- In a message dated 1/6/2001 11:29:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, ... Actually, this was an old message. I don t know how it got sent again on January 9. I useMessage 1 of 54 , Jan 10, 2001View SourceIn a message dated 1/6/2001 11:29:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
At 10:57 AM on January 6, 2001 Leonard Maluf wrote:
> This is a flat appraisal of Mark, I think,
> and lacking in a Textpragmatik evaluation. Mark "does" something very
> different from Matt, or from the "Markan" material that is also found in
> Matt. So there would be a value (especially for the not very educated)
> in preserving Mark, whether it was written before or after Matthew.
I have to confess that I am not familiar with Textpragmatik
evaluation. It seems to be a key concept in your understanding of
what Mark (and Luke?) did with Matthew on the Griesbach hypothesis.
Could you please give a brief explanation? How is a Textpragmatik
evaluation different from other sorts of evaluations?
Actually, this was an old message. I don't know how it got sent again on
January 9. I use the German term Textpragmatik because the book we used
fifteen years or so ago at the Biblicum in Rome for a seminar on Hosea and
the OT prophets was a German work by Hardmeier. Neither this work, nor the
seminar itself, had anything directly to do with the Synoptic problem;
however, both together had a profound influence on the way I formulate my
understanding of what went wrong, historically, in source discussions of the
Gospels. Underlying most of the discussion was a very "flat" way of viewing
the material common to two or three Synoptic Gospels, and a consequent
failure to consider seriously the possibility that Mark is a late Gospel, in
spite of some clear indications of relative lateness in his text. Simply on
the basis of an absence of "material" in Mark that is found in Matt and Lk
(and I truly think that this is the most promin! ent underlying difficulty for
most scholars with a late Mark, since the other classical "arguments" for
Markan priority have been demonstrated to be very weak or inconclusive)
scholars have thought it impossible that Mark wrote third. But this ignores
the pragmatic dimension of Mark's text, which, as Thomas Longstaff pointed
out a few days ago on this list, need not have intended to replace the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke at all, and which does indeed make a contribution
of its own, when viewed in pragmatic terms: it reaches a specific audience (I
would say a lower-class, less educated audience) with the basic gospel
message -- for a specific time, audience and situation -- in a far more
powerful way than do the somewhat more "heady" and sophisticated texts of
Matt and Luke, which are designed for more narrowly defined and intellectual
audiences. Thus, especially what was said effectively by the earlier
evangelists, on this s! ource model, need not be repeated at all by Mark: on
the other hand, the basic story of the Son of God moving inexorably to his
martyrdom in obedience to God, and performing divine works (with ecclesial
overtones) along the way is told by Mark (using "material" from the earlier
Gospels) in a highly effective way for a given audience -- which fully
justifies the existence of Mk, even assuming that Matt and Lk were already in
existence when Mark wrote. I hope this clarifies a bit my use of the term
Happy New Year to all.
- Dear Leonard, You wrote -- ... I was assuming that you had found such relatively objective directional indications. I agree with you here, therefore. But whatMessage 54 of 54 , Jan 16, 2001View SourceDear Leonard,
You wrote --
>I was assuming that you had found such relatively objective directional
>I am looking for more objective directional indications.
indications. I agree with you here, therefore.
But what then follows? Let us assume that we now have more objective
directional indications of the secondariness of Mark with respect to
Matthew than previously. These would be perfectly consistent with
Matthew not being prior to Mark. For Matthew could have more faithfully
followed a source which Mark followed less faithfully so that Mark would
have come to display the same indications of secondariness as if Mark
had used Matthew directly. The relatively objective directional
indication would be **negative**, therefore. It would point to Mark
**not** being prior to Matthew. It does not indicate positively that
Matthew was prior.
I would suggest that what you are really looking for are not indications
of the secondariness of Mark with respect to Matthew, but of indications
of the priority of Matthew with respect to Mark. These are just not the
I think the reason why you have not found positive indications of the
priority of Matthew is that Matthew was not prior. More generally, the
reason why over the past two hundred years or more scholars have not
found positive irreversible indicators of the priority of any synoptic
gospel with respect to the others is that no synoptic gospel is prior to
the other two. If any synoptic gospel had been prior to the other two,
surely after so many millions of man-hours (and woman-hours) of study of
the synoptic problem over the past centuries, a positive irreversible
indicator would have been found.
On the other hand scholars have found many and various negative
directional indications, of greater or lesser objectivity, of each
synoptic gospel being secondary to the other two (including yours, which
I think is indeed a more objective indicator). These negative
directional indicators do not prove the Theory of Non-priority. (I do
not set out to prove it, and would agree that my argument does not
amount to deductive proof.) But I would suggest that the Theory of Non-
priority fits the observed negative directional indicators better than
any theory of priority.
For the absence of positive directional indicators and the presence of
negative directional indicators are what we would expect if the Theory
of Non-priority is true.
E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk
Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
> "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot_
> speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...