Re: [Synoptic-L] Jesus' True Kin case study
- In a message dated 7/17/2000 11:43:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
<< In W.C.Allen's case, his argument relies on an implicit major premise
that greater interest in the disciples is a sign of lateness. Based
on E.P.Sanders's study, I feel that most of these tendency arguments
are next to worthless.>>
I agree with this. Especially since there is really not a consistent tendency
in this case. Why, for example, would Matt and Lk, with their "greater
interest in the disciples", have both omitted Mk 6:12-13, the only Synoptic
text that describes the twelve disciples preaching repentance and
successfully casting out demons and performing cures?
<< There is a good argument, by the way, amongst all the others -- the
> << Fatigueevidently
> Davies & Allison 1991: (2SH) "It makes sense for Mk 3:31 to mention people
> 'standing outside', for Jesus is in a house (cf. 3.20f.). But Matthew has
> failed to tell us what Mark has told us (cf. Lk 8.20). That is, in
> abbreviating his source, he has neglected to inform us what 12.46
> assumes, namely, that Jesus is inside. This is an example of imperfect[L.M. It is only "imperfect editing" if this is in fact a case of editorial
> editing, and evidence for the priority of Mark." (363, footnote omitted)>>
fatigue. This is what is to be proved, and it therefore cannot be assumed].
>It is problematic for this theory that Luke also says nothing about ahouse.
>Are we to think that both Matt and Luke fatigued here simultaneously? Or isto
>it more reasonable to assume that Mark, as a late redactor, is attempting
>make the text more coherent by adding an element that will account for the<< Luke's saying nothing about a house is hardly problematic in the least.
>expression "outside" in the words of those who tell Jesus about his family
>who have arrived?
It could indicate that Luke too shows fatigue and is dependent on Mark.
(An alternate possibility is that Luke depends on Matthew here, so both
possibilities fit the Farrer Theory.)>>
I would insist that the fatigue argument with respect to Matt loses some
ground when it is observed that a reference to a house corresponding to Mark
3:20 is also absent in Lk. (More argument in support of this position below).
It is a fact that none of the Synoptic accounts, including Mark, contains a
reference to a house in the pericope in question itself (Mk 3:31-35 par.).
That Matthew seems to think of the incident as having taken place in a house
is probably confirmed by 13:1. There is really no need for this house-setting
to be explicitly affirmed within the story itself. There are other examples
in the Gospels of incidents that clearly took place in a house, but where
Matthew doesn't mention the house, or any part of a house, explicitly. For
example the story of the last supper in Matt 26:17-29 (and cf. EXHLQON in
26:30). In both Lk and Mk we are told explicitly that the event took place in
a KATALUMA, (concrete reference to a part of a house) that was ruled by an
OIKODESPOTEJ. These are simply late, imaginative features added to a story
(that of Matt) which implies such a setting, without saying so explicitly.
PROS SE in Matt 26:18 clearly implies a house or home, but that is precisely
my point: the physical setting of a house is implied in the narrative, not
stated explicitly. See also Matt 15:21-28, where a house is probably implied
by the comment of the woman in 15:27, and added explicitly to the story by
<<If you follow the fatigue argument carefully (you should consult Mark's
on-line article at http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/fatigue.htm for more
details), you should recognize that Mark's account is more coherent
because of the reference to the house in v20.>>
I need not deny this to think that Mark's text is late compared to the other
Synoptics. But see below.
<< If a late redactor were
to make Matthew and/or Luke more coherent, isn't more reasonable for
the late redactor to fix the account at the scene of the problem, i.e.,
somewhere in vv31-35, rather than several lines earlier as is the case
An interesting point. And I would now be willing to suggest in response that
the addition in Mark 3:20, even if it is late as I think it is, was not added
by Mark in order to solve a supposed problem of incoherence in the story he
will tell in 3:31-35. It is really too far away to do that effectively. But
does this mean that the reference to a house in 3:20 was not added by Mark at
a late stage of Gospel redaction? Not at all. See my final paragraph below.
>It is impossible to "prove" that Mark wrote third on the basis of this onebut
>pericope; nevertheless, the pericope is perfectly compatible with the
>Griesbach hypothesis. Mark follows more closely here the wording of Matt,
>agrees with the perspective of Luke in adapting the saying of Jesus to a<<Well, I find many pericopae to be "compatible" with most different
>later audience (other than the original twelve disciples, as in Matt).
source theories. If all we had was mere compatibility, then the
synoptic problem is a matter of taste instead of science.>>
This is a bit facile as a response. What I claimed was that the evidence as a
whole is "perfectly" compatible with the Griesbach Hypothesis. This may be a
bit of an exaggeration, but I intended the term at least to convey a greater
compatibility of the evidence with the Two Gospel Hypothesis than with
competing hypotheses. And perhaps there is a mid-term between taste and
science that would most appropriately describe the Synoptic problem.
The problem with the fatigue argument is that, in spite of protestations to
the contrary, it presupposes that Mark wrote first and proceeds to give a
plausible argument for fatigue on the part of Matt and Lk as late redactors
on that basis. Because of its narrow focus on fatigue as an explanation of
particular passages, however, it ignores much other relevant evidence of the
Synoptic phenomenon as a whole. This is especially evident, I think, in the
present case. There is a whole set of cases where the presence of the term
OIKOJ or OIKIA in Mark, and its absence in the parallel Synoptic passages,
needs to be explained: Mk 2:1; 7:17, 24; 9:28; 9:33; 10:10. Mk 3:20 fits well
into this category of texts, and should be considered with reference to it.
Now if you examine these Markan texts and their Matthean (and at times also
Lukan) parallels it is going to be very difficult to think of them all as
representing Matthean (and Lukan) omissions (whether because of fatigue or
for any other reason). They fit much better into the category of Markan
additions: the house is the place Jesus retires to in order to be alone with
the twelve, and as the gospel proceeds often to impart special teaching to
them as well. But (in the early part of the Gospel) this retreat is often
detected by the crowds who rush to surround the house and place further
claims on Jesus' ministry to them.
This raises an interesting question: are we even to think that Mark imagines
the scene in 3:31-35 as taking place in a house? Perhaps not; and one
certainly cannot base such a view on the mere presence of the term EXW in
3:31, 32. More than half the uses of EXW in Mark, if I am not mistaken,
clearly do not imply a house. EXW here could be thought of with reference to
the "circle" (Mk 3:31, 34) of crowds surrounding Jesus. It is actually
unlikely, in Mark in particular, that this event is envisioned as taking
place in a house, which is the place (in Mark) where Jesus goes to retreat
from the crowds, not to sit with them (cf. Mk 7:17)!
Thus, EIJ OIKON in Mk 3:20 should probably be taken as having no special
connection at all with the story told considerably later in 3:31-35. In
Mark's text, it should be read with reference to the mountain setting (3:13)
of the previous incident. After being on a mountain for the selection of the
twelve, Jesus returns "home" (EIJ IOKON) in 3:20. In addition, the text
should be read with an eye to numerous other Markan texts in which a
reference to a house has (probably) been added at a late stage of redaction.
- Tim said:
<<"David C. Hindley" wrote:
>lynched in 68 CE
> Karel Hanhart said:
> >>I take it then that the story of Mark having been
> should not be taken as a hard historical fact.<<People's
> More like a legend, I'd say. In both Aziz (1960's) and my
> Bible Encyclopedia (1913), the same story appears: alynching in
> Alexandria circa 68 CE, with Mark's body being rescuedfrom
> destruction by the saints, through divine intervention,That is, it rained.
The silence on how the head and the body came apart
in order to be
> interred under a church. Mark's headless body was laterstolen from
> theVenetian [DH: I think a church under the control of the
Coptic Patriarch would be in Alexandria]
> church (the head was in the possession of the CopticPatriarch at
> the time) and smuggled to Venice by merchants in a tub ofpickled pork
> (to evade inspection by Muslim police) circa 828.In 1968, centenary of Mark's death, it was returned to
I suppose you could go touch it if you wanted. Precisely
constitutes evidence for you?<<
Sorry, but I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be.
Maybe I can touch *a* head that is supposed to be St.
Mark's, but I can go to an antiquities dealer and touch
fragments of the "true cross" or the bones of any number of
What I was getting at was that the tradition about Mark's
body having been venerated in Alexandria is rather medieval
and connected with the cult of relic veneration of that
time. Before that time there is nothing about it in
literature (unless I missed something).
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...