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

[Synoptic-L] Jesus' True Kin case study

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    Members, I m compiling a digest of quotations and arguments of source critics in various case studies on selected pericopae. I would appreciate it if there is
    Message 1 of 45 , Jul 14, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Members,

      I'm compiling a digest of quotations and arguments of source critics
      in various case studies on selected pericopae. I would appreciate it
      if there is any major treatment by a source critic that I have missed
      that is non-conclusory (i.e. presenting conclusions without arguments).

      This case study focuses on the pericope of Jesus' True Kin.

      Matt 12:46-50 // Mark 3:31-35 // Luke 8:19-21

      MARKAN PRIORITY HYPOTHESIS -- Matthew and Luke dependent on Mark

      Theme: Disciples
      Allen 1913: (2SH) "It is in Mt.'s manner to make the reference [scil. those
      sitting in a circle about Him] apply specially to the disciples." (142)

      Theme: Jesus
      Davies & Allison 1991: (2SH) "The priority of Mark is indicated by the
      introduction in Mk 3:20f., which the authors of Matthew and Luke were moved
      to drop. They were reluctant to pass on information that Jesus' own thought
      him mad." (333, see also 362)

      Fatigue
      Davies & Allison 1991: (2SH) "It makes sense for Mk 3:31 to mention people
      'standing outside', for Jesus is in a house (cf. 3.20f.). But Matthew has
      failed to tell us what Mark has told us (cf. Lk 8.20). That is, in
      abbreviating his source, he has nelected to inform us what 12.46 evidently
      assumes, namely, that Jesus is inside. This is an example of imperfect
      editing, and evidence for the priority of Mark." (363, footnote omitted)

      Goodacre 1998: (FH) "Matthew has, therefore, in switching between sources at
      12.46, forgotten to refer to the house that had been mentioned earlier on by
      Mark. By reproducing Mark faithfully at this point, Matthew has
      inadvertently betrayed his hand, leaving the detective a key piece of
      evidence." (48, footnote omitted; see also 53)

      MATTHEAN PRIORITY HYPOTHESIS -- Mark (and Luke) dependent on Matthew

      Style: IDOU
      Chapman 1937: (AH) "It will be seen that IDOU is in every case easy to omit,
      but otiose to add." Matt 12:46 idou || Mark 3:31 omit (202)

      PROTO-MATTHEW HYPOTHESIS -- Mark and Matthew dependent on a common source
      (and Luke on Mark).

      Theme: Mark's Attitude to the Disciples
      Parker 1953: (Proto-Matthew+Q H) "In the light of this, it is very
      significant that K took the part of the Twelve but that Mark did not. ...
      Besides rejecting passages like the foregoing, Mark is in parallels to
      Matthew constantly derogatory of the Twelve." (104) "3. In Matthew, Jesus
      expresses confidence in the disciples. In Mark this confidence is placed in
      larger groups. [Matt] 12:49. The disciples are Jesus' 'mother and brothers.'
      [Mark] 3:34. Those who sat about him are his 'mother and brothers.'" (105,
      emphases original)

      Style: Roughness in the Greek
      Parker 1953: (Proto-Matthew+Q H) "In Matthew the Greek is usually smoother,
      and passages are frequently shorter, than at corresponding points in Mark.
      So far as these conditions hold, they indicate that Matthew has at many
      points polished the source material more than Mark has done. It does not
      follow, from this, that Mark was itself Matthew's source. Precisely the same
      situation would arise if two editors handled the same document
      independently. Futhermore, the inference that Matthew did the greater
      editing is open to two serious qualifications:" (42, footnote omitted) "2.
      Matthew does not always show more editorial finish than Mark. ... Consider,
      finally, the following passages, wherein Matthew averages about 17 per cent
      more words than Mark while adding little or nothing to the content--in
      several of them Mark actually tells more than Matthew does: ... Mark
      3:32b-35 ... Matt. 12:27-50 .... Thus while Mark's Greek is usually the more
      rougher, sometimes Matthew's is. Mark is usually more discursive, but often
      Matthew is. This is hard to explain if Matthew copied direct from Mark. It
      is easy to explain if both authors worked independently upon a common
      source." (43)

      LUKAN POSTERITY HYPOTHESIS -- Luke used Matthew in addition to Mark

      Minor Agreements
      Chapman 1937: (AH) "Where Luke seems not to follow Mark's order he is
      following Matthew. ... But in every place where Lk. has a parallel to Mk.
      against the order of Mk., Lk. shows agreements with Mt. against Mk." (110)
      The Mother and Brethren pericope is against the order of Mk. (111) "Lk. has
      no agreement with Mk. against Mt., but he has some slight agreements with
      Mt. against Mk. ... In the second verse Mt. and Lk. agree as to ESTHKASIN.
      Next they agree as to o de ... eipen, but then Lk. would not reproduce
      LEGEI, which he dislikes." (118)

      Butler 1951: (AH) "On general principles we should suppose that Luke, being
      in non-Marcan context, is not derived from Mark. If Matt. xii. 47 is
      authentic, Luke's passage is if anything more akin to Matthew's than to
      Mark's, and as usual in such cases is covered by the formula: dependence on
      Matthew, (possible) reminiscence of Mark, Lucan modification of Matthew's
      wording. To suppose that Matthew has here conflated Mark with Q (especially
      as Q gave him nothing that he could not find in Mark) would be unnatural and
      an offence against sound criticism." (13, footnotes omitted)

      Goulder 1989: (FH) "The Matthaean scroll may be laid on the shelf, but
      Matthew's familiar wording still echoes repeatedly in Luke's ears." (414)
      "Matthew omits Mark's 'and your sisters', and alters the phrasing to EXO
      ESTHKASIN followed by a phrase with the present participle; and Luke makes
      the same omission, and (almost) the same change of phrase. The most common
      defense here is textual doubt, for N-A26 brackets both Mt. 12.47 and 'and
      your sisters' in Mk 3.32. But Metzger's commentary justifies the inclusion
      of the Matthaean verse with force...." (417)

      Gundry 1994: (3SH) "That Luke also has esthkasin even though he lacks
      Matthew's parallelistic reason for its insertion (this is Luke's first and
      only reference to standing) suggests Matthean influence." (249)

      GRIESBACH CONFLATION HYPOTHESIS -- Mark is dependent on Matthew and Luke.

      None cited.

      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
    • David C. Hindley
      Tim said: ... lynched in 68 CE ... People s ... lynching in ... from ... That is, it rained. The silence on how the head and the body came apart fascinates
      Message 45 of 45 , Feb 17, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Tim said:

        <<"David C. Hindley" wrote:
        >
        > Karel Hanhart said:
        >
        > >>I take it then that the story of Mark having been
        lynched in 68 CE
        > should not be taken as a hard historical fact.<<
        >
        > More like a legend, I'd say. In both Aziz (1960's) and my
        People's
        > Bible Encyclopedia (1913), the same story appears: a
        lynching in
        > Alexandria circa 68 CE, with Mark's body being rescued
        from
        > destruction by the saints, through divine intervention,

        That is, it rained.

        The silence on how the head and the body came apart
        fascinates me.

        in order to be
        > interred under a church. Mark's headless body was later
        stolen from
        > the

        Venetian [DH: I think a church under the control of the
        Coptic Patriarch would be in Alexandria]

        > church (the head was in the possession of the Coptic
        Patriarch at
        > the time) and smuggled to Venice by merchants in a tub of
        pickled pork
        > (to evade inspection by Muslim police) circa 828.

        In 1968, centenary of Mark's death, it was returned to
        Alexandria, where
        I suppose you could go touch it if you wanted. Precisely
        what
        constitutes evidence for you?<<

        Sorry, but I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be.
        Maybe I can touch *a* head that is supposed to be St.
        Mark's, but I can go to an antiquities dealer and touch
        fragments of the "true cross" or the bones of any number of
        "saints."

        What I was getting at was that the tradition about Mark's
        body having been venerated in Alexandria is rather medieval
        and connected with the cult of relic veneration of that
        time. Before that time there is nothing about it in
        literature (unless I missed something).

        Respectfully,

        Dave Hindley
        Cleveland, Ohio, USA



        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.