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

[Synoptic-L] Clement & Origen on the order of the Synoptics

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    We have got used to the fact that the external evidence is an aid to the theory of Matthean Priority -- it is the unanimous witness from Irenaeus onwards. In
    Message 1 of 30 , Jul 14, 2000
      We have got used to the fact that the external evidence is an aid to
      the theory of Matthean Priority -- it is the unanimous witness from
      Irenaeus onwards. In this respect, the external evidence is helpful
      to the Griesbach theory. I wonder, though, if enough has been
      made of the important disagreement in the external evidence over
      the relative order of Mark and Luke. Clement, let us remind
      ourselves, states that the Gospels with the genealogies predate
      Mark. Origen, on the other hand, clearly places Mark second and
      Luke third. Could it be that the unanimity over Matthean Priority
      simply resulted from the fact that his Gospel was the one with the
      apostle's name? If the key thing in the earliest discussions about
      the order of composition was the (supposed) apostolic authorship
      of Matthew, we will expect there to be some disagreement over the
      relative order of the non-apostolic Mark and Luke, and that is
      precisely what we find.

      Further, given that the Griesbach theory tends so to stress the
      Patristic evidence, is it not problematic that there is disagreement
      at such a key point for that theory, the point of whether or not Mark
      was indeed third? Of course there is a greater problem over the
      external evidence in relation to the theory of Marcan Priority, but
      then Marcan Priorists have not tended to lay much stress on the
      Patristic evidence. In other words, is the Patristic evidence in the
      end a double-edged sword for the Griesbach theory?

      What got me thinking about the question was re-reading the
      opening pages of Farmer's _Gospel of Jesus_ in which Clement is
      really stressed as an early witness to Griesbach, but Origen is not
      mentioned. If one is to lay so much stress on Clement, is one not
      vulnerable to the contradictory evidence from Origen?

      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
    • Peter M. Head
      Mark Goodacre, in an interesting post, wrote: Clement, let us remind ourselves, states that the Gospels with the genealogies predate Mark. Origen, on the
      Message 2 of 30 , Jul 14, 2000
        Mark Goodacre, in an interesting post, wrote:
        "Clement, let us remind ourselves, states that the Gospels with the
        genealogies predate Mark. Origen, on the other hand, clearly places Mark
        second and Luke third."

        I wonder these sort of statements are actually meant to be taken
        chronologically. Clement may well be, but Origen does not. Origen seems to
        be speaking, as Eusebius notes, 'defending the ecclesiastical canon', that
        he knows only four gospels: PRWTON Matthew, DEUTERON Mark, TRITON Luke, and
        then John. (acc. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. VI.xxv.3-5). As this is pretty close
        to the Muratorian Canon ('the third book of the Gospel is Luke ... the
        fourth book of the Gospels is John'), I would suggest that Origen (like
        many others) is simply following the order of his four-fold canon
        collection and not really making any point about the time of composition
        (in which he is not actually interested).

        Mark further suggested:
        "If the key thing in the earliest discussions about the order of
        composition was the (supposed) apostolic authorship of Matthew, we will
        expect there to be some disagreement over the relative order of the
        non-apostolic Mark and Luke, and that is precisely what we find."

        There is another early canonical ordering of the gospels, the so-called
        Western order, which has Matt, John, Luke, Mark. Perhaps this could have
        been a factor in divergent views of "the relative order" (understood not as
        relative time of composition, but as place in the canon) of Mark and Luke.

        Cheers

        Peter



        Dr. Peter M. Head
        Tyndale House
        36 Selwyn Gardens
        Cambridge CB3 9BA
        Tel: 01223 566607
        Fax: 01223 566608
        email: pmh15@...
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 7/14/2000 7:15:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk writes:
        Message 3 of 30 , Jul 14, 2000
          In a message dated 7/14/2000 7:15:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
          M.S.Goodacre@... writes:

          << We have got used to the fact that the external evidence is an aid to
          the theory of Matthean Priority -- it is the unanimous witness from
          Irenaeus onwards. In this respect, the external evidence is helpful
          to the Griesbach theory. I wonder, though, if enough has been
          made of the important disagreement in the external evidence over
          the relative order of Mark and Luke. >>

          You mention Irenaeus here as an early witness to Matthean priority, which is
          correct. It should be noted, however, that the disagreement over the relative
          order between Mark and Luke, which you also mention here, is found already
          within the work of Irenaeus himself (at least implicitly, in the sense that
          he sometimes mentions one, and sometimes the other first, when appearing to
          go through the evangelical witnesses in a systematic way, always beginning
          with Matthew.) Now the main (and perhaps the only? I am not absolutely sure
          about this) place in Irenaeus where Mark is mentioned before Luke is very
          significant, I think. In the passage in question, Irenaeus is explicitly
          attempting to establish an apostolic connection for each of the gospels.
          First, Matthew connects obviously with one of the twelve apostles; next,
          Irenaeus attempts to connect Mark and Luke with Peter and Paul respectively
          (Paul, by now, being regarded as a fully legitimate apostle). What is
          interesting here is that the order Mark -- Luke seems to be determined, not
          so much by the historical order in which these two Gospels were believed to
          have been written, but by the already well-established order Peter -- Paul,
          the two apostles with whom the writings of Mark and Luke respectively are to
          be linked. A careful reading of this very passage, moreover, suggests (I
          think) that Irenaeus thought Luke wrote before Mark: Mark is said to have
          written after the death of Peter, and Luke is said to have written down the
          Gospel which was being preached by Paul (present participle, if I remember
          correctly). Now Peter's and Paul's deaths are generally thought to have been
          virtually contemporary, so if Mark wrote after Peter died, and Luke wrote
          while Paul was preaching, then Luke presumably wrote before Mark. Elsewhere
          in Irenaeus, if I am not mistaken (and I would welcome correction here), Luke
          is always mentioned immediately after Matthew as an Evangelical witness, and
          Mark only thereafter.

          << Clement, let us remind
          ourselves, states that the Gospels with the genealogies predate
          Mark. Origen, on the other hand, clearly places Mark second and
          Luke third.>>

          I agree with Dr. Peter Head's comments on this fact. It remains true, then,
          that second century witnesses favor a Griesbach ordering of the Gospels, and
          Origen is simply reflecting an already established order (Mark -- Luke) in a
          solidifying canon which may well (I think) have originated from the type of
          reflections that wished to connect evangelists with the apostles and that
          were connecting Mark with Peter and Luke with Paul, as is done in the
          anomalous passage of Irenaeus mentioned above, in which Mark (for this
          reason?) is mentioned before Luke.

          << Could it be that the unanimity over Matthean Priority
          simply resulted from the fact that his Gospel was the one with the
          apostle's name? >>

          I don't think that the evidence supports this. There was no special
          "synoptic" sensitivity at the time, and "John", who was also an apostle, was
          said to have written last. Also, no clear (or even vague) connection is made
          between the apostolicity of Matthew and the priority of Matthew in any
          Patristic passage I know.

          << Further, given that the Griesbach theory tends so to stress the
          Patristic evidence, is it not problematic that there is disagreement
          at such a key point for that theory, the point of whether or not Mark
          was indeed third?>>

          I think the stress on Patristic evidence is a relatively recent phenomenon in
          Griesbach theory history. I do not believe Griesbach himself, or his early
          followers, made much of this evidence. It is the more recent (especially
          Catholic and Benedictine?) support of the theory that originally introduced
          that element, if I am not mistaken. For the record, it is not a major factor
          in my own support of the theory, even though I am of the opinion that the
          total disregard and even contempt for the Patristic evidence that has
          characterized much of the modern history of New Testament exegesis is unwise
          (not to say unconscionable).

          << Of course there is a greater problem over the
          external evidence in relation to the theory of Marcan Priority, but
          then Marcan Priorists have not tended to lay much stress on the
          Patristic evidence. In other words, is the Patristic evidence in the
          end a double-edged sword for the Griesbach theory?

          What got me thinking about the question was re-reading the
          opening pages of Farmer's _Gospel of Jesus_ in which Clement is
          really stressed as an early witness to Griesbach, but Origen is not
          mentioned. If one is to lay so much stress on Clement, is one not
          vulnerable to the contradictory evidence from Origen?>>

          I don't think so, for the reasons stated by Peter Head and also those given
          above.

          Leonard Maluf
        • Yuri Kuchinsky
          ... Mark, It is not all that clear that the patristic evidence is so unambiguous, and that it favours Matthean priority, i.e. the Griesbach theory. The
          Message 4 of 30 , Jul 14, 2000
            ----------
            > From: Mark Goodacre <M.S.Goodacre@...>
            > To: Synoptic-L@...
            > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Clement & Origen on the order of the Synoptics
            > Date: Friday, July 14, 2000 7:09 AM
            >
            > We have got used to the fact that the external evidence is an aid to
            > the theory of Matthean Priority -- it is the unanimous witness from
            > Irenaeus onwards. In this respect, the external evidence is helpful
            > to the Griesbach theory.

            Mark,

            It is not all that clear that the patristic evidence is so unambiguous, and
            that it favours Matthean priority, i.e. the Griesbach theory. The patristic
            evidence is pretty clear that Mk reflects the tradition coming directly
            from Peter, which seems reasonable, and may preserve a valid historical
            tradition. This would date Mk (or at least its early version) pretty early
            (especially considering some patristic reports that Peter was still alive
            when Mk was written). But all this would clearly contradict the idea that
            Mk was written late based on Mt and Lk. So I don't really find any great
            support for Griesbach in this. Or am I missing something?

            Good 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
          • Mark Goodacre
            ... Many thanks for your interesting comments. Yes, I see the point. If you are right that Origen does not necessarily provide any support for
            Message 5 of 30 , Jul 25, 2000
              On 14 Jul 00, at 13:52, Peter M. Head wrote:

              > Mark Goodacre, in an interesting post, wrote:
              > "Clement, let us remind ourselves, states that the Gospels with the
              > genealogies predate Mark. Origen, on the other hand, clearly places Mark
              > second and Luke third."
              >
              > I wonder these sort of statements are actually meant to be taken
              > chronologically. Clement may well be, but Origen does not. Origen seems to
              > be speaking, as Eusebius notes, 'defending the ecclesiastical canon', that
              > he knows only four gospels: PRWTON Matthew, DEUTERON Mark, TRITON Luke,
              > and then John. (acc. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. VI.xxv.3-5). As this is pretty
              > close to the Muratorian Canon ('the third book of the Gospel is Luke ...
              > the fourth book of the Gospels is John'), I would suggest that Origen
              > (like many others) is simply following the order of his four-fold canon
              > collection and not really making any point about the time of composition
              > (in which he is not actually interested).

              Many thanks for your interesting comments. Yes, I see the point.
              If you are right that Origen does not necessarily provide any
              support for Matthew-Mark-Luke as the order of composition, are
              there others before Augustine who do? What, for example, of the
              monarchian prologue of Luke? And does not Augustine give the
              impression that he is quoting tradition he has received? Might my
              general point about the contrast between order of composition for
              Mark-Luke still be made on evidence other than Origen's? In other
              words, am I right that there were conflicting traditions about the
              order of composition of Mark and Luke, something that remains
              troubling to the Griesbach Hypothesis with its characteristic stress
              on the value of patristic evidence?

              Leonard Maluf wrote on Irenaeus:

              > A careful
              > reading of this very passage, moreover, suggests (I think) that
              > Irenaeus thought Luke wrote before Mark: Mark is said to have written
              > after the death of Peter, and Luke is said to have written down the
              > Gospel which was being preached by Paul (present participle, if I
              > remember correctly). Now Peter's and Paul's deaths are generally
              > thought to have been virtually contemporary, so if Mark wrote after
              > Peter died, and Luke wrote while Paul was preaching, then Luke
              > presumably wrote before Mark. Elsewhere in Irenaeus, if I am not
              > mistaken (and I would welcome correction here), Luke is always
              > mentioned immediately after Matthew as an Evangelical witness, and
              > Mark only thereafter.

              Thanks for this -- also interesting. I'd be interested to hear what
              others (Peter?) think of this suggestion. The passage is helpfully
              set out by Stephen Carlson at
              http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ext/irenaeus.htm.

              One further question: has anyone commented on David Peabody's
              proposal that Augustine changed his mind later on and believed
              that Mark used Matthew and Luke (Book 4 of De Consensu
              Evangelistarum)? I note that both Dungan (_History_) and Farmer
              (_The Gospel of Jesus_) take it that Peabody is clearly right, but I
              wonder if the passage might be read in another way, as
              commenting on Mark's Gospel's agreement with Matthew / Luke
              rather than on Mark the evangelist's use of Matthew / Luke?

              Thanks for any help
              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
            • Peter M. Head
              Mark Goodacre asked: has anyone commented on David Peabody s proposal that Augustine changed his mind later on and believed that Mark used Matthew and Luke
              Message 6 of 30 , Jul 25, 2000
                Mark Goodacre asked:
                "has anyone commented on David Peabody's proposal that Augustine changed
                his mind later on and believed that Mark used Matthew and Luke (Book 4 of
                De Consensu Evangelistarum)?"

                It has always sounded fishy to me (mostly on the completely inadequate
                grounds that I though Augustine was reckoned to be a great logician and
                careful writer). There is a brief response in Tuckett's 'Response to the
                Two-Gospel Hypothesis' in _The Interrelations of the Gospels_ (ed. Dungan,
                1990) on p. 50f (basically that at this point Augustine is no longer
                speaking about actual/personal relationships between the evangelists, but
                about the symbolic relationships). It is probably preferable to thinking
                that Augustine changed his mind without really noticing it, but someone who
                has read more Augustine than me might help on this. In this passage Tuckett
                does not refer to anyone else (he may in _Revival_ because there is a
                chapter there on patristic testimonies, but I can't find it! the book that
                is).

                Before that Mark had asked:
                >If you are right that Origen does not necessarily provide any
                >support for Matthew-Mark-Luke as the order of composition, are
                >there others before Augustine who do? What, for example, of the
                >monarchian prologue of Luke? And does not Augustine give the
                >impression that he is quoting tradition he has received? Might my
                >general point about the contrast between order of composition for
                >Mark-Luke still be made on evidence other than Origen's? In other
                >words, am I right that there were conflicting traditions about the
                >order of composition of Mark and Luke, something that remains
                >troubling to the Griesbach Hypothesis with its characteristic stress
                >on the value of patristic evidence?

                But that is too many questions in one go for me. The Monarchian Prologues
                are quite explicit on chronology (Matthew is placed first and also wrote
                first; John wrote last of all and is therefore placed after Matthew [I know
                the logic is a problem, don't blame me]; Luke wrote after Matthew and Mark
                etc.); but this chronology is linked with the question of canonical
                placing. My guess is that these two issues were quite confused (or perhaps
                "connected" would be less prejudicial) in the minds of a number of early
                writers.
                I'm sure you are right to notice the selectivity of the GH use of patristic
                evidence. After all they miss Papias who might be taken to support Markan
                Priority (some might even add that Papias also knew about the Sayings
                Source!). Of course most GH folk focus on the order of composition
                traditions and do not so credit the authorship tradition (which seems to me
                to be wrong headed).

                >Leonard Maluf wrote on Irenaeus:
                >
                >> A careful
                >> reading of this very passage, moreover, suggests (I think) that
                >> Irenaeus thought Luke wrote before Mark: Mark is said to have written
                >> after the death of Peter, and Luke is said to have written down the
                >> Gospel which was being preached by Paul (present participle, if I
                >> remember correctly). Now Peter's and Paul's deaths are generally
                >> thought to have been virtually contemporary, so if Mark wrote after
                >> Peter died, and Luke wrote while Paul was preaching, then Luke
                >> presumably wrote before Mark. Elsewhere in Irenaeus, if I am not
                >> mistaken (and I would welcome correction here), Luke is always
                >> mentioned immediately after Matthew as an Evangelical witness, and
                >> Mark only thereafter.

                Well it is a present participle (TO UP' EKEINOU [I presume Paul, it might
                just possibly be argued that it refers to Luke himself] KHRUSSOMENON
                EUAGGELION), BUT so is the participle used in connection with Mark and
                Peter (TA UPO PETROU KHRUSSOMENA). So you can't have it both ways. Either
                Irenaeus can use a timeless present (most likely) or some other fairly
                loose explanation; or Peter was still preaching while Mark wrote. Neither
                of which could prove that Irenaeus believed in Lukan priority to Mark.
                [Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III.I.1-2; this section in Greek in Eus., Ecc. Hist.
                V.8.2]

                The counterpart to Leonard's "I would welcome correction here" is Peter's
                "I would welcome documentation here" (meant only in the sense that then we
                can all check these things up, either in books [relics of a by-gone era I
                know] or even in URLs [although URLs never have the Greek do they]).

                Lunch time I'm afraid. Sorry for the long post. Anyone for croquet?

                Peter



                Dr. Peter M. Head
                Tyndale House
                36 Selwyn Gardens
                Cambridge CB3 9BA
                Tel: 01223 566607
                Fax: 01223 566608
                email: pmh15@...
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                ... I can find the book (it is on my bookshelf). Tuckett s REVIVAL does not address Peabody s thesis about Augustine because Tuckett s book came out a few
                Message 7 of 30 , Jul 25, 2000
                  At 01:16 PM 7/25/00 +0100, Peter M. Head wrote:
                  >It is probably preferable to thinking
                  >that Augustine changed his mind without really noticing it, but someone who
                  >has read more Augustine than me might help on this. In this passage Tuckett
                  >does not refer to anyone else (he may in _Revival_ because there is a
                  >chapter there on patristic testimonies, but I can't find it! the book that
                  >is).

                  I can find the book (it is on my bookshelf). Tuckett's REVIVAL does
                  not address Peabody's thesis about Augustine because Tuckett's book
                  came out a few years before Peabody published his idea. Tuckett did
                  address the witness of Clement and Origen.

                  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
                • Maluflen@aol.com
                  In a message dated 7/25/2000 8:21:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, pmh15@cam.ac.uk writes: ... Well it is a present participle (TO UP EKEINOU [I presume Paul, it
                  Message 8 of 30 , Jul 25, 2000
                    In a message dated 7/25/2000 8:21:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                    pmh15@... writes:

                    << Leonard Maluf wrote on Irenaeus:
                    >
                    >> A careful
                    >> reading of this very passage, moreover, suggests (I think) that
                    >> Irenaeus thought Luke wrote before Mark: Mark is said to have written
                    >> after the death of Peter, and Luke is said to have written down the
                    >> Gospel which was being preached by Paul (present participle, if I
                    >> remember correctly). Now Peter's and Paul's deaths are generally
                    >> thought to have been virtually contemporary, so if Mark wrote after
                    >> Peter died, and Luke wrote while Paul was preaching, then Luke
                    >> presumably wrote before Mark. Elsewhere in Irenaeus, if I am not
                    >> mistaken (and I would welcome correction here), Luke is always
                    >> mentioned immediately after Matthew as an Evangelical witness, and
                    >> Mark only thereafter.

                    Well it is a present participle (TO UP' EKEINOU [I presume Paul, it might
                    just possibly be argued that it refers to Luke himself] KHRUSSOMENON
                    EUAGGELION), BUT so is the participle used in connection with Mark and
                    Peter (TA UPO PETROU KHRUSSOMENA). So you can't have it both ways. Either
                    Irenaeus can use a timeless present (most likely) or some other fairly
                    loose explanation; or Peter was still preaching while Mark wrote.>>

                    But isn't this latter possibility excluded by the phrase META DE THN TOUTWN
                    EXODON? However, I admit that the tenses here are extremely tricky. The fact
                    that a perfect tense verb (rather than an aorist or imperfect) is used to
                    describe Mark's writing (PARADEDWKEN) suggests that Irenaeus is thinking not
                    so much of the act of writing on the part of Mark as of the product of that
                    activity, the gospel of Mark itself -- which we have access to "after the
                    death of these two apostles", and which passes on the contents of the
                    preaching of one of them. So perhaps (I will now admit) there is no clear
                    indication here that Mark actually wrote after Peter and Paul had died.

                    << Neither
                    of which could prove that Irenaeus believed in Lukan priority to Mark.
                    [Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III.I.1-2; this section in Greek in Eus., Ecc. Hist.
                    V.8.2]>>

                    OK. I think this statement is correct. It is clear enough that Irenaeus
                    thought Matthew wrote first, and also that he knew John wrote last (note the
                    temporal particle EPEITA which leads off his discussion of John). There is,
                    however, no corresponding temporal particle for the case of Luke (KAI LOUKAS
                    DE... should of course be translated: "But Luke too..", the KAI being
                    adverbial here). Luke's writing seems to be contemporary with the preaching
                    of Paul (and although I admit now that the opposite cannot be said of Mark,
                    it can also not be said of Mark that his act of writing was contemporaneous
                    with the preaching of Peter in the thinking of Irenaeus). Is it still fair to
                    say then, as was one of my original points, that the order Mark -- Luke in
                    this passage of Irenaeus is dictated more by the established order Peter --
                    Paul than by chronological considerations relative to those two gospels?

                    Leonard Maluf
                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                    In a message dated 7/25/2000 7:20:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk writes:
                    Message 9 of 30 , Jul 25, 2000
                      In a message dated 7/25/2000 7:20:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                      M.S.Goodacre@... writes:


                      << Might my general point about the contrast between order of composition
                      for
                      Mark-Luke still be made on evidence other than Origen's? In other
                      words, am I right that there were conflicting traditions about the
                      order of composition of Mark and Luke, something that remains
                      troubling to the Griesbach Hypothesis with its characteristic stress
                      on the value of patristic evidence?>>

                      I think it is fair to say that there were conflicting traditions about the
                      order of composition of Mark and Luke. I suspect it would be difficult to
                      establish, however, that any of the traditions that clearly make the writing
                      of Luke posterior to the writing of Mark were not in fact influenced by, or
                      possibly even derived from, reflection on a canonical order that was
                      gradually emerging as normative. If, however, this order itself has anything
                      to do with my observations on the text of Irenaeus (namely that it was the
                      established order Peter -- Paul, and the connections of Mark and Luke
                      respectively with these two apostles, that determined that order in this
                      passage of Irenaeus), then these patristic traditions have little historical
                      value regarding the actual order of writing among the Synoptics. May I
                      reiterate, too, that it is probably inaccurate to speak of a "characteristic
                      stress on the value of patristic evidence" in the Griesbach Hypothesis camp.
                      I think this "stress on the value of patristic evidence" is a relatively
                      recent phenomenon and is unevenly distributed even among current supporters
                      of the Gospel Hypothesis.

                      Leonard Maluf
                    • Mark Goodacre
                      ... Many thanks of the reference to Tuckett -- I ll follow that up. I had begun thinking about the evidence from Augustine again having recently spent much
                      Message 10 of 30 , Jul 25, 2000
                        On 25 Jul 00, at 13:16, Peter M. Head wrote:

                        > There is a brief response in Tuckett's 'Response to the
                        > Two-Gospel Hypothesis' in _The Interrelations of the Gospels_ (ed. Dungan,
                        > 1990) on p. 50f (basically that at this point Augustine is no longer
                        > speaking about actual/personal relationships between the evangelists, but
                        > about the symbolic relationships).

                        Many thanks of the reference to Tuckett -- I'll follow that up.
                        I had begun thinking about the evidence from Augustine again
                        having recently spent much time with Dungan's _History_.
                        Dungan accepts Peabody's case but doesn't refer to anything
                        else on the passage. Thanks too to Stephen for the
                        reference in _Revival_ to Clement and Origen.

                        > But that is too many questions in one go for me. The Monarchian Prologues
                        > are quite explicit on chronology (Matthew is placed first and also wrote
                        > first; John wrote last of all and is therefore placed after Matthew [I
                        > know the logic is a problem, don't blame me]; Luke wrote after Matthew and
                        > Mark etc.); but this chronology is linked with the question of canonical
                        > placing. My guess is that these two issues were quite confused (or perhaps
                        > "connected" would be less prejudicial) in the minds of a number of early
                        > writers.

                        Also thanks for this and apologies for bombarding with questions. I
                        am trying to overcome, not before time and with much shame, the
                        standard NT scholar's squeamishness over serious study of
                        Patristic evidence on the Gospels. I wonder if Augustine marks the
                        point at which one gets a clear sign of a conscious break between
                        received canonical order and order of composition -- cf. "Hence,
                        there is one order to them in learning and preaching, and another in
                        writing" and the paragraph following (De Consensu Evangelistarum
                        1.3).

                        > I'm sure you are right to notice the selectivity of the GH use of
                        > patristic evidence. After all they miss Papias who might be taken to
                        > support Markan Priority (some might even add that Papias also knew about
                        > the Sayings Source!). Of course most GH folk focus on the order of
                        > composition traditions and do not so credit the authorship tradition
                        > (which seems to me to be wrong headed).

                        I have often wondered about Papias and Marcan Priority. Is it
                        simply that the order in which the comments are quoted is Mark-
                        Matthew or is there any more than that? (Sorry, more questions.
                        Don't feel obliged to answer).

                        > Well it is a present participle (TO UP' EKEINOU [I presume Paul, it might
                        > just possibly be argued that it refers to Luke himself] KHRUSSOMENON
                        > EUAGGELION), BUT so is the participle used in connection with Mark and
                        > Peter (TA UPO PETROU KHRUSSOMENA). So you can't have it both ways. Either
                        > Irenaeus can use a timeless present (most likely) or some other fairly
                        > loose explanation; or Peter was still preaching while Mark wrote. Neither
                        > of which could prove that Irenaeus believed in Lukan priority to Mark.
                        > [Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III.I.1-2; this section in Greek in Eus., Ecc. Hist.
                        > V.8.2]

                        Agreed; you get a similar impression from Origen, Mark written
                        according to Peter's instruction, Luke delivering the Gospel that
                        was praised by Paul.

                        > The counterpart to Leonard's "I would welcome correction here" is Peter's
                        > "I would welcome documentation here" (meant only in the sense that then we
                        > can all check these things up, either in books [relics of a by-gone era I
                        > know] or even in URLs [although URLs never have the Greek do they]).

                        URLs sometimes have Greek, though alas too little of the early
                        Christian literature in Greek has made it to the web. Stephen
                        Carlson has begun a very useful page with excerpts providing
                        "External Evidence in Synoptic Source Criticism"
                        (http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ext/index.htm)
                        featuring Latin, Greek (using "symbol" font) and English
                        translations, with links to further relevant resources on each page.

                        > Lunch time I'm afraid. Sorry for the long post. Anyone for croquet?

                        If I were in Cambridge, you could count me in.

                        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
                      • Maluflen@aol.com
                        In a message dated 7/25/2000 8:21:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, pmh15@cam.ac.uk writes:
                        Message 11 of 30 , Jul 25, 2000
                          In a message dated 7/25/2000 8:21:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                          pmh15@... writes:

                          << Mark Goodacre asked:
                          "has anyone commented on David Peabody's proposal that Augustine changed
                          his mind later on and believed that Mark used Matthew and Luke (Book 4 of
                          De Consensu Evangelistarum)?"

                          It has always sounded fishy to me (mostly on the completely inadequate
                          grounds that I though Augustine was reckoned to be a great logician and
                          careful writer). There is a brief response in Tuckett's 'Response to the
                          Two-Gospel Hypothesis' in _The Interrelations of the Gospels_ (ed. Dungan,
                          1990) on p. 50f (basically that at this point Augustine is no longer
                          speaking about actual/personal relationships between the evangelists, but
                          about the symbolic relationships). It is probably preferable to thinking
                          that Augustine changed his mind without really noticing it, but someone who
                          has read more Augustine than me might help on this. >>

                          I'm not sure I qualify as one who has read more Augustine than you, but have
                          you seen the article of H. J. de Jonge (if I remember correctly it may be
                          found in the third volume of The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift in honour of
                          Frans Neirynck) in which the author argues (again, if I remember correctly)
                          that Augustine is never really talking about dependence of one Evangelist on
                          another one's work, in the sense in which we would mean this, but rather he
                          is speaking of the relationships of the texts to each other (how, e.g., one
                          "follows" the other up to a point, etc., but not in the sense that it's
                          author necessarily knew and used the other). The article is worth reading
                          anyway, and I would be interested to hear feedback from others on it since I
                          remember having found it fairly persuasive myself (as an interpretation of
                          Augustine). I believe de Jonge was speaking mainly of the De Consensu... ,
                          but I could be wrong on this as well. I don't have the article before me as I
                          write. I think de Jonge's approach may be more promising than that of Tuckett
                          for those who think that a patristic argument for priority among the Synoptic
                          Gospel writers cannot safely rely on Augustine.

                          Leonard Maluf
                        • Stephen C. Carlson
                          ... Can we be so sure about this? Here is what Clement states: PROGEGRAFQAI ELEGEN TWN EUAGGELIWN TA PERIECONTA TAS GENEALOGIAS. Now, PROGRAFW has two
                          Message 12 of 30 , Jul 25, 2000
                            At 12:09 PM 7/14/00 +0100, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                            >Clement, let us remind
                            >ourselves, states that the Gospels with the genealogies predate
                            >Mark.

                            Can we be so sure about this? Here is what Clement states:
                            PROGEGRAFQAI ELEGEN TWN EUAGGELIWN TA PERIECONTA TAS GENEALOGIAS.

                            Now, PROGRAFW has two meanings. Of course, one meaning is
                            "to write beforehand", either in the same document (e.g. Eph 3:3)
                            or in an older document (e.g. Rom 15:4). This is the meaning
                            that Clement is commonly thought to have employed.

                            Another meaning, on the other hand, is "to show forth / portray
                            publicly", or "proclaim / placard in public" (e.g. Gal 3:1, see
                            BDAG, LSJ; cf. Latin PROSCRIBERE, "to publish in writing"). So,
                            could Clement have meant: "He said the those of the gospel having
                            the genealogies were proclaimed in public."?

                            I think so, because of its context in Clement's (not Eusebius's)
                            remarks.

                            After making that statement, Clement then explains the origin
                            of the gospel according to Mark (trans. from Mahlon's web site):

                            >but (DE) that the gospel according to Mark came about in this way: When Peter had
                            >publicly proclaimed the word & by the Spirit preached the gospel at Rome,
                            >those who were present, being many, urged Mark---as one of his [Peter's]
                            >long-time followers who remembered what was said---to make a record of what
                            >had been spoken. And he did this and distributed the gospel among those who
                            >had asked him. And when this matter came to Peter's attention, he neither
                            >strongly forbid it, nor urged it on.

                            In this passage, Clement is not concerned about the relative order
                            between Mark and the gospels with the genealogies, but with how
                            Mark was published: Peter was preaching publicly, Mark published
                            privately among some people, and when Peter found out about it,
                            Peter did not stop it.

                            The focus of Clement's comments on Mark is about the private nature
                            of Mark's composition. If these comments about Mark are meant to
                            contrast (cf. adversative DE) in any way with those about the
                            genealogy gospels, then it is best to understand PROGEGRAFQAI as
                            "proclaimed in public."

                            The main reason to understand PROGEGRAFQAI otherwise as "written
                            first" is Eusebius's, not Clement's, characterization of the
                            tradition: "But again in those very books Clement put a tradition
                            of the original elders ABOUT THE ORDER of the gospels, in the
                            following manner." I would submit that Eusebius has simply misread
                            Clement, as have others over the years. At any rate, Eusebius's
                            misreading is only temporary as he reverts to the traditional order
                            in other places.

                            The advantage of my interpretation over the common one is that
                            there is no tension between Clement's statement and his successor
                            Origen's statement. Origen states that Matthew composed for
                            the believers from Judaism and Luke composed for those from the
                            Gentiles. These are public compositions. On the other hand,
                            Origen only states that Mark wrotes as Peter led him, with no
                            implication about a public dissemination.

                            In its common interpretation, as mischaracterized by Eusebius,
                            Clement's testimony is an anomaly. In my interpretation,
                            Clement's interpretation fits comfortably with the rest of
                            tradition.

                            I have briefly checked Tuckett's response to the 2GH Position
                            Paper, Tuckett's REVIVAL, J. Wenham's REDATING THE SYNOPTICS,
                            Zahn's Commentaries, and George Kennedy's article cited by
                            Tuckett, and could not find anyone who proposed this idea.
                            So have I missed the boat on this one?

                            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
                          • Peter M. Head
                            Many thanks to Leonard for the info on H. J. de Jonge. Let s try to read it. Maybe Mark s theory ( I wonder if Augustine marks the point at which one gets a
                            Message 13 of 30 , Jul 26, 2000
                              Many thanks to Leonard for the info on H. J. de Jonge. Let's try to read
                              it. Maybe Mark's theory ("I wonder if Augustine marks the point at which
                              one gets a clear sign of a conscious break between received canonical order
                              and order of composition -- cf. "Hence, there is one order to them in
                              learning and preaching, and another in writing" and the paragraph following
                              (De Consensu Evangelistarum
                              1.3)") might be addressed in some form.

                              On Mark's question "I have often wondered about Papias and Marcan Priority.
                              Is it simply that the order in which the comments are quoted is
                              Mark-Matthew or is there any more than that?"
                              I think to be honest it is basically as simple as that, although Gundry
                              argues that something more is going on. He thinks Eusebius preserves a
                              continuous Papian text (itself reflecting the elder's tradition). Hence the
                              OUN in Eusebius' text, represents the original connective which expresses
                              the reason for Matthew's writing (i.e. to correct Mark's lack of order).
                              Eus., Eccl. Hist. III.39.15-16.
                              Gundry, Mark (1993), 1031-1032.

                              Peter


                              Dr. Peter M. Head
                              Tyndale House
                              36 Selwyn Gardens
                              Cambridge CB3 9BA
                              Tel: 01223 566607
                              Fax: 01223 566608
                              email: pmh15@...
                            • Mark Goodacre
                              ... Thankyou very much for this interesting post. I m almost convinced. The advantages you mention are obvious, e.g. it dispenses with the anomaly with which
                              Message 14 of 30 , Jul 26, 2000
                                On 25 Jul 00, at 23:54, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                                > In its common interpretation, as mischaracterized by Eusebius,
                                > Clement's testimony is an anomaly. In my interpretation,
                                > Clement's interpretation fits comfortably with the rest of
                                > tradition.

                                Thankyou very much for this interesting post. I'm almost convinced.
                                The advantages you mention are obvious, e.g. it dispenses with the
                                anomaly with which Clement presents us, all the more striking in that
                                Origen was Clement's student. My questions at the moment would be
                                (a) At what point does Eusebius begin quoting Clement? It seems
                                that the sentence you quote, beginning PROGEGRAFQAI, is
                                Eusebius indirectly quoting Clement, "he said concerning the gospels .
                                . ." etc. Does this in any way compromise your reading? I suppose
                                not, since Eusebius might still have read PROGEGRAFQAI in
                                Clement, and so begins the statement with this word. (b) Why the
                                perfect tense here? It makes sense on the standard reading as
                                something like "(in a state of having been) written first / beforehand"
                                but I can't work out how one might configure this on your reading. I
                                suppose it would be "to have been publicly proclaimed" but does this
                                give full force to the perfect?

                                Thanks
                                Mark
                                --------------------------------------
                                Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                                Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                                University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                                Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

                                http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                                Homepage
                                http://www.ntgateway.com
                                The New Testament Gateway
                              • Stephen C. Carlson
                                ... It has occurred to me that it is just as likely that we ve been misreading Eusebius as well. TAXIS can have several meanings, and the chronological
                                Message 15 of 30 , Jul 26, 2000
                                  At 11:54 PM 7/25/00 -0400, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                                  >The main reason to understand PROGEGRAFQAI otherwise as "written
                                  >first" is Eusebius's, not Clement's, characterization of the
                                  >tradition: "But again in those very books Clement put a tradition
                                  >of the original elders ABOUT THE ORDER of the gospels, in the
                                  >following manner." I would submit that Eusebius has simply misread
                                  >Clement, as have others over the years. At any rate, Eusebius's
                                  >misreading is only temporary as he reverts to the traditional order
                                  >in other places.

                                  It has occurred to me that it is just as likely that we've been
                                  misreading Eusebius as well. TAXIS can have several meanings,
                                  and the chronological meaning here is generally selected on
                                  account of the chronological understanding of PROGRAFW (See
                                  Orchard & Riley, ORDER OF THE SYNOPTICS, at p. 164). But, if
                                  PROGRAFW has the meaning of the public proclamation, as I have
                                  argued, then TAXIS need not have a chronological meaning as
                                  well. In this case, Eusebius's point may be as follows:

                                  But again in those very books Clement put a tradition
                                  of the original elders about the marshalling of the
                                  gospels, in the following manner.

                                  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
                                • Maluflen@aol.com
                                  In a message dated 7/25/2000 11:53:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, scarlson@mindspring.com writes: ... Can we be so sure about this? Here is what Clement states:
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Jul 26, 2000
                                    In a message dated 7/25/2000 11:53:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                    scarlson@... writes:

                                    << At 12:09 PM 7/14/00 +0100, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                                    >Clement, let us remind
                                    >ourselves, states that the Gospels with the genealogies predate
                                    >Mark.

                                    Can we be so sure about this? Here is what Clement states:
                                    PROGEGRAFQAI ELEGEN TWN EUAGGELIWN TA PERIECONTA TAS GENEALOGIAS.>>

                                    I have read Mark Goodacre's response to this post, and agree with him that
                                    you raise an interesting translation issue here. I also agree with Mark that
                                    there could be a weakness in your argument in the fact that you imply above
                                    that we are given the exact words of Clement in this passage of Eusebius. In
                                    fact, indirect discourse is employed throughout (ELEGEN, e.g., in the above,
                                    is not part of the "reported speech" of Clement). An example from the Gospels
                                    may indicate the problem with indirect discourse (excuse my assumption here
                                    that Mark wrote after Luke):

                                    In Lk 9:14, Jesus says to his disciples: KATAKLINATE AUTOUJ KLISIAS hWSEI ANA
                                    PENTHKONTA.

                                    Mk 6:39 reports this statement of Jesus in indirect discourse, as follows:
                                    KAI EPETAXEN AUTOIJ ANAKLIQHNAI PANTAJ SUMPOSIA SUMPOSIA EPI TW(I) CLWRW(I)
                                    CORTW(I).

                                    The substance of what Jesus said is preserved, but there is not a single
                                    verbal + formal agreement. My point is that it may have been more evident in
                                    the exact words of Clement, than it is in the indirect discourse of Eusebius,
                                    that Clement was thinking here in terms of chronology.

                                    << Now, PROGRAFW has two meanings. Of course, one meaning is
                                    "to write beforehand", either in the same document (e.g. Eph 3:3)
                                    or in an older document (e.g. Rom 15:4). This is the meaning
                                    that Clement is commonly thought to have employed.

                                    Another meaning, on the other hand, is "to show forth / portray
                                    publicly", or "proclaim / placard in public" (e.g. Gal 3:1, see
                                    BDAG, LSJ; cf. Latin PROSCRIBERE, "to publish in writing"). So,
                                    could Clement have meant: "He said the those of the gospel having
                                    the genealogies were proclaimed in public."?>>

                                    Is it not possible, though, that even if PROGRAFW has the meaning you give
                                    it, the passage might still imply the temporal priority of Matt and Lk to
                                    Mark: "He said that those gospels having the genealogies had been publicly
                                    proclaimed (i.e., before Mark came along, whose origins I will now explain)?

                                    << After making that statement, Clement then explains the origin
                                    of the gospel according to Mark (trans. from Mahlon's web site):

                                    >but (DE) that the gospel according to Mark came about in this way: When
                                    Peter had
                                    >publicly proclaimed the word & by the Spirit preached the gospel at Rome,
                                    >those who were present, being many, urged Mark---as one of his [Peter's]
                                    >long-time followers who remembered what was said---to make a record of what
                                    >had been spoken. And he did this and distributed the gospel among those who
                                    >had asked him. And when this matter came to Peter's attention, he neither
                                    >strongly forbid it, nor urged it on. >>

                                    Note that the indirect discourse is not maintained from the original in this
                                    translation. E.g. "..those who were present, being many, urged Mark..." In
                                    the Greek text, "urged" is still infinitive of indirect discourse
                                    (PARAKALESAI). I'm not sure what, if any, bearing this has on Stephen's
                                    point, however.

                                    <<In this passage, Clement is not concerned about the relative order
                                    between Mark and the gospels with the genealogies, but with how
                                    Mark was published: Peter was preaching publicly, Mark published
                                    privately among some people, and when Peter found out about it,
                                    Peter did not stop it.>>

                                    But if this is so, then Mark's private character is being contrasted with the
                                    public character of Peter's preaching (and not necessarily with the public
                                    character of Matt and Lk); it would follow that the contrastive DE at the
                                    beginning of the section on Mark could still have a chronological implication
                                    with respect to what was said before.

                                    <<The focus of Clement's comments on Mark is about the private nature
                                    of Mark's composition. If these comments about Mark are meant to
                                    contrast (cf. adversative DE) in any way with those about the
                                    genealogy gospels, then it is best to understand PROGEGRAFQAI as
                                    "proclaimed in public.">>

                                    OK. Although this somewhat begs the question, I will still admit for the
                                    moment that this is a translation possibility, and an interesting one at that.

                                    <<The main reason to understand PROGEGRAFQAI otherwise as "written
                                    first" is Eusebius's, not Clement's, characterization of the
                                    tradition: "But again in those very books Clement put a tradition
                                    of the original elders ABOUT THE ORDER of the gospels, in the
                                    following manner." I would submit that Eusebius has simply misread
                                    Clement, as have others over the years.>>

                                    It is of course allowable to disagree with Eusebius' interpretation here, but
                                    this should be done with caution. After all, Eusebius is a native Greek
                                    speaker interpreting the words of another native Greek speaker. Moreover,
                                    there would be no reason to suspect that Eusebius intentionally misconstrued
                                    the words of Clement here. (I am not claiming here that you say or imply
                                    this). He makes no yardage out of the priority of Matt and Luke with respect
                                    to Mark elsewhere in his writings.

                                    I would mention in conclusion, in case any of you have not heard this, that
                                    it has been argued (I cannot remember where) that in this passage Clement is
                                    not saying anything at all about the relative priority of Matt and Lk with
                                    respect to Mark, but only that the versions of these gospels (Matt and Lk)
                                    that include genealogies are older than the (heretical) versions floating
                                    around (of these same gospels) which omit the genealogies. Has anyone else
                                    heard this? Where did I read it? (A JBL article of about ten years ago??)
                                    Does it have any merit?

                                    Leonard Maluf
                                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                                    In a message dated 7/26/2000 10:27:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, M.S.GOODACRE@bham.ac.uk writes:
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Jul 26, 2000
                                      In a message dated 7/26/2000 10:27:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                      M.S.GOODACRE@... writes:

                                      << On PROGRAFW, it may be of interest that Lampe lists only the
                                      meaning that Stephen is suggesting, "set forth, show manifestly"
                                      (though without reference to this specifica passage in Eusebius), which
                                      makes it all the stranger that no-one has thought of this translation
                                      before. >>

                                      This is certainly interesting. But it should be kept in mind that the Lampe
                                      Patristic Dictionary makes no claim to being a complete lexicon in itself and
                                      is expected to be used in conjunction with Liddell and Scott, or equivalent.
                                      Numerous words in the Greek language, used by the Fathers, are simply not
                                      found at all in Lampe, presumably because Patristic usage in these cases
                                      agrees with standard classical and/or Koine usage.

                                      Leonard Maluf
                                    • Mark Goodacre
                                      ... Lampe (_Patristic Greek Lexicon_, ad loc) lists order in the chronological sense as a meaning of TAXIS but looking at his huge entry gives one some feel
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Jul 26, 2000
                                        On 26 Jul 00, at 9:53, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                                        > It has occurred to me that it is just as likely that we've been
                                        > misreading Eusebius as well. TAXIS can have several meanings,
                                        > and the chronological meaning here is generally selected on
                                        > account of the chronological understanding of PROGRAFW (See
                                        > Orchard & Riley, ORDER OF THE SYNOPTICS, at p. 164). But, if
                                        > PROGRAFW has the meaning of the public proclamation, as I have
                                        > argued, then TAXIS need not have a chronological meaning as
                                        > well. In this case, Eusebius's point may be as follows:
                                        >
                                        > But again in those very books Clement put a tradition
                                        > of the original elders about the marshalling of the
                                        > gospels, in the following manner.

                                        Lampe (_Patristic Greek Lexicon_, ad loc) lists "order" in the
                                        chronological sense as a meaning of TAXIS but looking at his huge
                                        entry gives one some feel of full range of meanings within Patristic
                                        literature, body of troops; post or place in the line of battle;
                                        orderliness, regularity; order, discipline, rule etc. etc. I can't see a
                                        specific comment on the Clement quotation in Eusebius above, though
                                        on the Papias quotation re. Mark he gives "*arrangement, system* in
                                        orderly composition of books, sentences etc."

                                        On PROGRAFW, it may be of interest that Lampe lists only the
                                        meaning that Stephen is suggesting, "set forth, show manifestly"
                                        (though without reference to this specifica passage in Eusebius), which
                                        makes it all the stranger that no-one has thought of this translation
                                        before.

                                        Mark
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                                        Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                                        University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                                        Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

                                        http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                                        Homepage
                                        http://www.ntgateway.com
                                        The New Testament Gateway
                                      • Maluflen@aol.com
                                        In a message dated 7/26/2000 7:29:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, pmh15@cam.ac.uk writes:
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Jul 26, 2000
                                          In a message dated 7/26/2000 7:29:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                          pmh15@... writes:

                                          << By the way Leonard, I found some examples of your general point (although
                                          it does not quite support your "always"):
                                          "Elsewhere in Irenaeus, if I am not mistaken (and I would welcome
                                          correction here), Luke is always mentioned immediately after Matthew as an
                                          Evangelical witness, and Mark only thereafter."


                                          In Book III, chs 9-10, when Irenaeus discusses proofs that the same God is
                                          declared by the prophets and the gospel he begins with proofs from Matthew
                                          (ch 9); then turns to Luke (ch 10.1-4); then Mark (10.5); then John (ch
                                          11.1-6).
                                          Then, in III.11.7 when he discusses the heretical misuse of the canonical
                                          gospels he does it in the order: Matt, Luke, Mark, John.
                                          These do not make any chronological claims.

                                          In III.11.8, following the four animal scene of Rev 4.7 he mentions the
                                          four in the order of John (= lion); Luke (= calf); Matt (= man); Mark (=
                                          eagle). >>

                                          Thanks, Peter, for doing my homework for me here. With a little rewording,
                                          though, I think my original statement can be maintained. It is clear that the
                                          order in which the evangelists are mentioned in the last case cited (A.H.
                                          III. 11. 8) is determined by the order of the living creatures in Rev 4:7,
                                          together with traditional applications of these to the evangelists (though
                                          were these in fact traditional already by Irenaeus' time? And are not the
                                          John and Mark identifications reversed in later Patristic reflection?). So,
                                          to rephrase my statement more accurately:

                                          "Elsewhere in Irenaeus, where the order of the evangelists is not clearly
                                          dictated by a textual and non-chronological factor, Luke is always mentioned
                                          immediately after Matthew as an Evangelical witness, and Mark only
                                          thereafter."

                                          Admittedly, the term "always" may still be misleading here, if it is true
                                          that the other two passages from Adversus Haereses cited by Peter are the
                                          only cases to which my universal statement would apply (and they may well be;
                                          they are the only ones I recall at the moment). Also, is there really any
                                          chronological implication in the order in which Irenaeus tends to cite the
                                          four Evangelists as witnesses (Matt, Lk, Mk, Jn) when a different order is
                                          not dictated by an evident, extra-chronological factor? It is not clear from
                                          the above passages that there is.

                                          Leonard Maluf
                                        • Stephen C. Carlson
                                          ... You are very welcome. ... I would guess the quotation is introduced by TOUTON ECOUSAN TON TROPON. This would imply that the subsequent ELEGEN is not
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Jul 26, 2000
                                            At 12:27 PM 7/26/00 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                                            >On 25 Jul 00, at 23:54, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                                            >Thankyou very much for this interesting post. I'm almost convinced.

                                            You are very welcome.

                                            >(a) At what point does Eusebius begin quoting Clement? It seems
                                            >that the sentence you quote, beginning PROGEGRAFQAI, is
                                            >Eusebius indirectly quoting Clement, "he said concerning the gospels .
                                            >. ." etc. Does this in any way compromise your reading? I suppose
                                            >not, since Eusebius might still have read PROGEGRAFQAI in
                                            >Clement, and so begins the statement with this word.

                                            I would guess the quotation is introduced by TOUTON ECOUSAN TON TROPON.
                                            This would imply that the subsequent ELEGEN is not Eusebius's referring
                                            to Clement, but Clement's referring to his source, one of the "original
                                            elders." I suspect, moreover, that this "original elder" is none other
                                            than Papias, based on Hist. Eccl. II 15.2, which refers to the story in
                                            Clement and cites Papias for confirmation. We know that Eusebius did
                                            not quote all of Papias's material in Hist. Eccl. III 39, because the
                                            Papian quotation has "Mark ... as I said followed Peter" lacks explicit
                                            antecedent basis. Clement's paraphrase of the original does recite that
                                            Mark followed Peter, supplying the substance of what's missing of Papias'
                                            testimony in Eusebius.

                                            >(b) Why the
                                            >perfect tense here? It makes sense on the standard reading as
                                            >something like "(in a state of having been) written first / beforehand"
                                            >but I can't work out how one might configure this on your reading. I
                                            >suppose it would be "to have been publicly proclaimed" but does this
                                            >give full force to the perfect?

                                            The perfect tense could ube sed to stress the present effect of
                                            the past action, namely that the gospels with genealogies are still
                                            very much public. Clement's Hypotyposeis was written earlier in
                                            his career, around the time of Irenaeus who wrote a treatise against
                                            various haeresies. Irenaeus's critique of the gnostics that the
                                            Apostles did not engage in secret teaching but preached openly.
                                            It is interesting to me, at least, that Clement's passage exhibits
                                            the same kind of concerns as Irenaeus and a desire to explain away
                                            the limited publication of the gospel of Mark (e.g. Mark is just
                                            Peter's public teaching, etc.). If Mark indeed was only published
                                            to a limited extent, this could explain why we see so little of
                                            Mark in the extant manuscripts.

                                            This would also require some nuancing of Bauckham's "Gospel for all
                                            Christians" proposal. Matthew and Luke and perhaps John are still
                                            gospels for all Christians, but Mark may have had a limited audience.

                                            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
                                            ... Thanks for your compliment. I addressed this in my response to Mark: the indirect discourse is of Clement s characterization of the testimony of one of
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Jul 26, 2000
                                              At 10:52 AM 7/26/00 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
                                              >I have read Mark Goodacre's response to this post, and agree with him that
                                              >you raise an interesting translation issue here. I also agree with Mark that
                                              >there could be a weakness in your argument in the fact that you imply above
                                              >that we are given the exact words of Clement in this passage of Eusebius. In
                                              >fact, indirect discourse is employed throughout (ELEGEN, e.g., in the above,
                                              >is not part of the "reported speech" of Clement).

                                              Thanks for your compliment. I addressed this in my response to Mark:
                                              the indirect discourse is of Clement's characterization of the
                                              testimony of one of the original elders.

                                              >Is it not possible, though, that even if PROGRAFW has the meaning you give
                                              >it, the passage might still imply the temporal priority of Matt and Lk to
                                              >Mark: "He said that those gospels having the genealogies had been publicly
                                              >proclaimed (i.e., before Mark came along, whose origins I will now explain)?
                                              ...
                                              >But if this is so, then Mark's private character is being contrasted with the
                                              >public character of Peter's preaching (and not necessarily with the public
                                              >character of Matt and Lk); it would follow that the contrastive DE at the
                                              >beginning of the section on Mark could still have a chronological implication
                                              >with respect to what was said before.

                                              I think it depends on how we want to understand the perfect tense
                                              here. Since the focus of the passage is not on chronology (it is
                                              at best incident), but on the nature of publication of the gospels,
                                              this implication may not have been intended on Clement's part.

                                              >It is of course allowable to disagree with Eusebius' interpretation here, but
                                              >this should be done with caution. After all, Eusebius is a native Greek
                                              >speaker interpreting the words of another native Greek speaker. Moreover,
                                              >there would be no reason to suspect that Eusebius intentionally misconstrued
                                              >the words of Clement here. (I am not claiming here that you say or imply
                                              >this). He makes no yardage out of the priority of Matt and Luke with respect
                                              >to Mark elsewhere in his writings.

                                              This is why I revisited the meaning of TAXIS and found grounds that
                                              Eusebius may not have have had chronological order in mind. Later
                                              readers of Eusebius like Sedulius Scottus would be the ones to
                                              misconstrue Clement and Eusebius.

                                              >I would mention in conclusion, in case any of you have not heard this, that
                                              >it has been argued (I cannot remember where) that in this passage Clement is
                                              >not saying anything at all about the relative priority of Matt and Lk with
                                              >respect to Mark, but only that the versions of these gospels (Matt and Lk)
                                              >that include genealogies are older than the (heretical) versions floating
                                              >around (of these same gospels) which omit the genealogies. Has anyone else
                                              >heard this? Where did I read it? (A JBL article of about ten years ago??)
                                              >Does it have any merit?

                                              I have read this too, but can't recall who made this argument. It is
                                              an interesting if somewhat forced conjecture because the gospel of the
                                              Ebionites lacks the genealogy of Matthew and Marcion's gospel lacks
                                              Luke's genealogy.

                                              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
                                            • Maluflen@aol.com
                                              In a message dated 7/27/2000 2:45:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, scarlson@mindspring.com writes: ... that ... In ... above, ...
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Jul 27, 2000
                                                In a message dated 7/27/2000 2:45:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                                scarlson@... writes:

                                                << At 10:52 AM 7/26/00 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
                                                >I have read Mark Goodacre's response to this post, and agree with him that
                                                >you raise an interesting translation issue here. I also agree with Mark
                                                that
                                                >there could be a weakness in your argument in the fact that you imply above
                                                >that we are given the exact words of Clement in this passage of Eusebius.
                                                In
                                                >fact, indirect discourse is employed throughout (ELEGEN, e.g., in the
                                                above,
                                                >is not part of the "reported speech" of Clement).

                                                << I addressed this in my response to Mark:
                                                the indirect discourse is of Clement's characterization of the
                                                testimony of one of the original elders.>>

                                                I think you are almost certainly right here, and my above cited remark was
                                                wrong.

                                                [You wrote to Mark]

                                                <>

                                                I haven't fully sorted this all out yet, but it seems very plausible at first
                                                sight.

                                                >Is it not possible, though, that even if PROGRAFW has the meaning you give
                                                >it, the passage might still imply the temporal priority of Matt and Lk to
                                                >Mark: "He said that those gospels having the genealogies had been publicly
                                                >proclaimed (i.e., before Mark came along, whose origins I will now explain)?
                                                ...
                                                >But if this is so, then Mark's private character is being contrasted with
                                                the
                                                >public character of Peter's preaching (and not necessarily with the public
                                                >character of Matt and Lk); it would follow that the contrastive DE at the
                                                >beginning of the section on Mark could still have a chronological
                                                implication
                                                >with respect to what was said before.

                                                << I think it depends on how we want to understand the perfect tense
                                                here. Since the focus of the passage is not on chronology (it is
                                                at best incidental), but on the nature of publication of the gospels,
                                                this implication may not have been intended on Clement's part.>>

                                                Yes. "It may have.." (my comment) implies "it may not have" (yours). I am not
                                                yet fully persuaded of your translation of PROGRAFW, though it is certainly
                                                worthy of (and is receiving) due consideration.

                                                >It is of course allowable to disagree with Eusebius' interpretation here,
                                                but
                                                >this should be done with caution. After all, Eusebius is a native Greek
                                                >speaker interpreting the words of another native Greek speaker. Moreover,
                                                >there would be no reason to suspect that Eusebius intentionally
                                                misconstrued
                                                >the words of Clement here. (I am not claiming here that you say or imply
                                                >this). He makes no yardage out of the priority of Matt and Luke with
                                                respect
                                                >to Mark elsewhere in his writings.

                                                <<This is why I revisited the meaning of TAXIS and found grounds that
                                                Eusebius may not have had chronological order in mind. Later
                                                readers of Eusebius like Sedulius Scottus would be the ones to
                                                misconstrue Clement and Eusebius.>>

                                                Yes, I saw this comment of yours as well, and believe it too has merit. You
                                                should really write and publish an article on the subject.

                                                >I would mention in conclusion, in case any of you have not heard this, that
                                                >it has been argued (I cannot remember where) that in this passage Clement
                                                is
                                                >not saying anything at all about the relative priority of Matt and Lk with
                                                >respect to Mark, but only that the versions of these gospels (Matt and Lk)
                                                >that include genealogies are older than the (heretical) versions floating
                                                >around (of these same gospels) which omit the genealogies. Has anyone else
                                                >heard this? Where did I read it? (A JBL article of about ten years ago??)
                                                >Does it have any merit?

                                                << I have read this too, but can't recall who made this argument. It is
                                                an interesting if somewhat forced conjecture because the gospel of the
                                                Ebionites lacks the genealogy of Matthew and Marcion's gospel lacks
                                                Luke's genealogy.>>

                                                Thanks for this evaluation. I hope to hear from others on this point as well.

                                                One further point. When you are trying to establish the original context of
                                                the Elder's remarks cited by Clement, who in turn is cited by Eusebius (and I
                                                don't think you went that far back in any of your posts thus far), it would
                                                be important, I think, to inquire why Matt and Lk are referred to by the
                                                precise designation "the gospels with genealogies". It strikes me as not an
                                                obvious way to refer to these gospels, and perhaps the phrase contains a key
                                                to what the elder was after in the cited statement. (I have no idea, at the
                                                moment, where such an inquiry might lead).

                                                Leonard Maluf
                                              • Maluflen@aol.com
                                                In a message dated 7/26/2000 11:04:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Maluflen@aol.com writes:
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Jul 27, 2000
                                                  In a message dated 7/26/2000 11:04:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                                  Maluflen@... writes:

                                                  << I would mention in conclusion, in case any of you have not heard this,
                                                  that
                                                  it has been argued (I cannot remember where) that in this passage Clement is
                                                  not saying anything at all about the relative priority of Matt and Lk with
                                                  respect to Mark, but only that the versions of these gospels (Matt and Lk)
                                                  that include genealogies are older than the (heretical) versions floating
                                                  around (of these same gospels) which omit the genealogies. Has anyone else
                                                  heard this? Where did I read it? (A JBL article of about ten years ago??)
                                                  Does it have any merit? >>

                                                  I am quite sure I can answer my own question now. The article I was thinking
                                                  of is by Denis Farkasfalvy (abbot of a mostly Hungarian community of
                                                  Cistercian monks who run an excellent prep school in Dallas, Texas, and a
                                                  good man, and good scholar: I know him personally): "The Presbyters' Witness
                                                  on the Order of the Gospels as Reported by Clement of Alexandria", CBQ 54
                                                  (2, '92) 260-270.

                                                  Leonard Maluf
                                                • Stephen C. Carlson
                                                  ... I have recently uploaded the relevant texts of Origen and Clement of Alexandria for those who want to see the Greek. In contrast with previously pages,
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Jul 28, 2000
                                                    At 01:16 PM 7/25/00 +0100, Peter M. Head wrote:
                                                    >The counterpart to Leonard's "I would welcome correction here" is Peter's
                                                    >"I would welcome documentation here" (meant only in the sense that then we
                                                    >can all check these things up, either in books [relics of a by-gone era I
                                                    >know] or even in URLs [although URLs never have the Greek do they]).

                                                    I have recently uploaded the relevant texts of Origen and Clement of
                                                    Alexandria for those who want to see the Greek. In contrast with
                                                    previously pages, these pages use the SPIonic font with the full
                                                    panoply of accentuation (which occasionally confuses the Internet
                                                    Explorer word-wrap algorithm).

                                                    The URL is:
                                                    http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ext/index.htm

                                                    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
                                                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                                                    In a message dated 7/27/2000 7:30:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Maluflen@aol.com writes:
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , Jul 28, 2000
                                                      In a message dated 7/27/2000 7:30:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                                      Maluflen@... writes:

                                                      << In a message dated 7/27/2000 2:45:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                                      scarlson@... writes:

                                                      << At 10:52 AM 7/26/00 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      >there could be a weakness in your argument in the fact that you imply
                                                      above
                                                      >that we are given the exact words of Clement in this passage of Eusebius.
                                                      > In fact, indirect discourse is employed throughout (ELEGEN, e.g., in the
                                                      > above, is not part of the "reported speech" of Clement).

                                                      [Stephen]
                                                      << I addressed this in my response to Mark:
                                                      the indirect discourse is of Clement's characterization of the
                                                      testimony of one of the original elders.>>

                                                      [Leonard]
                                                      << I think you are almost certainly right here, and my above cited remark was
                                                      wrong.>>

                                                      Having looked at the article of Farkasfalvy ("The Presbyters' Witness on the
                                                      Order of the Gospels as Reported by Clement of Alexandria", CBQ 54 [1992]
                                                      260-270)
                                                      I am again wavering on this point. On p. 260, n. 2, Farkasfalvy seems to
                                                      support my original reading (that ELEGEN is not part of the "reported speech"
                                                      of Clement, and is therefore not to be taken as a citation within a citation
                                                      expressing the opinion of a particular "elder"), when he writes: "This phrase
                                                      seems to imply a faithful but not verbatim quotation of Clement's text. The
                                                      sentences that follow are governed by ELEGEN and present, therefore Clement's
                                                      material in indirect discourse" (which was my original point, I think, if I
                                                      understand this footnote correctly).
                                                      Against Stephen's view of the matter is the fact that there is no singular
                                                      antecedent for the subject of ELEGEN in the cited text of Eusebius prior to
                                                      the appearance of this verb, and so it is quite natural to take Clement as
                                                      the subject of the verb, with the consequence that ELEGEN is not part of
                                                      Clement's "reported speech". On the other hand, I have a problem with the way
                                                      Farkasfalvy translates the first sentence of the quote from Eusebius:

                                                      "Again in these same books Clement has presented the tradition of the ancient
                                                      presbyters on the order of the Gospels (PERI TEJ TAXEWJ TWN EUAGGELIWN) in
                                                      the following manner (TOUTON ECOUSAN TON TROPON)".

                                                      It may be a fine point, but the phrase "in the following manner" in the above
                                                      translation seems to modify the verb "presented", whereas in the Greek
                                                      original the phase clearly modifies "tradition" (PARADOSIN). This could make
                                                      a difference, I think, possibly in the direction of supporting Stephen's
                                                      overall reading.

                                                      Farkasfalvy's main point in the article in question is that an anachronism is
                                                      introduced if the expression "the order of the gospels" is taken to mean, at
                                                      the level of the utterance of the presbyters, the order between our four
                                                      canonical gospels, which did not at that time form an established canon. F.
                                                      further argues that such an understanding of the phrase would still be
                                                      anachronistic for the time of Clement, and that only for the context of
                                                      Eusebius' own writing can the witness of the presbyters have been (wrongly)
                                                      harnessed to support a particular order of writing among our canonical
                                                      gospels. F. writes: "This problem pertains to the theological world of
                                                      Eusebius with his famous 'Gospel canons' but fits poorly with the issues that
                                                      concern Clement of Alexandria, not to speak of 'the ancient presbyters' who
                                                      lived at least a generation before Clement and could not have been concerned
                                                      with the order of the four Gospels".

                                                      My only problem with this solution is that, if understanding this tradition
                                                      of the presbyters in this way (namely as indicating an order among the four
                                                      gospels that places Luke before Mark) reflects the concerns of Eusebius, why
                                                      does he not elsewhere sustain or propagate this order? Or does he? I don't
                                                      think he does so anywhere else, even in his famous "canons", does he?

                                                      Also, does anyone know why David Dungan does not discuss this opinion of
                                                      Clement (as usually understood) in "A History of the Synoptic Problem"? (Or
                                                      is his index incomplete?) Was he convinced by Farkasfalvy's arguments in the
                                                      article under discussion? Perhaps David can answer this himself.

                                                      Leonard Maluf
                                                    • Stephen C. Carlson
                                                      ... This is a fine article; I read this very carefully over the weekend. ... I too am wavering, but I don t think it really affects my thesis. Even if
                                                      Message 26 of 30 , Jul 31, 2000
                                                        At 10:07 AM 7/28/00 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
                                                        >Having looked at the article of Farkasfalvy ("The Presbyters' Witness on the
                                                        >Order of the Gospels as Reported by Clement of Alexandria", CBQ 54 [1992]
                                                        >260-270)

                                                        This is a fine article; I read this very carefully over the weekend.

                                                        >I am again wavering on this point. On p. 260, n. 2, Farkasfalvy seems to
                                                        >support my original reading (that ELEGEN is not part of the "reported speech"
                                                        >of Clement, and is therefore not to be taken as a citation within a citation
                                                        >expressing the opinion of a particular "elder"), when he writes: "This phrase
                                                        >seems to imply a faithful but not verbatim quotation of Clement's text. The
                                                        >sentences that follow are governed by ELEGEN and present, therefore Clement's
                                                        >material in indirect discourse" (which was my original point, I think, if I
                                                        >understand this footnote correctly).

                                                        I too am wavering, but I don't think it really affects my thesis. Even if
                                                        PROGRAFW is Eusebius's term, it still can be understood that way, but the
                                                        value of Clement's testimony, held by Farmer to be the "earliest and best,"
                                                        is vitiated.

                                                        >Against Stephen's view of the matter is the fact that there is no singular
                                                        >antecedent for the subject of ELEGEN in the cited text of Eusebius prior to
                                                        >the appearance of this verb, and so it is quite natural to take Clement as
                                                        >the subject of the verb, with the consequence that ELEGEN is not part of
                                                        >Clement's "reported speech".

                                                        By the way, Zahn reportes a variant reading, ELEGON. If accepted, this
                                                        difficulty vanishes.

                                                        >Clement's "reported speech". On the other hand, I have a problem with the way
                                                        >Farkasfalvy translates the first sentence of the quote from Eusebius:
                                                        >
                                                        >"Again in these same books Clement has presented the tradition of the ancient
                                                        >presbyters on the order of the Gospels (PERI TEJ TAXEWJ TWN EUAGGELIWN) in
                                                        >the following manner (TOUTON ECOUSAN TON TROPON)".
                                                        >
                                                        >It may be a fine point, but the phrase "in the following manner" in the above
                                                        >translation seems to modify the verb "presented", whereas in the Greek
                                                        >original the phase clearly modifies "tradition" (PARADOSIN). This could make
                                                        >a difference, I think, possibly in the direction of supporting Stephen's
                                                        >overall reading.

                                                        Perhaps we should take F.'s comprise: a faithful but a non-literal
                                                        rendering by Eusebius, for example, taking Clement's verbs and putting
                                                        them into the infinitives of indirect discourse.

                                                        ...
                                                        >My only problem with this solution is that, if understanding this tradition
                                                        >of the presbyters in this way (namely as indicating an order among the four
                                                        >gospels that places Luke before Mark) reflects the concerns of Eusebius, why
                                                        >does he not elsewhere sustain or propagate this order? Or does he? I don't
                                                        >think he does so anywhere else, even in his famous "canons", does he?

                                                        Gamba pointed out that the canons (which may not have been original
                                                        to Eusebius) reflect the order Matt-Luke-Mark-John. For example, Canon
                                                        III Matt-Luke-John is followed by Canon IV Matt-Mark-John, and Canon V
                                                        Matt-Luke is followed by Canon VI Matt-Mark, by Canon VII Matt-John,
                                                        and then by Canon VIII Luke-Mark and Canon IX Luke-John. This does not
                                                        imply, however, a chronological order. Eusebius' own exposition on the
                                                        order of composition in Book II, however, is the traditional order
                                                        Matt-Mark-Luke-John.

                                                        >Also, does anyone know why David Dungan does not discuss this opinion of
                                                        >Clement (as usually understood) in "A History of the Synoptic Problem"? (Or
                                                        >is his index incomplete?) Was he convinced by Farkasfalvy's arguments in the
                                                        >article under discussion? Perhaps David can answer this himself.

                                                        Despite the title, Dungan's book gives very little attention to
                                                        merits of the Synoptic Problem proper. In contrast with Farmer,
                                                        who leads with Clement's tradition, Dungan's own case for the 2GH
                                                        in his other writings relegates Clement to the fourth argument as
                                                        a minor point of corroboration.

                                                        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
                                                      • Maluflen@aol.com
                                                        In a message dated 7/31/2000 11:57:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, scarlson@mindspring.com writes:
                                                        Message 27 of 30 , Aug 1, 2000
                                                          In a message dated 7/31/2000 11:57:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                                          scarlson@... writes:

                                                          <<
                                                          [Leonard]
                                                          >I am again wavering on this point. On p. 260, n. 2, Farkasfalvy seems to
                                                          >support my original reading (that ELEGEN is not part of the "reported
                                                          speech"
                                                          >of Clement, and is therefore not to be taken as a citation within a
                                                          citation
                                                          >expressing the opinion of a particular "elder"), when he writes: "This
                                                          phrase
                                                          >seems to imply a faithful but not verbatim quotation of Clement's text. The
                                                          >sentences that follow are governed by ELEGEN and present, therefore
                                                          Clement's
                                                          >material in indirect discourse" (which was my original point, I think, if I
                                                          >understand this footnote correctly).

                                                          I too am wavering, but I don't think it really affects my thesis. Even if
                                                          PROGRAFW is Eusebius's term, it still can be understood that way, but the
                                                          value of Clement's testimony, held by Farmer to be the "earliest and best,"
                                                          is vitiated.>>

                                                          I never intended to suggest that PROGRAFW is Eusebius's term. I suggested, as
                                                          you do below, that the infinitive form comes from Eusebius and is influenced
                                                          by his citation in indirect discourse. I think it's very likely, though, that
                                                          the term is Clement's. Yes, if the term does not have the meaning "written
                                                          before", then its value as a witness to a 2 GH order is vitiated, whether the
                                                          term is Eusebius's or Clement's.

                                                          [Leonard]
                                                          >Against Stephen's view of the matter is the fact that there is no singular
                                                          >antecedent for the subject of ELEGEN in the cited text of Eusebius prior to
                                                          >the appearance of this verb, and so it is quite natural to take Clement as
                                                          >the subject of the verb, with the consequence that ELEGEN is not part of
                                                          >Clement's "reported speech".

                                                          By the way, Zahn reportes a variant reading, ELEGON. If accepted, this
                                                          difficulty vanishes.>>

                                                          Interesting. Few of us are deep into textual criticism of the Ecclesiastical
                                                          History of Eusebius.

                                                          >On the other hand, I have a problem with the way
                                                          >Farkasfalvy translates the first sentence of the quote from Eusebius:
                                                          >
                                                          >"Again in these same books Clement has presented the tradition of the
                                                          ancient
                                                          >presbyters on the order of the Gospels (PERI TEJ TAXEWJ TWN
                                                          >EUAGGELIWN) in the following manner (TOUTON ECOUSAN TON TROPON)".
                                                          >It may be a fine point, but the phrase "in the following manner" in the
                                                          above
                                                          >translation seems to modify the verb "presented", whereas in the Greek
                                                          >original the phase clearly modifies "tradition" (PARADOSIN). This could
                                                          make
                                                          >a difference, I think, possibly in the direction of supporting Stephen's
                                                          >overall reading.

                                                          <<Perhaps we should take F.'s comprise: a faithful but a non-literal
                                                          rendering by Eusebius, for example, taking Clement's verbs and putting
                                                          them into the infinitives of indirect discourse.>>

                                                          Yes, but remember, the real issue here is: who is the subject of the verb
                                                          ELEGEN (ELEGON), and is the verb part of the quoted speech of Clement or not.
                                                          (If not, the text-critical question is also thereby resolved in favor of
                                                          ELEGEN).

                                                          [Leonard]
                                                          >My only problem with this solution is that, if understanding this tradition
                                                          >of the presbyters in this way (namely as indicating an order among the four
                                                          >gospels that places Luke before Mark) reflects the concerns of Eusebius,
                                                          why
                                                          >does he not elsewhere sustain or propagate this order? Or does he? I don't
                                                          >think he does so anywhere else, even in his famous "canons", does he?

                                                          <<Gamba pointed out that the canons (which may not have been original
                                                          to Eusebius) reflect the order Matt-Luke-Mark-John. For example, Canon
                                                          III Matt-Luke-John is followed by Canon IV Matt-Mark-John, and Canon V
                                                          Matt-Luke is followed by Canon VI Matt-Mark, by Canon VII Matt-John,
                                                          and then by Canon VIII Luke-Mark and Canon IX Luke-John.>>

                                                          I didn't know this. The order Matt-Luke-Mark is of course also found in some
                                                          Greek manuscripts. I wonder where this order comes from in these sources? I'm
                                                          a little less sure than you that...

                                                          << This does not imply, however, a chronological order. Eusebius' own
                                                          exposition on the order of composition in Book II, however, is the
                                                          traditional order
                                                          Matt-Mark-Luke-John.>>

                                                          OK. But this latter order is self-explanatory. It was by that time already
                                                          the usual order of the Gospels in the canon, and, if it goes back to
                                                          Irenaeus, I have argued that it's ratio is not chronological, but rather
                                                          dependent on a pre-existing firm order among the "apostles" (Peter - Paul,
                                                          for Mark and Luke, in particular) thought to be the authority behind the
                                                          different gospels. For want of a similar ratio for the order Matt-Luke-Mark,
                                                          should we not leave open the possibility that where this order is found in
                                                          patristic sources or NT manuscripts it reflects an early assessment of
                                                          chronology?

                                                          [Leonard]
                                                          >Also, does anyone know why David Dungan does not discuss this opinion of
                                                          >Clement (as usually understood) in "A History of the Synoptic Problem"? (Or
                                                          >is his index incomplete?) Was he convinced by Farkasfalvy's arguments in
                                                          the
                                                          >article under discussion? Perhaps David can answer this himself.

                                                          << Despite the title, Dungan's book gives very little attention to
                                                          merits of the Synoptic Problem proper. In contrast with Farmer,
                                                          who leads with Clement's tradition, Dungan's own case for the 2GH
                                                          in his other writings relegates Clement to the fourth argument as
                                                          a minor point of corroboration.>>

                                                          I would still love to know why Dungan is so reticent to use this text as
                                                          patristic evidence in support of the 2GH. Perhaps we will hear from him yet.

                                                          Leonard Maluf
                                                        • Stephen C. Carlson
                                                          ... What do you make of the imperfect here? If the ELEGEN was part of Eusebius s own speech in reference to Clement, wouldn t an aorist or perfect be more
                                                          Message 28 of 30 , Aug 2, 2000
                                                            At 07:33 AM 8/1/00 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
                                                            >Yes, but remember, the real issue here is: who is the subject of the verb
                                                            >ELEGEN (ELEGON), and is the verb part of the quoted speech of Clement or not.
                                                            >(If not, the text-critical question is also thereby resolved in favor of
                                                            >ELEGEN).

                                                            What do you make of the imperfect here? If the ELEGEN was part of
                                                            Eusebius's own speech in reference to Clement, wouldn't an aorist
                                                            or perfect be more appropriate here, as Clement has presumably
                                                            written this once? If the implication is that the declarant
                                                            repeatedly or customarily said, then would not the imperfect be
                                                            a fitting tense for Clement's tradition?

                                                            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
                                                          • Maluflen@aol.com
                                                            In a message dated 8/2/2000 8:50:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, scarlson@mindspring.com writes: ... not. ... What do you make of the imperfect here? If the
                                                            Message 29 of 30 , Aug 3, 2000
                                                              In a message dated 8/2/2000 8:50:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                                              scarlson@... writes:

                                                              << At 07:33 AM 8/1/00 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
                                                              >Yes, but remember, the real issue here is: who is the subject of the verb
                                                              >ELEGEN (ELEGON), and is the verb part of the quoted speech of Clement or
                                                              not.
                                                              >(If not, the text-critical question is also thereby resolved in favor of
                                                              >ELEGEN).

                                                              What do you make of the imperfect here? If the ELEGEN was part of
                                                              Eusebius's own speech in reference to Clement, wouldn't an aorist
                                                              or perfect be more appropriate here, as Clement has presumably
                                                              written this once? If the implication is that the declarant
                                                              repeatedly or customarily said, then would not the imperfect be
                                                              a fitting tense for Clement's tradition? >>

                                                              I'm not sure how far it can be pressed, but this does sound like a reasonable
                                                              argument to me. Can an opposite argument be made, though, on the basis of the
                                                              plural TOIJ AUTOIJ...BIBLIOIJ ? Is this a real plural here, referring to more
                                                              than one work, or not? If it refers to a single work, then it does seem that
                                                              an aorist or perfect verb would have been more appropriate if Eusebius
                                                              intended Clement as the subject of the verb ELEGEN. As I read the text today,
                                                              and in the light of this observation, I am again inclined to agree with your
                                                              reading of the text. By the way, I will be away in Los Angeles, probably
                                                              without access to a computer, for the next 5 or 6 days.

                                                              Leonard Maluf
                                                            • Tim Reynolds
                                                              Dr. Carlson, The biggest snag in this auditory piracy model I’m flogging was Clement’s statement (and who should know better?) that the genealogy gospels
                                                              Message 30 of 30 , Aug 5, 2000
                                                                Dr. Carlson,

                                                                The biggest snag in this auditory piracy model I’m flogging was Clement’s
                                                                statement (and who should know better?) that the genealogy gospels were
                                                                written before Mk. If, however, your reading of PROGEGRAFQAI is correct,
                                                                the problem dissolves.

                                                                This reading also brings you into line, independently of anything else, with
                                                                the AP model overall:

                                                                > It is interesting to me, at least, that Clement's passage exhibits
                                                                > the same kind of concerns as Irenaeus and a desire to explain away
                                                                > the limited publication of the gospel of Mark (e.g. Mark is just
                                                                > Peter's public teaching, etc.). If Mark indeed was only published
                                                                > to a limited extent, this could explain why we see so little of
                                                                > Mark in the extant manuscripts.
                                                                >
                                                                > This would also require some nuancing of Bauckham's "Gospel for all
                                                                > Christians" proposal. Matthew and Luke and perhaps John are still
                                                                > gospels for all Christians, but Mark may have had a limited audience.

                                                                In early days that audience was limited, according to Smith’s Clement
                                                                letter, to the “advanced Catechumens” to whom it was read annually, these
                                                                readings providing the only access to the text.

                                                                tim
                                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.