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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Incontrovertible evidence?

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    ... I am curious to know what it is about the Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark that for you calls Marcan Priority into question. I am
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 6, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      On 6 Jul 2001, at 0:36, John Lupia wrote (corrected version):

      > Second, could you be so kind as to explain
      > how 1000 minor agreements between Matthew and Luke that
      > incontrovertibly demonstrate they were written when no Marcan Gospel
      > existed have another explanation consistent with your incontrovertible
      > evidence for Marcan priority.

      I am curious to know what it is about the Minor Agreements
      between Matthew and Luke against Mark that for you calls Marcan
      Priority into question. I am aware that adherents of the Griesbach
      hypothesis take this view, but as I understand their position on the
      Minor Agreements, it is directed against the Two-Source Theory
      and its key assumption that Matthew and Luke redacted Mark
      independently of one another. Is that the way you are using the
      argument? If so, how would you react to someone like Michael
      Goulder who would strongly maintain Marcan Priority but who also
      believes that the Minor Agreements call into question the
      independence of Matthew and Luke?

      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://NTGateway.com
      The New Testament Gateway

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Ted Weeden
      ... as ... existed ... for ... John, My answer here will probably not satisfy you. To answer your question, I would have to examine each of the 1000 minor
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 7, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        John Lupia, Friday, July 06, 2001:

        > I fail to see how my posting in Synoptic-L archive Number 6425 is
        > appropriately addressed in Ted Weeden's response in archive number 6433.
        > You are begging the question since you have been directly asked to kindly
        > show what it is you claim to be incontrovertible evidence of Matthean and
        > Lucan dependence on Mark by two list members. In each case you have
        > attempted, though highly unsuccessfully, to turn the tables around on both
        > of us. Apparently at least two of us do not honestly see this
        > incontrovertible proof in your very lengthy argument. I will ask you once
        > again the same questions posed in Synoptic-L archive Number 6425, but
        > pellucidly so there is no misunderstanding. First, could you be so kind
        as
        > to clarify what incontrovertible proof you claim for Marcan priority or
        > Matthean and Lucan dependence on Mark? Second, could you be so kind as to
        > explain how 1000 minor agreements between Matthew and Mark that
        > incontrovertibly demonstrate they were written when no Marcan Gospel
        existed
        > have another explanation consistent with your incontrovertible evidence
        for
        > Marcan priority.

        John,

        My answer here will probably not satisfy you. To answer your question, I
        would have to examine each of the 1000 minor agreements of Matthew and Luke
        against Mark. That I just do not have the time to do so at this point. I
        think many of these MA have been accounte by others as stylistic or as a
        result, for those who hold to Lukan dependency on Mark and Matthew, of Luke
        choosing to follow Matthew rather than Mark at certain points. I am not
        yet persuaded by the latter. My essay was intended to move from the realm
        of linquistic to the realm of characterization, specifically with respect to
        the portrayal of the disciples in each of the Synoptics. My analysis of
        those respective portrayals leads me to the compelling conclusion that
        Matthew and Luke sought at almost every point to correct Mark's debasing and
        defrocking of the disciples and to restore them to their apostolic status.
        I may have been overzealous in choosing to use the word "incontroverible" to
        indicate my judgment with respect to this. I think the evidence,
        nevertheless, is inescapably compelling for drawing the conclusion I have
        drawn with respect to my analysis of the portrayal of the disciples. In
        this regard and with respect to minor agreements, one of the 1000 MA--- the
        Matthean and Lukan agreement that the women left the empty-tomb to deliver
        the mesage to the disciples as mandated, contrary to Mark's ending --- can
        be accounted for as an ecclesiological correction of Mark's denigration of
        the disciples. That is a start on the 1000.

        My primary interest, however, is not to stake out a position on the issues
        of Synoptic priority or necessarily dependency, though I do hold to Markan
        priority and Matthean and Lukan dependence on Mark. My interest is
        understanding the Gospel of Mark. Synoptic priority and interrelationships
        of the canonical Gospels are important in contributing to how one finally
        interprets Mark. However, with respect to the various portrayals of the
        disciples, if either Matthew or Luke (as you contend) were shown to be prior
        to Mark and that Mark was dependent upon both or either one of them, then my
        case for Mark's systematic vendetta against the disciples would have a
        compelling boost. If such were the case, then the fact that, for example,
        Mark fails to provide the disciples a resurrection appearance, as do Matthew
        and Luke, as well as ends his Gospel with sealed lips of silence (as I have
        just noted) rather than evangelistic proclamation and missional mandate,
        would leave the inescapable conclusion, in my judgment, that Mark" purpose
        in his profiling of the disciples was to intentionally "defrock" the
        "Twelve."

        Yours,

        Ted





        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Steve Black
        ... It is interesting to note that Nierynck himself does not think the MA s a fatal flaw in Markan Priority, which he defends at several places! -- Peace Steve
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 7, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          >Ted reponding to John...
          >
          >My answer here will probably not satisfy you. To answer your question, I
          >would have to examine each of the 1000 minor agreements of Matthew and Luke
          >against Mark. That I just do not have the time to do so at this point. I
          >think many of these MA have been accounte by others as stylistic or as a
          >result, for those who hold to Lukan dependency on Mark and Matthew, of Luke
          >choosing to follow Matthew rather than Mark at certain points.

          It is interesting to note that Nierynck himself does not think the
          MA's a fatal flaw in Markan Priority, which he defends at several
          places!
          --
          Peace

          Steve Black
          Vancouver, BC


          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Mark Goodacre
          ... Indeed. It should be added that the Minor Agreements do not pose any problems for the theory of Marcan Priority per se; what they (allegedly) call into
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 7, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            On 7 Jul 2001, at 9:49, Steve Black wrote:

            > >Ted reponding to John...
            > >
            > >My answer here will probably not satisfy you. To answer your
            > >question, I would have to examine each of the 1000 minor agreements
            > >of Matthew and Luke against Mark. That I just do not have the time
            > >to do so at this point. I think many of these MA have been accounte
            > >by others as stylistic or as a result, for those who hold to Lukan
            > >dependency on Mark and Matthew, of Luke choosing to follow Matthew
            > >rather than Mark at certain points.
            >
            > It is interesting to note that Neirynck himself does not think the
            > MA's a fatal flaw in Markan Priority, which he defends at several
            > places!

            Indeed. It should be added that the Minor Agreements do not pose
            any problems for the theory of Marcan Priority per se; what they
            (allegedly) call into question is Matthew and Luke's *independent*
            use of Mark. Thus Zeba Cook rightly talks, following Kloppenborg
            Verbin, about the MAs in relationship to the *2DH*.

            Proponents of the Griesbach Hypothesis allege that the Minor
            Agreements emerge from places where Mark makes minor
            amendments to the agreed witness of his sources Matthew and
            Luke. Thus, if I understand this theory correctly, the Minor
            Agreements have an essentially *primitive* character -- they are
            places where Mark leaves in tact the combined witness of his
            sources in triple tradition material. This contrasts with the 2DH,
            Farrer & Deutero-Marcus, on all of which the Minor Agreements
            have an essentially *secondary* character -- they are places where
            Matthew and Luke (or Deutero-Marcus) alter the wording of their
            more primitive source. This is one reason why my gut feeling is
            against the Griesbachian explanation of the Minor Agreements --
            even the more trivial ones (KAI vs. DE, aorist vs. historic present,
            "after three days" vs. "on the third day") look to me more likely to
            be secondary than primitive. But, as I say, it's only a gut reaction --
            it might be that there is a good explanation for this.

            Finally, a note on numbers. The "1000" figure is not, as far as I am
            aware, one that Neirynck himself uses. Goulder on one occasion
            talks about 750, on another of 1000. The most liberal count is
            Richard Vinson's of 2,354, _The Significance of the Minor
            Agreements as An Argument Against the Two-Document
            Hypothesis_ (Duke University PhD thesis, 1984), p. 420, n.5.

            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://NTGateway.com
            The New Testament Gateway

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            ... As Sanders & Davies point out, those scholars who posit a Deutero- Mark are impressed by the primitiveness of MAs, preferring to attribute them to a
            Message 5 of 8 , Jul 8, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              At 12:17 AM 7/8/01 +0100, Mark Goodacre wrote:
              >Proponents of the Griesbach Hypothesis allege that the Minor
              >Agreements emerge from places where Mark makes minor
              >amendments to the agreed witness of his sources Matthew and
              >Luke. Thus, if I understand this theory correctly, the Minor
              >Agreements have an essentially *primitive* character -- they are
              >places where Mark leaves in tact the combined witness of his
              >sources in triple tradition material. This contrasts with the 2DH,
              >Farrer & Deutero-Marcus, on all of which the Minor Agreements
              >have an essentially *secondary* character -- they are places where
              >Matthew and Luke (or Deutero-Marcus) alter the wording of their
              >more primitive source. This is one reason why my gut feeling is
              >against the Griesbachian explanation of the Minor Agreements --
              >even the more trivial ones (KAI vs. DE, aorist vs. historic present,
              >"after three days" vs. "on the third day") look to me more likely to
              >be secondary than primitive. But, as I say, it's only a gut reaction --
              > it might be that there is a good explanation for this.

              As Sanders & Davies point out, those scholars who posit a Deutero-
              Mark are impressed by the primitiveness of MAs, preferring to
              attribute them to a recension of Mark rather than Matthew and
              Luke independent creation. On the other hand, there are those
              who posit a Proto-Mark, arguing from the primitiveness of (some
              of) the MAs. Koester springs to mind, but I don't think he
              views the primitiveness as sufficient for his proto-Mark idea,
              which really cannot stand apart from Secret Mark. Thus, it
              seems that there probably is plenty in the MAs to see whatever
              one wants to see.

              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

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Mark Goodacre
              ... I suppose they are more primitive than Matthew / Luke for adherents of Deutero-Marcus, but in common with both the 2ST & with Farrer, the MAs are on this
              Message 6 of 8 , Jul 8, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                On 8 Jul 2001, at 19:03, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                > As Sanders & Davies point out, those scholars who posit a Deutero-
                > Mark are impressed by the primitiveness of MAs, preferring to
                > attribute them to a recension of Mark rather than Matthew and Luke
                > independent creation.

                I suppose they are more primitive than Matthew / Luke for
                adherents of Deutero-Marcus, but in common with both the 2ST &
                with Farrer, the MAs are on this theory secondary to (our) Mark.
                What stands out to me about Griesbach is that it joins Proto-Mark
                theories in seeing the MAs as more primitive than (our) Mark. My
                gut-feeling is against that given the nature of many of them, e.g.
                Mark's alleged subtitution of "after three days" for "on the third
                day". Judgements about greater primitivity do tend to be rather
                subjective, though, so one would have to work hard to do
                something serious with this kind of point.

                > On the other hand, there are those who posit a
                > Proto-Mark, arguing from the primitiveness of (some of) the MAs.
                > Koester springs to mind, but I don't think he views the primitiveness
                > as sufficient for his proto-Mark idea, which really cannot stand apart
                > from Secret Mark. Thus, it seems that there probably is plenty in the
                > MAs to see whatever one wants to see.

                The difficulty with the Koester case, as I understand it, is that it is
                based only on a small handful of MAs and it makes alot of Mark
                4.10-12 and par. It doesn't deal with the vast majority of MAs. I
                agree with your last sentence to some extent but think that there
                are lots of clear patterns, e.g. there are MAs over DE as opposed
                to KAI and rarely the opposite (Paralytic one such example); lack
                of historic present; greater reverence to Jesus, etc. One of the
                values of Neirynck's book are the sections that group together
                some of the trends.

                Best wishes
                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://NTGateway.com
                The New Testament Gateway

                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                ... I m sorry. I meant primitiveness of Mark with respect to the MAs. Kind of changes the meaning does it not? Thus, Deutero- Markus represents an
                Message 7 of 8 , Jul 8, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 01:23 AM 7/9/01 +0100, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                  >On 8 Jul 2001, at 19:03, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                  >> As Sanders & Davies point out, those scholars who posit a Deutero-
                  >> Mark are impressed by the primitiveness of MAs, preferring to
                  >> attribute them to a recension of Mark rather than Matthew and Luke
                  >> independent creation.
                  >
                  >I suppose they are more primitive than Matthew / Luke for
                  >adherents of Deutero-Marcus, but in common with both the 2ST &
                  >with Farrer, the MAs are on this theory secondary to (our) Mark.

                  I'm sorry. I meant "primitiveness of Mark with respect to the
                  MAs." Kind of changes the meaning does it not? Thus, Deutero-
                  Markus represents an improved Mark before Matthew and Luke got
                  to it.

                  >What stands out to me about Griesbach is that it joins Proto-Mark
                  >theories in seeing the MAs as more primitive than (our) Mark. My
                  >gut-feeling is against that given the nature of many of them, e.g.
                  >Mark's alleged subtitution of "after three days" for "on the third
                  >day". Judgements about greater primitivity do tend to be rather
                  >subjective, though, so one would have to work hard to do
                  >something serious with this kind of point.

                  To the extent one can characterize the bulk of the MAs as
                  secondary to Mark, as Hawkins has effectively done over a
                  hundred years ago, yes, then I would say that the Griesbach
                  position and proto-Mark (Hawkins' target), as well as any
                  proto-gospel hypothesis that posits independent redaction
                  by all three, would be at a serious disadvantage.

                  There's also another problem with the Griesbach approach. It
                  must posit a literarily sophisticated Mark to carefully weave
                  together Matthew and Luke, careful to keep every word they
                  have in common EXCEPT FOR the sophisticated DE's rendered
                  by rougher KAI's, sophicated aorists by rougher historical
                  presents, good Greek terms by Latinisms, etc. It is hard
                  to obtain a coherent profile of the person who would do
                  such a thing: literary genius or hack?

                  >> On the other hand, there are those who posit a
                  >> Proto-Mark, arguing from the primitiveness of (some of) the MAs.
                  >> Koester springs to mind, but I don't think he views the primitiveness
                  >> as sufficient for his proto-Mark idea, which really cannot stand apart
                  >> from Secret Mark. Thus, it seems that there probably is plenty in the
                  >> MAs to see whatever one wants to see.
                  >
                  >The difficulty with the Koester case, as I understand it, is that it is
                  >based only on a small handful of MAs and it makes alot of Mark
                  >4.10-12 and par. It doesn't deal with the vast majority of MAs. I
                  >agree with your last sentence to some extent but think that there
                  >are lots of clear patterns, e.g. there are MAs over DE as opposed
                  >to KAI and rarely the opposite (Paralytic one such example); lack
                  >of historic present; greater reverence to Jesus, etc. One of the
                  >values of Neirynck's book are the sections that group together
                  >some of the trends.

                  I'd suppose that Koester would have to use the standard appeals
                  the 2DH uses for the secondary looking MAs. More interesting is,
                  how would Goulder or you respond to the primitiveness of Koester's
                  MAs. Are Koester's examples less or more of problem for the FH
                  then for the 2DH? I suppose not. It seems a bit easier to believe
                  that Luke would copy an apparently more primitive bit of Matthew
                  than for Luke to independently recreate a reading that is both
                  more primitive than Mark and coincidentally identical to Matthew's
                  being more primitive than Mark, which does not happen often to
                  begin with.

                  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

                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.