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

Re: [Synoptic-L] if Mark knew Luke ? A good case

Expand Messages
  • Emmanuel Fritsch
    ... I am sorry to not be a scholar, and to ignore Hawkins criterion. May you say me what it is ? ... It is not surprising to find the METANOIA thema here,
    Message 1 of 22 , Nov 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I asked, and Ron Price answered :

      > >I remember about one that I though very classic : the presentation of
      > >the Baptist. The "METANOIA" verse looks as a typical Lukan sentence.
      > >Is it not the case ?
      > >
      > > Mk 1:4 - And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and
      > > preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
      > >
      > >If I well remember, there are four or five occurences of close
      > >sentences in Lk+Act, and no one in Mark. The similarity with
      > >Luke is obvious, whatever the scale you check this sentence.
      >
      > Emmanuel,
      > Yes, Luke evidently liked the word METANOIA. At (Mt 2; Mk 1; Lk 5), it
      > just falls short of qualifying as a Lukanism on Hawkins' rather strict
      > criterion.

      I am sorry to not be a scholar, and to ignore
      Hawkins' criterion. May you say me what it is ?

      > Mk 1:4 also has some similarities with several Lukan
      > sentences. Even so, it is not really too surprising to find Mark
      > introducing METANOIA because of its association with John the Baptist,
      > and Luke favouring the word because it suits his way of setting out the
      > gospel message.

      It is not surprising to find the METANOIA thema here, even if it
      is in fact a typical Lukan thema, but it looks rather surprising
      to find also :

      - The aorist found in Act as stated by Leonard,
      - EGENETO (13,17,72,18,53)
      - the co-occurence of METANOIA, AFESIN, AMARTIWN, which
      you do not find elsewhere (I think, but not sure) in
      Mark nor Matthew.

      It looks difficult to say that Lukan trend to use "EGENETO" comes
      from the Markan verses which, among the all others, would have
      particularly impressed Luke in its style and its theology.

      > >Is it possible to get stronger evidence of a synoptist knowing another one ?
      >
      > Well, yes. Here's an example. There are far more common phrases in Mt
      > 3:7-10 // Lk 3:7-9. In view of the fact that "every tree that does not
      > bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire" occurs in Mt 7:19
      > as well as in Mt 3:10, it looks distinctly like a Mattheanism. Thus we
      > have here, I suggest, a much stronger case for Luke's knowledge of
      > Matthew than the case for Mark's knowledge of Luke based on Mk 1:4.

      One may say : Matthew has found this sentence elsewhere (Luke or Q,
      according one's theory), he liked it, and used it twice. I do not
      argue here against the use of Matthew by Luke, but against your
      example as better than Mk 1:4 being a Mark-Luke dependance example.

      Because Mk 1:4 is linked not with only some sentences of Luke, but
      with stylistic trends and many sentences, the argument looks stronger
      here than with Lk 3:7-9. (and I do not arguing against this)

      a+
      manu

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Ron Price
      ... Emmanuel Fritsch replied, ... Emmanuel, Yes, I will tell you what it is. Hawkins proposed the following rules for determining whether a feature is
      Message 2 of 22 , Nov 3, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        I wrote:

        > ..... Luke evidently liked the word METANOIA. At (Mt 2; Mk 1; Lk 5), it
        >> just falls short of qualifying as a Lukanism on Hawkins' rather strict
        >> criterion.

        Emmanuel Fritsch replied,

        >I am sorry to not be a scholar, and to ignore
        >Hawkins' criterion. May you say me what it is ?

        Emmanuel,
        Yes, I will tell you what it is. Hawkins proposed the following rules
        for determining whether a feature is characteristic of a particular
        synoptic gospel.
        (1) It must occur at least 4 times in that gospel.
        (2) It must occur at least twice as many times in that gospel as in both
        the other synoptics put together.

        > [In] Mk 1:4 .....
        >It is not surprising to find the METANOIA thema here, even if it
        >is in fact a typical Lukan thema, but it looks rather surprising
        >to find also :
        >
        >- The aorist found in Act as stated by Leonard,

        Are you saying Mark doesn't use aorists elsewhere?

        >- EGENETO (13,17,72,18,53)

        I assume these figures must be usages in the gospels and Acts. So Luke
        favoured EGENETO more than Matthew or Mark. But such a common word must
        have been well known to all the gospel writers without anyone needing to
        read anyone else's gospel.

        >- the co-occurence of METANOIA, AFESIN, AMARTIWN, which
        > you do not find elsewhere (I think, but not sure) in
        > Mark nor Matthew.

        That is true. But it is still not surprising, for Mark needed to use
        AFESIN and hAMARTIWN if he was to explain METANOIA to his (largely
        Gentile?) audience. He only used METANOIA once, never putting the word
        into the mouth of Jesus. In this he was probably correct. Certainly in
        _The Five Gospels_, METANOIA (rendered there as 'change of heart') does
        not appear in red or pink.

        >Because Mk 1:4 is linked not with only some sentences of Luke, but
        >with stylistic trends and many sentences, the argument looks stronger
        >here than with Lk 3:7-9.

        We'll have to agree to differ on this one.

        Ron Price

        Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

        e-mail: ron.price@...

        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 11/3/2001 4:10:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, ron.price@virgin.net writes: [Responding to Emmanuel, who wrote:] [In] Mk 1:4 ..... ... Are
        Message 3 of 22 , Nov 3, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 11/3/2001 4:10:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,
          ron.price@... writes:

          [Responding to Emmanuel, who wrote:]
          << > [In] Mk 1:4 .....
          >It is not surprising to find the METANOIA thema here, even if it
          >is in fact a typical Lukan thema, but it looks rather surprising
          >to find also :
          >
          >- The aorist found in Act as stated by Leonard,

          Are you saying Mark doesn't use aorists elsewhere?>>

          Since you, and also Emmanuel, allude to a statement of mine made in a
          previous post, I should perhaps expand on what I said there in a very
          condensed manner. We have the statement of John regarding his own baptism in
          each of the four gospels, and also at least paraphrases of this statement in
          Acts and in Jn. Matt, Lk and Jn (1:26) give this statement, or parts of it,
          in its initial form, as a citation of John's word, with the use of baptizo in
          the present tense (Matt 3:11; Lk 3:16; Jn 1:26). We then have retrospective
          references to this word in five other texts, two in Jn and three in Acts (Jn
          1:31.33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 19:4). In these retrospective texts in which
          baptizein is expressed with a finite form of the verb, this is always aorist
          (ebaptisen). In Jn 1:31 and 33, likewise retrospective of the original words
          of John, the participal or the infinitive of baptizo is in each case linked
          with / governed by an aorist verb, not found in the original citation itself.
          In light of all this evidence, it seems to me that Mark 1:8 has John himself
          speaking from this retrospective perspective of Jesus, Peter and Paul in
          Acts, all of whom refer to John's activity of baptizing, by allusion to his
          own original words, but with a retrospective aorist tense of the verb
          baptizo. This would tend to support the idea that Mark wrote his opening
          gospel account after the two other Synoptics and Acts were already in
          existence, and from a perspective of the latest of these texts (esp. Acts
          1:5; 11:16).

          Leonard Maluf

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Ron Price
          ... Leonard, I think you re reading too much into this Markan aorist. Mark was simply emphasizing that when Jesus started his ministry the era of John the
          Message 4 of 22 , Nov 4, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Leonard Maluf wrote:

            > ..... it seems to me that Mark 1:8 has John himself
            >speaking from this retrospective perspective of Jesus, Peter and Paul in
            >Acts, all of whom refer to John's activity of baptizing, by allusion to his
            >own original words, but with a retrospective aorist tense of the verb
            >baptizo. This would tend to support the idea that Mark wrote his opening
            >gospel account after the two other Synoptics and Acts were already in
            >existence, and from a perspective of the latest of these texts (esp. Acts
            >1:5; 11:16).

            Leonard,
            I think you're reading too much into this Markan aorist. Mark was
            simply emphasizing that when Jesus started his ministry the era of John
            the Baptist had already been replaced by the era of Jesus, c.f. Morna
            Hooker, _The Gospel According to St Mark_ (London: A&C Black, 1991)
            p.38.

            Ron Price

            Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

            e-mail: ron.price@...

            Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm


            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Maluflen@aol.com
            In a message dated 11/5/2001 2:28:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, ron.price@virgin.net writes: ...
            Message 5 of 22 , Nov 5, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 11/5/2001 2:28:54 AM Eastern Standard Time,
              ron.price@... writes:

              Leonard Maluf wrote:

              > ..... it seems to me that Mark 1:8 has John himself
              >speaking from this retrospective perspective of Jesus, Peter and Paul in
              >Acts, all of whom refer to John's activity of baptizing, by allusion to his
              >own original words, but with a retrospective aorist tense of the verb
              >baptizo. This would tend to support the idea that Mark wrote his opening
              >gospel account after the two other Synoptics and Acts were already in
              >existence, and from a perspective of the latest of these texts (esp. Acts
              >1:5; 11:16).

              << Leonard,
              I think you're reading too much into this Markan aorist. Mark was
              simply emphasizing that when Jesus started his ministry the era of John
              the Baptist had already been replaced by the era of Jesus, c.f. Morna
              Hooker, _The Gospel According to St Mark_ (London: A&C Black, 1991)
              p.38.>>

              Wow, you couldn't have stated that better (even if you do depend here on
              Morna Hooker)! And my point would be that this clear, theologically loaded
              insight and emphasis had not yet been achieved when Matthew wrote his gospel
              (where there is considerable overlap of mission, message and perhaps even
              stature between John and Jesus). The distinction of eras is launched by Luke,
              and appears as an acquired theological Gut in Mark. Of course I do not claim
              that all of this hinges on Mark's use of the aorist ebaptisen. But that
              aorist is indicative, I think, of Mark's exposure to the developments of the
              JB theme in Lk-Acts.

              Leonard Maluf

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Emmanuel Fritsch
              ... You are right. In fact, even Boismard does not consider this EGENETO as lukan (according him, three occurences of EGENETO in Mark present a typical Lukan
              Message 6 of 22 , Nov 5, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                > >- EGENETO (13,17,72,18,53)
                >
                > I assume these figures must be usages in the gospels and Acts. So Luke
                > favoured EGENETO more than Matthew or Mark. But such a common word must
                > have been well known to all the gospel writers without anyone needing to
                > read anyone else's gospel.

                You are right. In fact, even Boismard does not consider this
                EGENETO as lukan (according him, three occurences of EGENETO
                in Mark present a typical Lukan pattern).

                But Boismard gives another reason to doubt that Mk 1:4
                is genuinely markan : in fact there is another presentation
                of JB in Mark, you find it in Mk 1:5. We notice that 1:4 is
                lukan, when 1:5 is close to Matthew.

                Just adding :
                - the link between Mk 1:4 and the style of Luke
                - the aorist in Mk 1:8 that parallel account of JB in Act
                - the doublet Mk 1:4 + 1:5

                and you find a really serious argument for Mark being composite and later.


                > >Because Mk 1:4 is linked not with only some sentences of Luke, but
                > >with stylistic trends and many sentences, the argument looks stronger
                > >here than with Lk 3:7-9.
                >
                > We'll have to agree to differ on this one.

                I would like to know on what we differ exactly : you presented your
                evidence (Mt 3:7-10 // Lk 3:7-9) as stronger than Mk 1:4. May we
                understand that even less strong, Mk 1:4 is a quite good example
                for parallel Luke being early ?

                If yes, apologize for my bad idea. But if you disclaim absolutely
                Mk 1:4 to be later, then my (bad) question is : if we were finding
                the reverse case, i.e. a composite text like Mk 1:4 in Luke, would
                you not use it as an argument for Lukan posteriority ?

                In fact, considering the last fact I propose (the doublet Mk 1:4+1:5)
                you would explain it by a global trend of Mark to repetition, and I would
                answer that this "trend" look as an ad hoc argument to dismiss the
                composite character of Mark. So we would agree to differ on this one,
                and I would just have an ask : are there any catalog and study of such
                repetitions in Mark ? (except Rolland, who considers these doublets
                in Mark as an absolut proof of Mark being later, deriving in a whole
                from matthean and lukan tradition, without any possible proto-Mk).

                a+
                manu

                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Ron Price
                Emmanuel and Leonard, There are now three arguments being put forward on the basis of Mark ... I ve already replied to this. Repentance was not a significant
                Message 7 of 22 , Nov 6, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Emmanuel and Leonard,

                  There are now three arguments being put forward on the basis of Mark
                  1:4-8 that Mark knew Luke:

                  >- the link between Mk 1:4 and the style of Luke

                  I've already replied to this. Repentance was not a significant theme
                  of the historical Jesus - see _The Five Gospels_ (no red or pink); also
                  Sanders _The Historical Figure of Jesus_, p.232. Therefore Mark was
                  right not to carry the theme over from JnB to Jesus. This explains the
                  single reference in Mark. Luke's usage in 5:32, 15:7 and 24:47 portrays
                  Lukan theology rather than the historical Jesus.

                  >- the aorist in Mk 1:8 that parallel account of JB in Act

                  Mark used the aorist to make a point about the passing of the era of
                  JnB. Matthew wanted to reinforce the message, so he introduced new
                  material re JnB (11:2-19). This new material suggests an overlap between
                  the missions of JnB and Jesus. But the new era brought in by the coming
                  of Jesus is implied in various ways in 11:11-15.

                  >- the doublet Mk 1:4 + 1:5

                  Doublet? I see no reason to suspect different sources behind these two
                  verses. To be confident of different sources we would have to be able to
                  identify an inconsistency or at least a redundancy. There is neither
                  here. (V.4 explains the topic of JnB's preaching and v.5 explains what
                  happened.) Therefore there is no reason to take Mk 1:4-5 as a composite
                  text.

                  Ron Price

                  Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                  e-mail: ron.price@...

                  Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • David Gentile
                  ... Hello again, This is one of those doublets I was referring to before. Luke having one half and Matthew the other does seems suspicious to me, and requires
                  Message 8 of 22 , Nov 6, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >
                    > >- the doublet Mk 1:4 + 1:5
                    >
                    > Doublet? I see no reason to suspect different sources behind these two
                    > verses. To be confident of different sources we would have to be able to
                    > identify an inconsistency or at least a redundancy. There is neither
                    > here. (V.4 explains the topic of JnB's preaching and v.5 explains what
                    > happened.) Therefore there is no reason to take Mk 1:4-5 as a composite
                    > text.
                    >
                    > Ron Price
                    >

                    Hello again,

                    This is one of those doublets I was referring to before.
                    Luke having one half and Matthew the other does seems suspicious to me,
                    and requires both authors to routinely omit things, if Mark is the only
                    source for all of these. While I believe this may be the case sometimes,
                    I'm reluctant to say that this was always the reason for these.
                    In general, for the apparent Mark doublets,
                    I would suggest the one of the following:

                    proto-Mark(1) => Luke(1)
                    proto-Mark(1) + outside source (2)=> Mark (1 + 2)
                    proto-Mark(1) + outside source (2) => p-Mt (2)
                    p-Mt (2) + Mark(1 + 2) => Matthew(2)

                    or

                    proto-Mark(1) => Luke(1)
                    proto-Mark(1) => Mark (1 + 2)
                    proto-Mark(1) => p-Mt (1)
                    p-Mt (1) + Mark(1 + 2) => Matthew(2)

                    In both cases Luke's version is original, and Mark makes the addition to get
                    Mark's doublet.
                    Matthew chooses to eliminate redundancy, and keeps the added half.

                    Dave Gentile
                    Riverside, Illinois





                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Emmanuel Fritsch
                    ... You do not address the argument on style. Gospel authors were allowed to speak about repentance without using Lukan words, and Matthew and John did it. And
                    Message 9 of 22 , Nov 6, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > There are now three arguments being put forward on the basis of Mark
                      > 1:4-8 that Mark knew Luke:
                      >
                      > >- the link between Mk 1:4 and the style of Luke
                      >
                      > I've already replied to this. Repentance was not a significant theme
                      > of the historical Jesus - see _The Five Gospels_ (no red or pink); also
                      > Sanders _The Historical Figure of Jesus_, p.232. Therefore Mark was
                      > right not to carry the theme over from JnB to Jesus. This explains the
                      > single reference in Mark. Luke's usage in 5:32, 15:7 and 24:47 portrays
                      > Lukan theology rather than the historical Jesus.

                      You do not address the argument on style. Gospel authors were allowed
                      to speak about repentance without using Lukan words, and Matthew and
                      John did it. And even Mark did it in Mark 1:5.

                      If we must consider Luke as second, then we should imagine that Luke
                      has had something like a mystical flash on Mk 1:4 (but not on Mk 1:5)
                      and decided to include it, not just in its theology, but in its
                      vocabulary.


                      > >- the doublet Mk 1:4 + 1:5
                      >
                      > Doublet? I see no reason to suspect different sources behind these two
                      > verses. To be confident of different sources we would have to be able to
                      > identify an inconsistency or at least a redundancy. There is neither
                      > here. (V.4 explains the topic of JnB's preaching and v.5 explains what
                      > happened.) Therefore there is no reason to take Mk 1:4-5 as a composite
                      > text.

                      Even if you may disagree with them, there are good reasons to take
                      Mk 1:4-5 as a composite text. About redundancy : you do not see any
                      redundancy ? But if Mark is a source for the other synoptist, then
                      we have two good witnesses of the redundancy : Luke and Matthew,
                      who did not reproduce it.

                      I agree redundancy is not the strongest argument for the composite
                      character. But you do not answer about the similarity of V.4 with
                      Luke (and not Matthew) and the proximity of V.5 with Matthew (and
                      not Luke).

                      Did they meet, Luke and Matthew, in order to share the material ?
                      "Please, my dear Luke, I know how you like this V.4, take it,
                      and I will take that V.5, that perfectly fits my own gospel".

                      a+
                      manu

                      PS : when you write "To be confident of different sources we
                      would have to be able to identify an inconsistency or at least
                      a redundancy", should we understand you ackowledge the composite
                      character of inconsistent pericopae in Mark ?

                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Maluflen@aol.com
                      In a message dated 11/6/2001 8:28:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, ron.price@virgin.net writes: - the aorist in Mk 1:8 that parallel account of JB in Act Mark
                      Message 10 of 22 , Nov 6, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 11/6/2001 8:28:30 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                        ron.price@... writes:

                        << >- the aorist in Mk 1:8 that parallel account of JB in Act

                        Mark used the aorist to make a point about the passing of the era of
                        JnB. Matthew wanted to reinforce the message, so he introduced new
                        material re JnB (11:2-19). This new material suggests an overlap between
                        the missions of JnB and Jesus. But the new era brought in by the coming
                        of Jesus is implied in various ways in 11:11-15.>>


                        You don't address at all the issue of why Matthew, if, as you say, he wanted
                        to "reinforce the message" about the passing of the era of JB, changed Mark's
                        aorist, ebaptisen, to a present tense form of the verb. Let alone why Luke
                        did the same identical thing in his supposed independent redaction of Mark. I
                        have given you a coherent reason for Mark's using the aorist form of the verb
                        even though both of his sources, on my hypothesis, have John using the
                        present tense of the verb at that point of the narrative: Mark was familiar,
                        and attempts to reflect, the later versions/applications of JB's statement
                        found in Acts, where, in retrospect, the era of John and his baptism is in
                        the past, compared to the new outpourings of the Holy Spirit that constitute
                        the various pentecosts of Acts. In Mk 1:8, JB is speaking directly to Mark's
                        audience, who, in the setting of a pre-baptismal gospel drama (based on the
                        earlier, literary gospels) are looking forward to a sacramental pentecost of
                        their own, in baptism and the conferral of the Holy Spirit. (Thus also the
                        pointed removal of Matt and Lk's "and with fire" from the words of John).

                        And by the way, much of the JB material you think to have been added by
                        Matthew to the story as told in his Markan source is singularly ineffective,
                        to put it mildly, in terms of reinforcing a subordination of John to Jesus
                        and a narrowly conceived view of his mission as serving to announce the
                        coming of the mightier one that quite clearly characterize the text of Mark.
                        Some of this added material in Matt, e.g., has John parallel and anticipate
                        statements of Jesus himself later in Matt. In this case, Mark's omission of
                        material on my hypothesis has a clear and persuasive theological (i.e.,
                        christological) motivation.

                        Leonard Maluf

                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • David Gentile
                        ... I m inclined to accept your explination here. This may be because my hypothesis also allows Mark to not be original in some places. The only thing it would
                        Message 11 of 22 , Nov 6, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          >In this case, Mark's omission of
                          > material on my hypothesis has a clear and persuasive theological (i.e.,
                          > christological) motivation.
                          >
                          > Leonard Maluf
                          >

                          I'm inclined to accept your explination here. This may be because my
                          hypothesis also allows Mark to not be original in some places. The only
                          thing it would hold with certainty is that Mark/Luke agreement is always
                          more original that Matthew. Do you have any cases where you feel there is
                          good evidence that Matthew is earlier than Mark/Luke agreement?

                          Thanks,
                          Dave Gentile
                          Riverside, Illinois





                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        • Ron Price
                          ... Emmanuel, Taking the usage of METANOIA in isolation, ignoring the thousands of other pieces of evidence which relate to the synoptic problem, suggests that
                          Message 12 of 22 , Nov 7, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

                            >> >- the link between Mk 1:4 and the style of Luke
                            > .....
                            >You do not address the argument on style.

                            Emmanuel,
                            Taking the usage of METANOIA in isolation, ignoring the thousands of
                            other pieces of evidence which relate to the synoptic problem, suggests
                            that Mark (and Matthew?) might have taken this word from Luke. But even
                            with this qualification we only obtain a modest probability in favour of
                            such a conclusion. The less probable alternative (given this
                            qualification) is that Mark could have been familiar with METANOIA and
                            simply not used it much because he thought it only applied to the
                            preaching of JnB. Consideration of the thousands of other pieces of
                            evidence rightly leads most scholars to conclude that Luke used Mark and
                            not the other way round.

                            >If we must consider Luke as second

                            Not at all. Luke was third.

                            >, then we should imagine that Luke
                            >has had something like a mystical flash on Mk 1:4 (but not on Mk 1:5)

                            Luke was selective. Is that so strange?

                            >> >- the doublet Mk 1:4 + 1:5

                            > ..... if Mark is a source for the other synoptist, then
                            >we have two good witnesses of the redundancy : Luke and Matthew,
                            >who did not reproduce it.

                            Mark described both a preaching topic and an action scenario. The
                            action scenario fitted Matthew's more graphic description of JnB's
                            activity. The preaching topic suited Luke's grand preface (Lk
                            1:1-4;3:1-5) to his two volume masterpiece. (The formal language of Lk
                            3:1f. supports the view that the birth narratives weren't in the first
                            edition of Luke.) But for Mark, neither was redundant.

                            >PS : when you write "To be confident of different sources we
                            >would have to be able to identify an inconsistency or at least
                            >a redundancy", should we understand you ackowledge the composite
                            >character of inconsistent pericopae in Mark ?

                            Each case should be considered on its merits.
                            For example Mark 16:7 ("go, tell") is inconsistent with Mk 16:8 ("they
                            said nothing to any one"). Mark had in effect complimented the women for
                            not abandoning Jesus (15:40) and for having looked after him (15:41), so
                            he would not have presented them as deliberately disobeying a clear
                            instruction of Jesus. Also, as a great story teller, Mark would have
                            historicized the fulfilment of "there you will see him, as he told you"
                            if these words had been in his autograph. Furthermore the text reads
                            more smoothly when 16:7 is removed. Thus 16:7 is a post-Markan
                            interpolation (along with the related 14:28). The motivation for
                            interpolation is clear: the rehabilitation of Peter after the criticisms
                            by Mark which culminated in the denial.

                            Ron Price

                            Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                            e-mail: ron.price@...

                            Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm


                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          • Ron Price
                            ... Leonard, Perhaps it was to increase the parallelism between JnB in 3:11a and Jesus in 3:11d, c.f. the comments in Davies & Allison, _Matthew_, I, p.312.
                            Message 13 of 22 , Nov 7, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              ><< >- the aorist in Mk 1:8 that parallel account of JB in Act

                              Leonard Maluf wrote:

                              >You don't address at all the issue of why Matthew, if, as you say, he wanted
                              >to "reinforce the message" about the passing of the era of JB, changed Mark's
                              >aorist, ebaptisen, to a present tense form of the verb.

                              Leonard,
                              Perhaps it was to increase the parallelism between JnB in 3:11a and
                              Jesus in 3:11d, c.f. the comments in Davies & Allison, _Matthew_, I,
                              p.312.

                              > ..... Let alone why Luke
                              >did the same identical thing in his supposed independent redaction of Mark.

                              I don't suppose that. To me it's clear that Luke had some of Matthew's
                              wording at the back of his mind whilst he was editing Mark, and that
                              this occasionally influenced Luke's account.

                              >And by the way, much of the JB material you think to have been added by
                              >Matthew to the story as told in his Markan source is singularly ineffective,
                              >to put it mildly, in terms of reinforcing a subordination of John to Jesus

                              O.K. So reinforcement of JnB's subordination may not have been
                              Matthew's primary purpose in adding 11:2-19. There are other motives,
                              e.g. reinforcing the accounts of Jesus' miracles (11:5), disparaging
                              violence (11:12), justifying Jesus' apparent reluctance to fast
                              (11:18-19).

                              >In this case, Mark's omission of material on my hypothesis has a clear
                              >and persuasive theological (i.e., christological) motivation.

                              Any claim for a supposed motivation in this case is thoroughly dwarfed
                              by the overall question of the motivation of a supposed later Mark who
                              apparently expends so much effort on an abbreviated account which misses
                              out many of the best parts of Matthew. On your hypothesis Mark wasted
                              his time producing a gospel which the early Church largely ignored in
                              favour of Matthew. Of course in theory this is possible. But Mark would
                              have had to be very dim not to see that his gospel would have had no
                              chance of superseding Matthew, let alone Luke. Mark was no dimwit. If it
                              hadn't been for Mark's subtle combination of Pauline theology with an
                              interest in putting Jesus in a plausible historical setting,
                              Christianity might never have become a world religion.

                              Ron Price

                              Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                              e-mail: ron.price@...

                              Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm



                              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                            • Maluflen@aol.com
                              In a message dated 11/7/2001 12:40:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, GentDave@worldnet.att.net writes: In this case, Mark s omission of ... I m inclined to
                              Message 14 of 22 , Nov 7, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 11/7/2001 12:40:04 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                                GentDave@... writes:

                                << >In this case, Mark's omission of
                                > material on my hypothesis has a clear and persuasive theological (i.e.,
                                > christological) motivation.
                                >
                                > Leonard Maluf
                                >

                                I'm inclined to accept your explanation here. This may be because my
                                hypothesis also allows Mark to not be original in some places. The only
                                thing it would hold with certainty is that Mark/Luke agreement is always
                                more original that Matthew. Do you have any cases where you feel there is
                                good evidence that Matthew is earlier than Mark/Luke agreement?>>


                                Yes. All over the place. But let's start with the most obvious case. The
                                Luke/Mark form of the story of the demoniac(s) in Matt 8:28-34 is clearly a
                                later development of Matt's obscure narrative, with its complete absence of
                                focus on the human element of the story, both the misery of the victimized
                                human being at its beginning and the contrasting wonder of redomesticated
                                humanity, under the saving influence of Jesus, at its conclusion. Any effort
                                to make Matthew's version of this story secondary to the (more or less
                                common) form of the story found in Lk and Mk is patently forced. I have also
                                shown in a series of related articles that Lk 4:31-37 (and hence its Markan
                                parallel) is another spin off from the story in Matt 8:28-34. Besides giving
                                a very convincing description of the motives and methods of this literary
                                bifurcation performed by Luke, my overall hypothesis provides a better
                                explanation for the absence of the story in Matthew than any I have seen
                                given by Marcan priorists.

                                Leonard Maluf

                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                              • Maluflen@aol.com
                                In a message dated 11/7/2001 6:39:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, ron.price@virgin.net writes: - the aorist in Mk 1:8 that parallel account of JB in Act
                                Message 15 of 22 , Nov 7, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  In a message dated 11/7/2001 6:39:50 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                                  ron.price@... writes:

                                  << ><< >- the aorist in Mk 1:8 that parallel account of JB in Act

                                  Leonard Maluf wrote:

                                  >You don't address at all the issue of why Matthew, if, as you say, he
                                  wanted
                                  >to "reinforce the message" about the passing of the era of JB, changed
                                  Mark's
                                  >aorist, ebaptisen, to a present tense form of the verb.

                                  Leonard,
                                  Perhaps it was to increase the parallelism between JnB in 3:11a and
                                  Jesus in 3:11d, c.f. the comments in Davies & Allison, _Matthew_, I,
                                  p.312.>>

                                  I need help here. How exactly does changing the tense of the verb baptizo
                                  from aorist to present increase the parallelism between JnB in 3:11a and
                                  Jesus in 3:11d, c.f? And if it does do this, why is increasing the
                                  parallelism between JB and Jesus thought of as being a relatively late
                                  undertaking? Increasing the parallelism tends to obscure rather than
                                  highlight the subordination of Jn to Jesus, which is clearly the tendency in
                                  the later texts (see Jn, e.g.).

                                  > ..... Let alone why Luke
                                  >did the same identical thing in his supposed independent redaction of Mark.

                                  I don't suppose that. To me it's clear that Luke had some of Matthew's
                                  wording at the back of his mind whilst he was editing Mark, and that
                                  this occasionally influenced Luke's account.>>

                                  Thanks. This is a good start.

                                  >In this case, Mark's omission of material on my hypothesis has a clear
                                  >and persuasive theological (i.e., christological) motivation.

                                  Any claim for a supposed motivation in this case is thoroughly dwarfed
                                  by the overall question of the motivation of a supposed later Mark who
                                  apparently expends so much effort on an abbreviated account which misses
                                  out many of the best parts of Matthew.>>

                                  I'm glad you make this step at this point. It confirms something I have long
                                  suspected: namely that it is the macro argument in favor of Markan priority
                                  that lurks in the background in the analysis and exegesis of individual
                                  Synoptic texts by most scholars. I have been trying to make the interesting
                                  case that a Synoptic theory based on empirical evidence at the micro level
                                  does not really support Markan priority, in general; that one should be
                                  honest about this; and that one should therefore, at some point in the game,
                                  come to reexamine the validity of the macro-level arguments themselves lest
                                  they contain some weakness in their presuppositions. For example, you speak
                                  above of "a supposed later Mark who
                                  apparently expends so much effort on an abbreviated account which misses
                                  out many of the best parts of Matthew". This presupposes, with no
                                  justification for the point, that Mark intended to replace Matthew with his
                                  version of the Gospel. If he did not intend this, then the best parts of
                                  Matthew are guaranteed survival beyond Mark, and they are moreover parts that
                                  Mark might naturally hesitate to reproduce precisely because they cannot
                                  really be improved upon (but also because they do not directly serve Mark's
                                  limited purposes in writing to a specific audience for a specific occasion).

                                  << On your hypothesis Mark wasted
                                  his time producing a gospel which the early Church largely ignored in
                                  favour of Matthew. Of course in theory this is possible. But Mark would
                                  have had to be very dim not to see that his gospel would have had no
                                  chance of superseding Matthew, let alone Luke. Mark was no dimwit.>>

                                  Again Mark was not trying to do the impossible, i.e. to supersede Matt or
                                  Luke. Nor was he necessarily writing for posterity, but rather for a concrete
                                  audience for which he was pastorally responsible. Moreover, it was not the
                                  early Church in general that largely ignored Mark's gospel, but rather the
                                  intellectuals whose writings have survived from antiquity and who had a very
                                  natural disdain for a work that was written specifically for the lower
                                  classes of half-educated people in a Roman community. And by the way, AMatt
                                  and ALk would presumably have had an analogous disdain for Mark, I would
                                  contend, even had that gospel preceded theirs (and they would accordingly
                                  never have used it as the basis of their work). There is, I think, a howler
                                  of unrealism -- in terms of the awareness of social division and its
                                  implications in antiquity -- inherent in the theory of Marcan priority and
                                  the supposed use by Matt and Lk of a work written by Mark, whom Luke refers
                                  to in Acts as a hyperetes (not of the word, mind you, but of Paul!). It would
                                  be as though I entered the Harvard Divinity Library, as I did today, and went
                                  first to talk to the men working on the rebuilding project there for
                                  illumination on questions of scriptural exegesis I had come to research. It
                                  makes good sense to think of Matthew especially in terms of the societal
                                  divisions, and accompanying attitudes, advertised in Sir 38:24ff, where it is
                                  inconceivable that the scribe referred to in the opening verse of the section
                                  would have gone for guidance in intellectual or spiritual matters to one of
                                  the ploughmen, workmen, or craftsmen referred to in the subsequent verses of
                                  the passage. We so spontaneously think of the four gospels as equally
                                  glorified in the tradition that we forget about a basic realism that would
                                  establish clear differentiation in kind between them in terms of literary
                                  elegance and class-identification of their authors. Mark makes good sense as
                                  a popular dramatization of epic gospel works which antedated it; analogous to
                                  the popular dramatizations (though of much higher literary quality) that
                                  followed classical Greek epic (Homer in particular) in the period of the
                                  great Greek and Latin tragedians.

                                  Leonard Maluf


                                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                • Ron Price
                                  ... Leonard, Matthew s, BAPTIZW and BAPTISEI looked (and sounded?) similar. ... It isn t in general. There is no trend in parallelism within the first century
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Nov 8, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Leonard Maluf wrote:

                                    > ..... How exactly does changing the tense of the verb baptizo
                                    >from aorist to present increase the parallelism between JnB in 3:11a and
                                    >Jesus in 3:11d

                                    Leonard,
                                    Matthew's, BAPTIZW and BAPTISEI looked (and sounded?) similar.

                                    > ..... And if it does do this, why is increasing the
                                    >parallelism between JB and Jesus thought of as being a relatively late
                                    >undertaking?

                                    It isn't in general. There is no trend in parallelism within the first
                                    century as far as I know. Matthew simply thought it appropriate in this
                                    case.

                                    >> Any claim for a supposed motivation in this case is thoroughly dwarfed
                                    >> by the overall question of the motivation of a supposed later Mark who
                                    >> apparently expends so much effort on an abbreviated account which misses
                                    >> out many of the best parts of Matthew.>>

                                    >I'm glad you make this step at this point. It confirms something I have long
                                    >suspected: namely that it is the macro argument in favor of Markan priority
                                    >that lurks in the background in the analysis and exegesis of individual
                                    >Synoptic texts by most scholars.

                                    I am not a professional scholar. But you are probably right. For no
                                    one can hope to make sense of a vast complex of data without positing
                                    some overall theory to account for it. Surely you do the same.

                                    > ..... one should ..... at some point in the game,
                                    >come to reexamine the validity of the macro-level arguments themselves lest
                                    >they contain some weakness in their presuppositions.

                                    Yes, if new detailed evidence emerges which is likely to tip the
                                    balance against one's prevailing theory.

                                    >> ..... a supposed later Mark who
                                    >> apparently expends so much effort on an abbreviated account which misses
                                    >> out many of the best parts of Matthew

                                    > This presupposes, with no
                                    >justification for the point, that Mark intended to replace Matthew with his
                                    >version of the Gospel. If he did not intend this .....

                                    But this is even less credible. It's like saying Bill Gates & co.
                                    didn't want to replace Netscape Navigator when they promoted Internet
                                    Explorer.

                                    > ..... There is, I think, a howler
                                    >of unrealism - in terms of the awareness of social division and its
                                    >implications in antiquity - inherent in the theory of Marcan priority and the
                                    >supposed use by Matt and Lk of a work written by Mark, whom Luke refers to in
                                    >Acts as a hyperetes (not of the word, mind you, but of Paul!).

                                    I think it is you who are unrealistic. All the gospels were published
                                    anonymously. Even if Matthew and Luke knew who had written Mark, they
                                    must have realized that their contemporaries would not be able to work
                                    out that they had made use of Mark. So even if your social theory were
                                    correct, they would have had no reason to lose face on account of their
                                    editorial activity.

                                    > ..... we forget about a basic realism that would establish
                                    >clear differentiation in kind between them in terms of literary elegance and
                                    >class-identification of their authors.

                                    In the first century more importance would surely have been attached
                                    to their place of origin. As there is evidence that Mark was written in
                                    Rome, the capital city of the Empire, this would have enhanced its
                                    initial acceptance.

                                    > Mark makes good sense as a popular
                                    >dramatization of epic gospel works which antedated it; analogous to the
                                    >popular dramatizations (though of much higher literary quality) that followed
                                    >classical Greek epic (Homer in particular) in the period of the great Greek
                                    >and Latin tragedians.

                                    Since when did dramatizations miss out the best bits of the original
                                    story?

                                    Mark's popularity has been restricted to two brief periods in history:
                                    before the more 'complete' gospels came along, and then much more
                                    recently when scholars realized that Mark came first and therefore might
                                    be the key to understanding the historical Jesus.

                                    Ron Price

                                    Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                                    e-mail: ron.price@...

                                    Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                                    In a message dated 11/8/2001 6:31:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, ron.price@virgin.net writes: ... Leonard, Matthew s, BAPTIZW and BAPTISEI looked (and sounded?)
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Nov 8, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      In a message dated 11/8/2001 6:31:41 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                                      ron.price@... writes:

                                      << Leonard Maluf wrote:

                                      > ..... How exactly does changing the tense of the verb baptizo
                                      >from aorist to present increase the parallelism between JnB in 3:11a and
                                      >Jesus in 3:11d

                                      Leonard,
                                      Matthew's, BAPTIZW and BAPTISEI looked (and sounded?) similar.>>

                                      And so do EBAPTISA and BAPTISEI; these, more so at their endings, the other
                                      more so at their beginnings.

                                      > ..... And if it does do this, why is increasing the
                                      >parallelism between JB and Jesus thought of as being a relatively late
                                      >undertaking?

                                      It isn't in general. There is no trend in parallelism within the first
                                      century as far as I know. Matthew simply thought it appropriate in this
                                      case.>>

                                      This doesn't seem to address my problem here. Doesn't parallelism have an
                                      intrinsic force of weakening subordination? And isn't there a clear tendency
                                      in the tradition toward stressing the subordination of Jn to Jesus? Notice
                                      also "for so it behooves US to fulfill all righteousness" in the Matthean
                                      text, again placing Jn and Jesus into very close proximity of action, as
                                      opposed to subordinating the action of one to the other.

                                      >> Any claim for a supposed motivation in this case is thoroughly dwarfed
                                      >> by the overall question of the motivation of a supposed later Mark who
                                      >> apparently expends so much effort on an abbreviated account which misses
                                      >> out many of the best parts of Matthew.>>

                                      >I'm glad you make this step at this point. It confirms something I have
                                      long
                                      >suspected: namely that it is the macro argument in favor of Markan priority
                                      >that lurks in the background in the analysis and exegesis of individual
                                      >Synoptic texts by most scholars.

                                      I am not a professional scholar. But you are probably right. For no
                                      one can hope to make sense of a vast complex of data without positing
                                      some overall theory to account for it. Surely you do the same.

                                      Yes. But I make sure my theory "checks out" at the micro level; I don't force
                                      it to out of attachment for the overall theory.

                                      > ..... one should ..... at some point in the game,
                                      >come to reexamine the validity of the macro-level arguments themselves lest
                                      >they contain some weakness in their presuppositions.

                                      Yes, if new detailed evidence emerges which is likely to tip the
                                      balance against one's prevailing theory.>>

                                      There is plenty of that, but detailed evidence is not the only thing that
                                      should make someone rethink a favored theory. A good enough reason for
                                      reexamining a theory, for example, is if it has been shown that the theory
                                      itself presupposes some untenable or at least some by-no-means demonstrated
                                      beliefs.

                                      > This presupposes, with no
                                      >justification for the point, that Mark intended to replace Matthew with his
                                      >version of the Gospel. If he did not intend this .....

                                      But this is even less credible. It's like saying Bill Gates & co.
                                      didn't want to replace Netscape Navigator when they promoted Internet
                                      Explorer.>>

                                      You don't seem to be doing justice to my point here. It is true that for the
                                      limited purpose, audience and occasion for which a late Mark would have
                                      written his gospel he intended it to momentarily replace Matthew (and Luke,
                                      for that matter). But it is quite possible to envision a situation in which
                                      Mark was originally not intended for a wide and literate audience and hence
                                      was not in any way intended to replace Matt or Luke at that level, if you
                                      will, or in that market, to put it contemporary terms. This idea is supported
                                      by Dr. Carlson's recent analysis of the statement of Clement of Alexandria
                                      and the correct understanding of prografein. (Mark's gospel not originally
                                      intended for publication). Source theorists in the Synoptics really have
                                      traditionally given very superficial attention, if any at all, to the
                                      pragmatics of gospel communication in developing their theories. There lurks
                                      in the background always the idea of a scribe intent upon preserving all
                                      evangelical traditions available to him for posterity. The model may be
                                      totally off mark for the realities of the various situations for which
                                      gospels were actually written. The gospels are in fact valuable TO US because
                                      they have in fact preserved some Jesus tradition for posterity (i.e., us). It
                                      does not follow, however, that this was the motivation of all, if it was even
                                      of any, of the evangelists. Given other possible motivations for writing, the
                                      theories that have been generally accepted all need review.

                                      > ..... There is, I think, a howler
                                      >of unrealism - in terms of the awareness of social division and its
                                      >implications in antiquity - inherent in the theory of Marcan priority and
                                      the
                                      >supposed use by Matt and Lk of a work written by Mark, whom Luke refers to
                                      in
                                      >Acts as a hyperetes (not of the word, mind you, but of Paul!).

                                      I think it is you who are unrealistic. All the gospels were published
                                      anonymously. Even if Matthew and Luke knew who had written Mark, they
                                      must have realized that their contemporaries would not be able to work
                                      out that they had made use of Mark. So even if your social theory were
                                      correct, they would have had no reason to lose face on account of their
                                      editorial activity.>>

                                      You didn't quite get my point here. It's not a question of whether they might
                                      have been found out to have known and used Mark. What I am suggesting is that
                                      a document like Mark would not have interested sophisticated scholars like
                                      Matthew and Luke enough to even bother reading it. To use another
                                      contemporary example, I don't waste time with the books on the NT that are
                                      regularly found on the shelves of "Christian" book stores in a typical
                                      American mall. It's not that I don't recognize that such books might serve
                                      some edifying purpose for some; they just don't measure up to the level or
                                      the nature of my interest in these topics.

                                      > ..... we forget about a basic realism that would establish
                                      >clear differentiation in kind between them in terms of literary elegance
                                      and
                                      >class-identification of their authors.

                                      In the first century more importance would surely have been attached
                                      to their place of origin. As there is evidence that Mark was written in
                                      Rome, the capital city of the Empire, this would have enhanced its
                                      initial acceptance.>>

                                      On the other hand, there would be very little corroborating evidence to
                                      support the idea of a Christian product originating in the West and being
                                      feverishly adopted in the East. The movement in the early centuries of the
                                      church was simply and uniformly in the opposite direction. Even at the end of
                                      the second century Lyons had to get its famous bishop theologian from Syria.

                                      > Mark makes good sense as a popular
                                      >dramatization of epic gospel works which antedated it; analogous to the
                                      >popular dramatizations (though of much higher literary quality) that
                                      followed
                                      >classical Greek epic (Homer in particular) in the period of the great Greek
                                      >and Latin tragedians.

                                      Since when did dramatizations miss out the best bits of the original
                                      story?>>

                                      Dramatizations usually dealt with very limited portions of the story line
                                      provided by the original epics. What is unusual in the case of Mark is that
                                      he used so much, not that he used so little, of the story line provided by
                                      the earlier Gospels.

                                      << Mark's popularity has been restricted to two brief periods in history:
                                      before the more 'complete' gospels came along, and then much more
                                      recently when scholars realized that Mark came first and therefore might
                                      be the key to understanding the historical Jesus.>>

                                      This presupposes rather than argues your theory (as does my own previous
                                      paragraph mine). My general impression from the above discussion, though, is
                                      that you think Markan priority doesn't really need strong supporting
                                      arguments in its favor because there are so many people who hold it. There is
                                      a fallacy here, I think.

                                      Leonard Maluf


                                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                    • Emmanuel Fritsch
                                      ... I do not want to take the usage of METANOIA in isolation. I ask you about a guy who wrote a sentence containing some of the following word roots :
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Nov 9, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        > >> >- the link between Mk 1:4 and the style of Luke
                                        > > .....
                                        > >You do not address the argument on style.
                                        >
                                        > Emmanuel,
                                        > Taking the usage of METANOIA in isolation,

                                        I do not want to take the usage of METANOIA in isolation. I ask you
                                        about a guy who wrote a sentence containing some of the following
                                        word roots : METANOIA, AMARTIWN, AFESIN, KHRUSSWM (or EKHERUSSWN ?)

                                        If you think that this fuzzy pattern is a normal feature, or a
                                        coincidence, then find an example of such a concentrated use of
                                        Matthean style in Mark, or Lukan style in Matthew.

                                        In the example you provided (which looks as a good example for a
                                        dependency from Matthew to Luke) the sentence in Luke was paralleled
                                        twice in Matthew, with a direct link, so that (even if I agree for
                                        this link) one may dismiss it saying Matthew copied twice a sentence
                                        found in Luke.

                                        For Mk 1:4, it looks hard to believe that Luke integrated as a whole
                                        a piece of markan pericopae, with its vocabulary and its theology. Or
                                        if you accept such an explanation, all interelation in gospels may
                                        be enlight through such explanations, and we find a good reason to
                                        justify all problems with all synoptic theory.

                                        > Taking the usage of METANOIA in isolation, ignoring the thousands of
                                        > other pieces of evidence which relate to the synoptic problem, suggests
                                        > that Mark (and Matthew?) might have taken this word from Luke. But even
                                        > with this qualification we only obtain a modest probability in favour of
                                        > such a conclusion. The less probable alternative (given this
                                        > qualification) is that Mark could have been familiar with METANOIA and
                                        > simply not used it much because he thought it only applied to the
                                        > preaching of JnB. Consideration of the thousands of other pieces of
                                        > evidence rightly leads most scholars to conclude that Luke used Mark and
                                        > not the other way round.

                                        The problem of all those pieces of evidence is : in a strict sense,
                                        they prove that developments in Luke are present in a more genuine
                                        state in Mark. They prove Lukan posteriority, not Mark being a
                                        source of Luke. You deduce Mark being a source only by positing
                                        that no intermediate stage is involved in the redaction process.

                                        But if Mark and Luke both have composite characteristic, this
                                        hypothesis looks hard to sustain. All the argument I read about
                                        Mark being prior forget to address the composite character of Mark,
                                        and are just argument for Lukan and Matthean posteriority.


                                        > >, [If Luke comes last] then we should imagine that Luke
                                        > >has had something like a mystical flash on Mk 1:4 (but not on Mk 1:5)
                                        >
                                        > Luke was selective. Is that so strange?

                                        Yes. It is absolutely not convincing that Luke select verses in
                                        Mark, including them in his theology and in his style, but did
                                        not achieve the same task with Matthew.

                                        It looks strange that on this doubtfull verse, coincidentally,
                                        Luke would chose a verse that Matthew did not chose, and would
                                        reject the verse that Matthew had kept.


                                        > >> >- the doublet Mk 1:4 + 1:5
                                        >
                                        > > ..... if Mark is a source for the other synoptist, then
                                        > >we have two good witnesses of the redundancy : Luke and Matthew,
                                        > >who did not reproduce it.
                                        >
                                        > Mark described both a preaching topic and an action scenario. The
                                        > action scenario fitted Matthew's more graphic description of JnB's
                                        > activity. The preaching topic suited Luke's grand preface (Lk
                                        > 1:1-4;3:1-5) to his two volume masterpiece. (The formal language of Lk
                                        > 3:1f. supports the view that the birth narratives weren't in the first
                                        > edition of Luke.) But for Mark, neither was redundant.

                                        Obviously, for the guy who created the redundancy, it was not
                                        a redundancy. But if you were right when you say that Mark 1:4
                                        is a source of Lk and Mt, then obviously Lk and Mt saw a
                                        redundancy, and removed it. But now, we just have to let
                                        readers of the list judge if Mk 1:4-5 is not redundant.


                                        > >PS : when you write "To be confident of different sources we
                                        > >would have to be able to identify an inconsistency or at least
                                        > >a redundancy", should we understand you ackowledge the composite
                                        > >character of inconsistent pericopae in Mark ?
                                        >
                                        > Each case should be considered on its merits.
                                        > For example Mark 16:7 ("go, tell") is inconsistent with Mk 16:8 ("they
                                        > said nothing to any one"). Mark had in effect complimented the women for
                                        > not abandoning Jesus (15:40) and for having looked after him (15:41), so
                                        > he would not have presented them as deliberately disobeying a clear
                                        > instruction of Jesus. Also, as a great story teller, Mark would have
                                        > historicized the fulfilment of "there you will see him, as he told you"
                                        > if these words had been in his autograph. Furthermore the text reads
                                        > more smoothly when 16:7 is removed. Thus 16:7 is a post-Markan
                                        > interpolation (along with the related 14:28). The motivation for
                                        > interpolation is clear: the rehabilitation of Peter after the criticisms
                                        > by Mark which culminated in the denial.

                                        Some observation on this example :

                                        - You provide here an example about inconsistency,
                                        but not about redundancy.

                                        - I agree that each case should be considered on its merits.
                                        But two less strong case may help together, and more over, a
                                        good case may help a tangent one. I give an example :

                                        Imagine we may find a lukan character in Mk 16:8-20. If we
                                        accept the common deduction that this gospel ending is later,
                                        then its lukan character would reinforce the probability for
                                        lukan like pericopae in Mark to be later, and in fact deriving
                                        from Luke.

                                        Perhabs may we check the lukan character of Mk 16:8-20 ?

                                        a+
                                        manu

                                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                      • Maluflen@aol.com
                                        In a message dated 11/11/2001 1:05:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, ron.price@virgin.net writes: ... Leonard, You assume that the subordination process must have
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Nov 11, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          In a message dated 11/11/2001 1:05:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                                          ron.price@... writes:

                                          << Leonard Maluf wrote:

                                          >My point is that the subordination of Jn to Jesus is clearest, in the
                                          >Synoptic tradition, precisely in Mark -- which argues against Mark coming
                                          >first.

                                          Leonard,
                                          You assume that the subordination process must have taken place during
                                          the period when the synoptic gospels were being written. I say it was
                                          complete by ca. 70 CE wan Mark was written. The variation between the
                                          synoptics on this issue is minimal. >>

                                          I'm sorry. But this simply shows me that you don't read the texts carefully.
                                          Mark's text is actually quite different from Matthew's in this respect.
                                          Matthew's text has not yet been subjected to the normative framework of clear
                                          subordination of John's activity to that of Jesus, whereas Mark's has.

                                          > ..... To justify a late Mark, all that
                                          >is necessary is that Mark's final product was such as to communicate the
                                          >gospel message to a limited audience in a way that more powerfully grabs
                                          them
                                          >than would the sophisticated, often almost unintelligible, elite, and
                                          >text-based writings of Matthew and Luke.

                                          Mark arguably has more subtleties than Luke.
                                          It would be interesting to hear from any missionary who has observed
                                          different reactions to the three synoptic gospels.>>

                                          I can't judge the validity of this comment unless you have time to illustrate
                                          what you mean. I really wonder what you could mean here, or whether you are
                                          really aware of how subtle most of Luke's writing is. What do you find subtle
                                          in Mark?

                                          > ..... for the limited purpose, say, of a baptismal drama,
                                          >preceding the conferral of that sacrament, what could be better than a
                                          >dramatic narrative of the ministry of Jesus that begins with the baptism of
                                          >John and ends with the baptism of Jesus' death?

                                          Mark strikes me as a bit long-winded for that purpose, with too many
                                          of the details having only marginal relevance. Has Mark ever been used
                                          in the way you suggest?>>

                                          I presume that it was used this way originally, but there is unfortunately no
                                          corroborating external evidence of which I am aware. The internal evidence
                                          for the view is however rather more abundant than might appear at first
                                          sight, and is especially impressive on the hypothesis that Mark wrote third.
                                          Also, if baptisms were performed already in the course of an Easter vigil
                                          ceremony, lasting basically all night long, when Mark wrote his gospel, then
                                          Mark was hardly too long or long winded for this particular first century
                                          audience.

                                          > ..... Do Mark's Christians need to
                                          >be continuously bombarded with the (conflicting and midrashic) stories
                                          about
                                          >Jesus' birth found in the other gospels?

                                          Once Jesus' birth had become part of the Jesus tradition, anyone
                                          presenting Jesus who ignored it risked publishing oblivion.>>

                                          Once again, Mark probably did not originally seek publication for his
                                          production which was probably a response to an urgent pastoral exigency.

                                          << Luke tried it in his first edition, but later realized that he couldn't
                                          hope to
                                          compete with Matthew without birth stories, so he added his own (much
                                          improved) version.>>

                                          I don't believe there was ever an edition of Luke without infancy narratives,
                                          but this is a different discussion.

                                          << The Evangelist who produced the first edition of John
                                          presented Jesus as having come down from heaven, so he didn't want birth
                                          stories with their obvious implication of an earthly beginning. >>

                                          This seems like a good working rationalization for the absence of infancy
                                          stories in John.

                                          >What ever makes you think that Matthew would be looking around for
                                          >"Christian" publications in existence at the time of his writing?

                                          Do I have to remind you that Matthew was a Christian? He could hardly
                                          have ignored the only previous record of the life of Jesus, a record
                                          which had already been in existence for 10 to 15 years.>>

                                          Your confidence in the conjectured dates for the composition of the gospels
                                          is stunning. You would think, from reading your posts, that scholars knew. Of
                                          course if Mark did exist when Matthew wrote, then Matthew almost certainly
                                          used Mark. I just think that this entire hypothesis leads to a profound
                                          undervaluation of what Matthew actually accomplished. This is why the best
                                          monographs on Matthew and Luke in the last two decades have been written by
                                          those who methodologically ignore the hypothesis of Markan priority.

                                          >Please supply an example, other than the one in question, to illustrate
                                          >your point [that the movement of early Christian ideas was not uniformly
                                          > from East to West]. I would be greatly enlightened.

                                          Prepare to be enlightened. ;-)

                                          1. Luke seems to have originated in a Greek-speaking area - probably in
                                          what we now call Greece.
                                          2. There is no reason to doubt the tradition that John originated in
                                          what we now call Turkey, probably in Ephesus.
                                          3. John probably depends on Luke (Barrett, Schnelle).
                                          4. Turkey is east of Greece.
                                          5. Q.E.D.>>

                                          This is clever, and I don't disagree with any of your "facts" here. Only you
                                          have proved too little: I think of Rome as REALLY west, and Palestine (or
                                          Syria) as REALLY east. Could you try again within these more significant
                                          parameters?

                                          Leonard Maluf


                                          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.