------
                  > From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
                  > To: Synoptic-L@...
                  > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Fallacies at the Heart of Q
                  > Date: Friday, July 07, 2000 10:46 PM
                  >
                  > At 05:51 PM 7/7/00 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
                  > >> From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
                  > >> Koester is indeed a modern scholar who supports some kind of a
                  > >> proto-Mark, but this is due more to his theory about Morton
                  > >> Smith's Secret Mark than to purely intra-synoptic evidence.
                  > >
                  > >I don't know if this is really so, Stephen. I'm familiar with Koester's
                  > >arguments in this regard, but I never got the impression that the Secret
                  > >Mark really plays such a big role for him in this area.
                  >
                  > Then you ought to be familiar with Koester's article "History and
                  > Development of Mark's Gospel (From Mark to SECRET MARK and 'Canonical
                  > Mark')" in Bruce C. Corley, ed., COLLOQUY ON NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES:
                  > A Time for Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches (Macon, Ga.: Mercer U.
                  > Press, 1983), where Koester argues that ad hoc approaches to the
                  > Minor Agreements are less viable due to the "recent discovery of
                  > a SECRET GOSPEL OF MARK." (p.36)

                  Yes, Stephen, I'm familiar with this article by Koester, but I don't know
                  how much can be based on this one phrase that you cite. The larger meaning
                  of this phrase, as cited, is not entirely clear. But Koester has dedicated
                  plenty of space in his later book "Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History
                  and Development", Cambridge, Mass., 1990, to the analysis of his proto-Mk
                  theory, and there he did not treat the Secret Mark as the central element
                  of his theory.

                  Also, recently I've read a very good treatment by Boismard of the problem
                  of possible pre-canonical gospel sources in Dungan, D.L. (ed.) 1990 _The
                  Interrelations of the Gospels_ (Leuven: Leuven University Press). These are
                  the proceedings of a Symposium led by Boismard, Farmer, and Neirynck. In
                  his article THEORIE DES NIVEAUX MULTIPLES, Boismard notes that these pMk
                  theories were already accepted by Bultmann, who was of course the teacher
                  of Koester. As Boismard says below, the main impetus for the acceptance of
                  these theories by the adherents of the 2ST was the need to explain the
                  agreements of Mt/Lk against Mk in the sections that they have in common,

                  "Pour rendre compte des accord Mt/Lk contre Mc, dans les sections qu'ils
                  ont en commun, nombre d'adeptes de la theorie des Deux Sources, dont
                  Bultmann, ont ete contraints d'admettre que Mt et Lc dependraient, non du
                  Mc actuel, mais d'une forme plus ancienne: proto-Marc ou Ur-Markus." (p.
                  232)

                  So then obviously this had nothing to do with the Secret Mark.

                  Regards,

                  Yuri.

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

                  Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated

                  The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                  equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                • Mark Goodacre
                  ... Thanks for this interesting point. It helps to contextualise Dungan s blessed overlap comment, which, after all, was written in 1970. At that time
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jul 14, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 8 Jul 00, at 13:53, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                    > Dungan properly criticized Styler for appealing to Q to bolster his
                    > case for Markan priority. Since few scholars have followed Styler's
                    > here lead after Dungan's criticism, Dungan was successful and, in
                    > that respect, should not be faulted.

                    Thanks for this interesting point. It helps to contextualise Dungan's
                    "blessed overlap" comment, which, after all, was written in 1970.
                    At that time Styler's defence of Marcan Priority (in Moule's _Birth of
                    the New Testament_ published in 1962) was pretty recent, so we
                    should not be surprised that Dungan picks up on it. I note that
                    G.M. Styler's much later and briefer statement, "Synoptic Problem"
                    in Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan (eds.), The Oxford
                    Companion to the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993),
                    pp. 724-7, does not make the same point. Indeed, the Mark-Q
                    overlaps are hardly referred to in this article and Styler focuses on
                    the Minor Agreements as more problematic.

                    Tuckett picks up on Dungan's comment in _Q and the History of
                    Early Christianity_, p. 34: "Contra Dungan, such an overlap is
                    postulated not to explain cases where a pericope in Matthew /
                    Luke is more primitive than in Mark, but simply where a different
                    version seems to have been used by Matthew and Luke alone". He
                    goes on to suggest that Mark-Q overlaps are "one of the strongest
                    arguments in favour of a form of the 2ST" but I think this quite
                    mistaken, for reasons I have begun to outline on the "Fallacies"
                    page on my Mark-Without-Q site.

                    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
                    Homepage
                    http://www.ntgateway.com
                    The New Testament Gateway
                  • Brian E. Wilson
                    Mark Goodacre wrote -- ... Just to comment on the argument considered in section 1 -- Marcan Priority is Identical to the Two-Source Theory . This can be set
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jul 26, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Mark Goodacre wrote --
                      >
                      >I've outlined what I see as "Five Fallacies at the Heart of Q" on a
                      >new page on my "Mark Without Q" site. This is a summary /
                      >introductory-level version of a paper I have prepared for the
                      >Synoptics Section at this year's SBL. I'd be grateful, of course, for
                      >comments or criticisms, either on-list or off.
                      >
                      Just to comment on the argument considered in section 1 --"Marcan
                      Priority is Identical to the Two-Source Theory". This can be set out as
                      an argument as follows --

                      A1. If we assume Marcan Priority, then the double tradition can be
                      explained only by assuming that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark
                      and a hypothetical source Q.

                      This would seem to be a fallacy because it does not allow for the
                      possibility that Matthew could in some way have obtained the double
                      tradition material, Luke then obtaining this from Matthew. We can set
                      this out as an argument --

                      A2. If we assume Marcan Priority then the double tradition can be
                      explained **EITHER** by assuming that Matthew and Luke independently
                      used Mark and a hypothetical source Q, **OR** by assuming that in some
                      way Matthew obtained the double tradition material, that Matthew used
                      Mark, and Luke used Mark and Matthew.

                      Now A2 shows that A1 is a fallacy only if A2 is a valid argument. Is A2
                      valid? Or is A2 perhaps a fallacy any way? That all depends. To show
                      that A2 is not fallacious we need to show that Matthew could have
                      obtained the double tradition material in some way.

                      So to show Al is a fallacy we need to show that Matthew could in some
                      way have obtained the double tradition.

                      I would suggest that the draft article "Fallacies at the Heart of Q"
                      does not show that A1 is a fallacy, because it fails to show that
                      Matthew could in some way have obtained the double tradition material.

                      I would also suggest that this is no easy task. For if the double
                      tradition was in Matthew, then of course Luke could have taken it from
                      Matthew. But how did the double tradition get into Matthew? Unless this
                      is explained, A2 is a fallacy.

                      It would seem there are two explanations of how the double tradition got
                      into Matthew, - (a) Matthew fabricated all the non-Marcan material in
                      his gospel out of his own head, including the double tradition which
                      Luke then obtained from Matthew, or (b) Matthew used source material
                      (oral or documentary) to obtain all the non-Marcan material in his
                      gospel, again Luke using some of this.

                      Now alternative (a) might not be regarded as an explanation of the
                      origin of the double tradition at all. Many would consider it most
                      improbable that the synoptist Matthew should have invented the whole of
                      the double tradition and the whole of special Matthew (some 560 verses
                      of material, that is more than half of the gospel of Matthew). On the
                      other hand, alternative (b) would also seem to have difficulties. For if
                      Matthew used source material, whether oral or documentary, how do we
                      know that this was not also available to Luke and used by him? Why
                      should not this hypothetical oral or documentary source have included
                      hypothetical Q? In other words, this could be Q being admitted by the
                      back door.

                      It seems to me, therefore, that it is not at all easy to show that A1 is
                      a fallacy by considering the theoretical alternative that Matthew used
                      Mark, and Luke used Matthew and Mark. If we affirm Marcan Priority and
                      dispense with Q, we still have to explain the occurrence of double
                      tradition material in Matthew.

                      Best wishes,
                      BRIAN WILSON

                      E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                      Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                      > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                      > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                      _
                    • Karel Hanhart
                      Thanks to Mark G. for posting his paper on the fallacies at the heart of Q. I now wish to reply to one of Leonard s comments. ... I think it was Dungan, Mark
                      Message 10 of 14 , Oct 31, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thanks to Mark G. for posting his paper on the fallacies at the
                        heart of Q. I now wish to reply to one of Leonard's comments.

                        At 09:20 AM 7/5/00 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
                        >That Q and Marcan Priority are inextricably linked should not, of course, be
                        >assumed. This does not mean, however, that a valid (even if circuitous)
                        >argument cannot be made that would show there is indeed a connection, and
                        >more than merely an historical one, between the theories of Marcan Priority
                        >and Q. I believe that Farmer has attempted to argue this, but I am not sure
                        >where.

                        I think it was Dungan, "Mark The Abridgement of Matthew and Luke" (1970:
                        1:73, *1985:160-61) who argued that "it seems that the existence of Q
                        has
                        always been essential to the argument for Mark's priority--precisely as
                        the loophole to invoke anytime one finds a pericope that is more
                        primitive
                        in Matthew and/or Luke when they were supposedly using Mark: the blessed
                        overlap!"

                        Dungan's observation can be faulted on the grounds that few scholars who
                        have argued for Markan priority have even taken the trouble to discuss
                        the parts of Mark that appear less primitive than Matthew and/or Luke.
                        Thus, the true reason for the acceptance of Markan priority must lie
                        elsewhere. G.M.Styler was a notable exception, and Styler did appeal
                        to Q or at least an overlapping source of Matthew that is alleged to
                        be more primitive than Mark.

                        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


                        Stephen,

                        I am arguing for Markan priority. And in a former posting I have offered
                        an example of "parts of Mark that appear less primitive than Matthew
                        and/or Luke".
                        It is Mark 1,2.3 that belongs to the triple tradition but with an odd
                        addition.
                        Mark announces a prophecy by Isaiah but starts out by citing Exod. and
                        Malachi.
                        As I understand it, Mark composed a midrash on Ex 23,20; Mal 3,1 and Isa
                        40,3.
                        Isa 40,3 reminds the reader at once of the text that follows re. the
                        "euaggelion"
                        and "euaggelizein" (Isa 40,9 ; cf Mk 1,1). This famous prophecy re.
                        Zion, herald
                        of good tidings was well loved in the early ecclesia as e.g. Paul's
                        letters demonstrate.
                        But in Mark's post-70 revision, the passage from Isaiah is now preceded
                        with a mixture
                        of passages from Exodus and Malachi. Space does not allow me to analyze
                        this opening
                        midrash in detail. But this curious phenomenon of NOT mentioning the
                        Torah and Malachi
                        was, I think, bound to draw the attention of his Christian Judean
                        (IOUDAIOI] readers
                        to precisely these preceding texts; in particular to the context of
                        judgment in
                        Malachi: The angel of JHWH "will purify the descendants of Levi".."by
                        fire" (Mal 3,2.3).
                        It is a fine example of a midrash . Mark still reminds his readers of
                        the beloved
                        passage re: "Zion, herald of good tidings", but at the outset of his
                        revision he
                        now reminds his readers in the ecclesia of the grim reality of the day:
                        Zion fallen, the temple (of the sons of Levi) in ruins, no parousia!
                        Mt and Lk still use Isa 40,3 but they have broken up Mark's midrash. Mt
                        applies the midrash
                        on Exod 23,20/Mal 3,1 strictly to the Baptizer alone and Lk later omits
                        this midrash
                        altogether and cites Isa 40,3-5 with regard to ther baptism of
                        repentance for the
                        forgiveness of sins. But both Matthew (3,3) and Luke (3,4) retain the
                        association
                        of Isaiah 40,3 with the mission of the Baptizer which they found in the
                        older pre-70 document.
                        And they refrain from using the word 'euaggelion' for their own title
                        (with the harsh
                        Markan combination with Mal 3) and they drop euaggelion where Mark had
                        introduced it to
                        clarify his specific use of euaggelion: 8,35; 10,29.

                        Would this example meet with your approval? How do you read it?

                        Karel





                        of a citation

                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • Bob MacDonald - AMA
                        ... “Luke-pleasing” elements of Matthew in the third Gospel. [19] In particular, we should not be surprised that Luke s version of Peter s Confession (Luke
                        Message 11 of 14 , Nov 1, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In the Fallacies article, Mark Goodacre writes:

                          >>We will expect to find, to use Austin Farrer's phrase, only the
                          “Luke-pleasing” elements of Matthew in the third Gospel. [19] In particular,
                          we should not be surprised that Luke's version of Peter's Confession (Luke
                          9.22-26) does not feature Matthew's additions about the ascendancy of Peter.
                          After all, Luke's Gospel is not as positive about Peter overall as is
                          Matthew's, and the narrative development of Luke-Acts – in which Peter
                          progressively recedes further and further into the background – would seem
                          to exclude the possibility of Luke's inclusion of the Matthean statement. It
                          is exactly the kind of Matthean addition to Mark that we would expect Luke
                          to omit. <<

                          The process of interpreting redaction seems to require the imputation of
                          likes and dislikes to the redactor.

                          While I might like the theory that requires fewer buttresses, how would you
                          know this if I didn't tell you? My inner likes and dislikes could follow
                          Occam's pattern or I might prefer something more Baroque and inefficient.

                          The above statement by Farrer is more light hearted than many statements of
                          motive. A quick for instance is the common appeal to 'competition' between
                          the BD and Peter in John. The Peter-preference of Matthew over Luke is also
                          being noted in the above quote. Am I right to contend that if there is to be
                          a 'preference' for Peter imputed to Au. Matthew or a 'preference' for others
                          in another Gospel, that it should have a measurable piece of evidence behind
                          it (other than the projection of our own likes and dislikes)?

                          Another example: "Luke is making clear that _he is critical_ of his
                          predecessors' work and that his radical re-ordering of Matthew is in the
                          interest of providing Theophilus with the truth of those things in which he
                          has been catechized."

                          How do we know that Luke is 'critical'? Is Matthew 'untrue' because Luke has
                          written things 'in order'? Is Matthew necessarily then 'out of order'? Luke
                          clearly tells us in some of his writing that there was sharp division among
                          believers. He does not say here that there is division between himself and
                          his source material in his Gospel. He specifically says they also wrote 'in
                          order'. (1:1) Unhappily, my Greek is insufficient to distinguish the nuance
                          of anatassomai (1:1) vs pasin akribos kathexis (1:3).

                          I read others saying that Luke is 'correcting' a prior Gospel. Without Luke
                          saying 'I am correcting so and so', it seems to me that the imputation of
                          correction as a motive is assuming too much. If I were to impute a motive to
                          Luke, I would say that he enjoyed the opportunity he had to teach
                          Theophilus. He was not operating out of a need to correct previous authors
                          at all.

                          Any comments - I don't mind being corrected.

                          Bob

                          mailto::BobMacDonald@...
                          + + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +

                          Catch the foxes for us,
                          the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
                          for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
                          http://members.home.net/bobmacdonald/homepage.htm



                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.