[Synoptic-L] Jesus' True Kin case study
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
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)
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)
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
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,
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
LUKAN POSTERITY HYPOTHESIS -- Luke used Matthew in addition to Mark
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.
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
- Tim said:
<<"David C. Hindley" wrote:
>lynched in 68 CE
> Karel Hanhart said:
> >>I take it then that the story of Mark having been
> should not be taken as a hard historical fact.<<People's
> More like a legend, I'd say. In both Aziz (1960's) and my
> Bible Encyclopedia (1913), the same story appears: alynching in
> Alexandria circa 68 CE, with Mark's body being rescuedfrom
> destruction by the saints, through divine intervention,That is, it rained.
The silence on how the head and the body came apart
in order to be
> interred under a church. Mark's headless body was laterstolen from
> theVenetian [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 CopticPatriarch at
> the time) and smuggled to Venice by merchants in a tub ofpickled pork
> (to evade inspection by Muslim police) circa 828.In 1968, centenary of Mark's death, it was returned to
I suppose you could go touch it if you wanted. Precisely
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
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).
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...