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

Re: Mk 16:7

Expand Messages
  • skelley@daemen.edu
    I too am not fully satisfied with the arguments that MK 16: 7 is a latter interpolation, although for reasons very different from those offered by Leonard. ...
    Message 1 of 12 , Aug 17 1:46 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I too am not fully satisfied with the arguments that MK 16: 7 is a latter
      interpolation, although for reasons very different from those offered by
      Leonard.

      Recently Bruce argued, in part, as follows:
      > Take a tiny point: Mk 16:7.
      > Marxsen and others (Marxsen on 75f of his book Mark the Evangelist; Grant
      > in the Interpreter's Bible, Taylor takes note of it; lots of people) have
      > argued that this is out of place in the Mk 16:1-8 final narrative. (1) It
      > can be removed from context leaving a smooth narrative in its place. (2) it
      > has the "young man" ask the women to tell Peter etc that Jesus is going
      > before them to Galilee. This request they do not fulfil within the extant
      > narrative, and the expected appearance of Jesus in Galilee also never
      > occurs. In that sense it is not only sparable, but the narrative is more
      > consecutive without it. As Marxsen says, it can hardly have been the point
      > of the narrative to emphasize the women's disobedience. If 16:7 was added
      > later (see below for how much later), then
      > the disobedience disappears, and the narrative ends, abruptly but
      > consistently, with their awe at what they have seen.

      I want to focus in on the claim that Mark could not have been emphasizing the
      woman's disobedience. Why not? Literary critics (i.e. Kelber, Tolbert,
      Donahue, Fowler, etc.) have consistently argued that disobedience is one of the
      most important themes in Mark. I tend to be persuaded by their arguments, and
      think that they should be taken into account before claiming for MK 16:7 as an
      interpolation. I am convinced that Mark has been emphasizing disobedience of
      the disciples since 8:14ff. {Indeed one could make the case that the
      disobedience is prefigured in chapter 4 (i.e. 4:35-41) and perhaps even in
      chapter 1 (i.e. 1:35-37)}. Tolbert argues (persuasively to me, her former
      student) that the way that Mark describes the flight of the women implicitly
      links this scene with some of the earlier scenes of discipleship failure (see
      "Sowing the Gospel" pp. 164-172, 288-299)- making the women at the tomb
      extensions of the failed male disciples. The women saying nothing to anyone
      "for they were afraid" (ephobonto). This is the same word ("fear"- phobos)
      which has been repeatedly used to represent the antithesis to faith (see 4:
      35-41, especially 40-41, where fear is usually mistakenly translated as awe).
      The women are not in a state of awe in the face of the Divine, they are silent
      because their faith is lacking.

      I am not sure how much this changes the overall question of Gospel priority.
      While reading this list has made me an agnostic on the existence of Q, I still
      see Mark as first and Matthew and Luke as having revised Mark's story. It
      seems to me that this is another instance where Matthew is less successful in
      retelling Mark's story than is Luke. Matthew has the women leaving the tomb
      with "fear and great joy"- which does not make a lot of sense. I think he says
      that because he tends to slavishly follow Mark, even when Mark leads him in
      directions he doesn't particularly want to go. Luke, on the other hand, has
      the good sense to rewrite the whole sentence and leave out "fear" entirely. We
      should also note that Luke has carefully reworked the metaphor of "fear"
      throughout the course of the story so that, in his narrative world, fear
      implied awe rather than lack of faith. This has the effect of transposing the
      Lukan meaning of "phobos" as awe onto Mark, where it does not belong.

      Several weeks ago there was some discussion about possible rapprochement
      between literary-narrative analysis of the Synoptics and the study of the
      Synoptic Problem. I think that this is a case where narrative analysis would
      prove helpful. Leonard and Bruce are asking questions that seem to me to be
      literary-critical in nature (i.e. does 16:7 fit the context? what do we make
      of the women's failure?). The best way to answer questions of those sort is by
      employing the tools of literary criticism and by turning to the better examples
      of Gospel literary critical scholarship.

      Shawn Kelley
      Daemen College
      skelley@...
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... I believe that Leonard made this point, but I d like to be a little more explicit about it. Mk16:7 has tell his disciples and Peter and Mt28:7 has tell
      Message 2 of 12 , Aug 17 11:13 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        At 03:10 AM 8/17/98 -0400, E. Bruce Brooks wrote:
        >If both statements are true, then Mk 16:7 is best explained as an anomalous
        >passage (in my view, an interpolation) whose difficulties have been reduced
        >by rewriting in the Mt 28:7 parallel. This explanation only works in one
        >direction. It amounts to saying that Matthew has here rewritten, and thus
        >follows, Mark. We have (habemus) a directionality.

        I believe that Leonard made this point, but I'd like to be a little more
        explicit about it. Mk16:7 has "tell his disciples and Peter" and Mt28:7
        has "tell his disciples" [no Peter]. Given Mt's glowing endorsement of
        Peter earlier, wouldn't you say that the puzzling nature of Mt's lack of
        a reference to Peter when his alleged source contains it is, on balance,
        a directional indicator of Mt-->Mk? I'm not saying that it is impossible
        for Matthew to omit this reference to Peter, just that the relative
        probability for this one feature points to Mark's dependence on Matthew.

        >Ninety-nine more, all pointing in the same direction, and we could perhaps
        >claim to have a leg up on the Synoptic Problem.

        What if they don't all point in the same direction?

        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
      • E. Bruce Brooks
        Topic: Mk 16:7 From: Bruce In Response To: Leonard Maluf LEONARD: Thanks, Bruce, for providing us here with a reasonably manageable and focused summary of your
        Message 3 of 12 , Aug 18 1:22 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Topic: Mk 16:7
          From: Bruce
          In Response To: Leonard Maluf

          LEONARD: Thanks, Bruce, for providing us here with a reasonably manageable
          and focused summary of your point on Mk 16:7 par. The bad news is that I
          don't find your
          argument as a whole (including its presuppositions and implications) at all
          persuasive. May I intrude on your dialogue with Jim, to respond this time
          on a more point-by-point basis?

          BRUCE: Oh, I don't know if that is such bad news. There is something to be
          said for continuing conversation. Otherwise the screen comes up all white.

          LEONARD (on my wish todiscuss the text, not the inferred author; displaying
          Mt 28:7 as narratively consecutive and Mk 16:7 as not; and describing that
          characterization as true): Stop right here. What can one conclude from the
          above true statements? The most obvious conclusion, in my view, is that the
          phrase belongs ORIGINALLY to the author of Matt, in whose work it takes its
          place within a fully logical sequence, beginning way back at least at
          26:32, where, after citing the prophecy of Zechariah about scattered sheep,
          the author does
          his usual thing of going to a parallel passage in Ezek, and composes a
          verse that echoes Ezek 34:12-13 LXX.

          BRUCE: I quite agree that Matthew's version is consecutive in context, and
          consistent with Matthew's proclivities elsewhere. If Matthew were all we
          had to explain, we would be home free. But we have to account for Mark. I
          draw two conclusions from the nonconsecutivity of Mk 16:7 in context. (1)
          That it is unlikely for an author to have written it as part of the flow of
          Mk 16:1-6, 8, which by itself *does* have a continuous, unproblematic,
          narrative flow. Not impossible, but unlikely. (2) That it is also unlikely
          for an author to have *adapted* it in that form from an originally
          consecutive text such as the Matthew parallel. For me, that leaves (3)
          interpolation as the least unlikely inference. The one to be initially
          preferred. And then of course subjected to consistency and other checks in
          the ongoing investigation.

          LEONARD: The verse belongs SECONDARILY to Mark, where it was borrowed
          mechanically,

          BRUCE: That Mk 16:7 is intrusive in context of course I grant. That it was
          "borrowed" into a pre-existing Mk 16:1-6, 8 is a more complicated scenario
          than I think Leonard's solution will allow. The Griesbachian position is
          that the Matthew passage was a given for Mark, and was rewritten as a whole
          by Mark. As for "mechanically" (meaning that its lack of fit in Mark is
          due, so to speak, to a *failure* to rewrite sufficiently to maintain
          consecutivity in the new version), that will not wash. It would describe a
          situation where *carelessly retained* wording in 16:7 is causing the
          trouble. But, as Taylor notes, the narrative break is actually signalled,
          by ALLA "but," in parallel with Matthew's KAI "and." Here is Taylor on the
          effect of this word, and it is his first statement on this passage: "The
          announcement *breaks off* (ALLA; cf 9:22, 14:36) and gives place to a
          message which the women are to convey to the disciples and Peter" (my
          emphasis). Had Mark "mechanically" copied Matthew at this point, Mk 16:7
          would have begun with the word KAI, and there would not be any internal
          acknowledgement of its discontinuity. I can only conclude that the
          discontinuity is created by whoever wrote 16:7, and the only writer of 16:7
          whom I can visualize as having a motive to both create and call attention
          to an insertion is an interpolator. Notice that the substance of the
          interpolation is theologically momentous: nothing less than the appearance
          of the Risen Lord, one such appearance being Paul's sole ground of faith
          (for the original followers, such apprearances were at most a confirmation
          or perhaps a validation). But for this passage, such proof of Jesus's
          divine status (as distinct from divine approval) would be entirely lacking
          in Mark. And devout commentators in recent centuries have felt the
          difficulty of so tremendous a claim being made in what amounts to a
          rhetorical parenthesis. Again Taylor: Since Jesus had not told His
          disciples that they would see Him in Galilee, Turner, JTS 25:155f treats
          EKEI AUTON OPSEST*E as a parenthesis. It seems doubtful, however, that Mark
          could have intended *so important a declaration* to be read in this way,
          and it is better to recognize that KAT*O#S EIPEN HUMIN is used loosely" (my
          emphasis). I find that eloquent: the philologian struggling with, and
          finally losing out to, the believer. Think about it.

          LEONARD: . . . with characteristic secondary development (KAI TOO PETROO),
          and without thought of its logical concomitants in the borrowed text.

          BRUCE: I continue to be bothered by the explanation "without thought" as
          applied to Mark, especially (as here) not one centimeter away from places
          in which he is acknowledged to be operating "characteristically" and thus
          applying his usual concerns and instincts to his text.
          This literally point-to-point variation in the degree of consistency and
          authorial attention which Griesbachian exegesis ascribes to Mark is to my
          mind literally self-refuting. If one is free to posit, and assign, that
          range of variation to an author, one can no doubt explain anything
          whatever. In that specific sense the exegesis is "powerful." But is the
          resulting authorial personality even imaginable, let alone convincing? Not
          to me. Sorry.

          LEONARD: Moreover, in the hypothesis, Mark is writing to an audience who
          are fully aware of the Easter appearances described in the earlier Gospels
          (or, in this case, Gospel), and for whom, therefore, the statement in 16:7
          is no stranger, AS IT STANDS IN MK,
          than is the statement of John the Baptist in 1:8b, also a prophecy not
          fulfilled within the Marcan text itself, but pointing to a reality that is,
          or has become, part of the community's extra-textual experience.

          BRUCE: Of course that's statable as a hypothesis - one can write those
          words - but, like the above hypothesis of radical Markan authorial
          variability, I don't find it convincing. If the readers of Mark are
          expected to be fully aware of longer versions, and if only the assumption
          of this awareness can explain and rationalize what Mark is claimed to be
          doing in his text, then *what can possibly have been the motive for Mark to
          have written his text in the first place?* If it were a catechumen Gospel,
          pared down to the essentials of faith, I could maybe see it. If it were a
          commuter Gospel, designed for outreach to those of crowded schedule, I
          could maybe see it. If it were a reorthodoxizing Gospel, meant to prune
          away questionable or legendary developments in certain too literarily
          expansive recent versions, I could maybe see it. I could maybe see it
          because in those accounts the shortness of Mark is part of its reason for
          being, and the intention of bringing it into being is to replace the longer
          versions for some definable body of readers/recipients. But if those longer
          versions are to remain fully visible to, *fully operative for,* the
          intended readership, then, once again, why Mark? These theories make of
          Mark no more than a bit of colored cellophane, through which one is
          expected to view the full-scale stained-glass window of the sanctuary.
          Whatever for?

          LEONARD: I fully realize that I am here falling back into what Bruce labels
          authorial persona type argumentation, whereas his effort is to compare
          texts somehow at a pre-authorial level. But at least I am explaining the
          evidence of the texts we have, in light of a particular hypothesis, without
          presupposing (after arguing, I admit) the unoriginality of the verse in Mk,
          for which there is no textual evidence, and without the accompanying
          premise that in this case, unlike the case of Mk 7:3-4, Matthew and Luke
          had access to the same text of Mark that we have, rather than to a
          pre-interpolated one, now lost.

          BRUCE: My own argument can be called authorial-personic to the extent that
          I am saying "no author would naturally have done this." Such inferences
          create a cumulative requirement that one compare them with each other, and
          see if the inferred author does indeed have a consistent persona. I argue
          above that, in Leonard's account of 16:7, they do not. It's the failure of
          the imputed persona to maintain consistency, not the imputation itself,
          that is the problem (for me) with that argument. As for the lack of text
          variants supporting the supposed secondary nature of Mk 16:7, please to
          remember that the first reconstructors of the Greek Testament set
          themselves the modest goal of recovering what was current in the Church in
          the 4c, not the original autograph. That is as far back as the filiation
          picture properly leads. It is a careful and prudent statement. Whereas I
          here infer a *pre-Matthean* interpolation; one which had already been added
          to the text by the time Matthew saw it. That is too early to be picked up
          as a variant in the kind of manuscript tradition which we seem to have for
          the NT. I haven't seen a statement concerning, say, the POxy fragments of
          Matthew, but given their paleographic date I would expect that they are all
          postcanonical, that is, copied after the fixing of the Roman NT canon in
          the late 2c. The precanonical evolution of the text, during the period from
          Jesus's death in c30/32 to the canon, c180, is in the nature of things
          going to be largely unreported in our church and monastery MSS. Our our MSS
          date from the period of dissemination of an agreed text. They do not reach
          to the earlier precanonical period, when the texts may reasonably be
          assumed to have been in a more fluid, still creatively evolving, condition.

          This of course assumes that during their early years the Gospel manuscripts
          were few, local, and on the whole closely held, and that the NT canon
          process was in part a political compromise among strong local traditions.
          (Four Gospels are three too many, as the immediate writing of a uniformized
          replacement, the Diatessaron, bears mute witness; a *political* motive for
          adopting four, in contravention of the *doctrinal* preference for one, thus
          seems to me inherently plausible). Bauckham has recently challenged this
          assumption, with the assertion that once written, each Gospel would
          immediately have become known throughout the Roman Empire. I'm not so far
          convinced, but here would be one way of disabling the theory of closely
          held, or at least locally dominant, Gospel versions. Let those who wish to
          do so take up that possibility.

          LEONARD (on my contrast between the degree of coherence to be expected of
          an author vs an interpolator): Do I detect a bit of authorial-persona-type
          argumentation here?

          BRUCE: Authorial type, yes; authorial persona, no. See above.

          LEONARD: Moreover, was the "interpolator" clever enough to see the need to
          insert Mk
          14:28, but blunt enough not to recognize the nonconsecutivity of the
          resultant Markan ending?

          BRUCE: Apparently.

          There is a problem arguing "forgery" with scholars, whose cloistered
          lifestyle has protected them from first-hand experience of people who make
          money by lying, and who in consequence can't really conceive why anyone
          would commit a forgery (art museum people, on the other hand, have no
          problem here; they have been stung too many times to deny the premise).
          Similarly with interpolations: we are all familiar with authors (probably a
          majority of us *are* authors), but how many of us have direct experience of
          interpolation? I hate to recommend my own book (unethical; I get a
          royalty), but short of that or another extended analysis of the
          interpolation process in an evolving text, I would put it this way: The aim
          of a constructive interpolator (as distinct from that different breed, the
          marginal glossarist) is to change, or add to, the sense of a text which is
          already in existence, and thus in some degree *already known to an
          audience.* Under those circumstances, unless a literary craftsman cares to
          produce an extended patch in a closely similar style (this does occur, but
          much less often), the less *actual text,* the better. The novelty of the
          content, plus the constraint not to alter much if any of the context (the
          context is by definition already scriptural: known to many as a repository
          of belief; it is that scriptural property in the context that makes the
          interpolation worthwhile in the first place), can easily and automatically
          lead to context problems. Sometimes interpolations deal with their own
          inconsistency by calling attention to it: narratively arguing with a
          straight-man persona who embodies the reader's surprise, etc (spies know
          that conspicuousness is sometimes the best disguise: Richard Sorge in
          Tokyo). Sometimes they are structured as explicit interruptions and
          parentheticals. This, if we share Taylor's intuition of the passage, would
          seem to be the case with 16:7. It fits naturally enough into the known
          typology of interpolations.

          [BRUCE: Removing Mk 16:7 would eliminate both these types of
          nonconsecutivity, without creating any new ones in the same context].

          LEONARD: Yes, but it would also remove what is PROPER to the text of Mark
          as it stands, namely the explicit contradiction between what the women do
          in v. 8b and what they are told to do in v. 7 (Or does Bruce think that 8b
          is also a later, or a still later interpolation?). This is, and is meant to
          be I think, a striking characteristic of the text of Mark as it stands. On
          the other hand, the rhetorical effect of the two verses read in sequence as
          they stand is
          significantly blunted by Bruce's surgery.

          BRUCE: The argument here (departing from the argument above, which took a
          wholly different tack) is that the inconsistency of Mk 16:7 is authorially
          intentional; that Mark wanted an "explicit contradiction" between what the
          women do in 16:8 and what they are told to do in 16:7, and that this
          contradiction is a valuable rhetorical effect. The commentators, on the
          whole, haven't found it so. They have expended a lot of ink on the opposite
          presumption. I think they're right, and why? Because, for one thing, there
          isn't enough room left in the text to make it literarily feasible to
          generate a dramatic but unresolved contradiction at this point. What 16:7
          (and its setup, 14:28) instead seem to do is to provide a warrant for what
          had by then (since the writing of the earlier state of Mark) become common
          belief in whatever group of people had GMark as their validating text of
          record. I thus see 16:7 not as generating last-minute literary tension,
          but, on the contrary, as providing a sort of doctrinal strain relief:
          reducing the contradiction between current belief and previous textual
          *warrrant for* belief.

          It follows (just thinking aloud here) that I would see GMark as a sort of
          community repository and authority reference, not as a missionary tract.
          That assumption is compatible with the earlier assumption of few as opposed
          to many copies in existence in the 1c. It's compatible with the not
          inconsiderable difficulty and expense of making texts in the first place.
          Compatibility is not proof, but it is not self-refutation either, and I
          enter it here accordingly, in support of what for me is an evolving, not a
          preset, view of GMark. I appreciate this dialogue with Leonard as one way
          of working out these larger implications of my earlier smaller-scale text
          examination. Sorry to try the public patience with this record of that
          inner process.

          LEONARD: At face value, I find it remarkably unsatisfying to think of the
          narrated appearances in Matt 28 as no more than (or even primarily) an
          attempt to smooth over the roughness of Mk 16:7 in Mk, for which Bruce has
          himself offered the far more effortless solution of simply removing the
          verse.

          BRUCE: If AMatt (the author of "Matthew," parallel to GMatt) were concerned
          only to get rid of a problem in GMark, then excision would indeed have been
          easier. And cheaper. But on the evidence of the rest of both texts
          (assuming a directionality Mk > Mt), this happens not to be what AMatt has
          generally done. He has not (though conceivably he might have) produced a
          revised, tightened-up, GMark in more educated Greek. He has instead
          produced an expanded, eloquentified, consecutivated, and above all
          ideologically currentized, text twice as long as GMark. Though it is rarely
          fruitful to analyze what authors have *not* done, I think this particular
          counterpresumption fails the reasonable test of authorial consecutivity.

          LEONARD (on my conclusion that the present Mt/Mk scenario only works in one
          direction): THIS explanation does indeed only work in one direction. But
          others, unfortunately, abound -- some of which have the distinct advantage
          of refraining from speculation on earlier forms of the Gospel text that has
          come down to us.

          BRUCE: Perish forbid that anyone should speculate. I am completely against
          it, whether concerning the textus receptus or anything else. But there are
          points at which the evidence fairly invites an inference (here, the
          inference of an interpolation in GMark and a later Matthean adjusting of
          the resulting nonconsecutivity), and I think that a responsible philologist
          is not only entitled, but even required, to draw the indicated inference.
          And then of course maintain a position of continued tentativity toward it.
          I don't agree with Leonard's implicit claim that noninterpolative
          inferences are privileged over interpolative ones. Whatever best fits the
          evidence is, well, whatever best fits the evidence. To my eye, the evidence
          here speaks in the sense GMark(1) > GMark(2) > GMatt. It is the hypothesis
          which explains the textual facts on the most natural presumptions as to the
          respective imputed authors. It is not the numerically simplest, but it is
          the most humanly economical, hypothesis. To me. So far.

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts
        • E. Bruce Brooks
          Topic: Mk 16:7 From: Bruce In Response To: Shawn Kelley Shawn notes: I too am not fully satisfied with the arguments that MK 16: 7 is a later interpolation,
          Message 4 of 12 , Aug 18 4:07 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Topic: Mk 16:7
            From: Bruce
            In Response To: Shawn Kelley

            Shawn notes: "I too am not fully satisfied with the arguments that MK 16: 7
            is a later
            interpolation, although for reasons very different from those offered by
            Leonard." And continues:

            SHAWN: I want to focus in on the claim that Mark could not have been
            emphasizing the
            woman's disobedience. Why not?

            BRUCE: To repeat my answer from an earlier response to Leonard, because it
            comes too close to the end of the book, and is too little prepared by
            anything earlier in the book, to make cogent sense as a literary intention.

            SHAWN: Literary critics (i.e. Kelber, Tolbert, Donahue, Fowler, etc.) have
            consistently argued that disobedience is one of the most important themes
            in Mark. I tend to be persuaded by their arguments, and think that they
            should be taken into account before claiming for MK 16:7 as an
            interpolation. I am convinced that Mark has been emphasizing disobedience
            of the disciples since 8:14ff. {Indeed one could make the case that the
            disobedience is prefigured in chapter 4 (i.e. 4:35-41) and perhaps even in
            chapter 1 (i.e. 1:35-37)}.

            BRUCE: The leap here is from imperception of disciples, admittedly common
            in Mark, to the more general category of disobedience of disciples, perhaps
            not so common in the ordinary meaning of "disobedience" and therefore a lit
            crit statement rather than a factual statement, and then to the
            disobedience of the women. I am uncomfortable with each of those leaps. I
            think that they are less analysis than literary legerdemain. I sympathize
            (I know only too well what a high premium the lit field places on
            ingenuity), but I don't find I can assent.

            SHAWN: Tolbert argues (persuasively to me, her former student) that the way
            that Mark describes the flight of the women implicitly links this scene
            with some of the earlier scenes of discipleship failure (see "Sowing the
            Gospel" pp. 164-172, 288-299)- making the women at the tomb extensions of
            the failed male disciples. The women saying nothing to anyone
            "for they were afraid" (ephobonto). This is the same word ("fear"- phobos)
            which has been repeatedly used to represent the antithesis to faith (see
            4:35-41, especially 40-41, where fear is usually mistakenly translated as
            awe). The women are not in a state of awe in the face of the Divine, they
            are silent because their faith is lacking.

            BRUCE: I haven't seen the Tolbert book, and will withhold comment until I
            have. Naively considered, the Mk 4:31-45 parallel (the fear of the
            disciples in the storm) doesn't seem cogent to me. The disciples have been
            given proofs of Jesus's special mission and powers, they have been admitted
            to special status. That they lack confidence under these circumstances is
            indeed (in the reader's mind) a reproach to them, and one which no Sunday
            School child of ten has ever missed. The equation of the Woman at the Tomb
            with disciples seems to me, on the contrary, ingenious rather than
            manifest.

            I think it would be useful if, before making or accepting that equation, we
            first considered women in GMark generally. Their implied place in the
            Jesuine movement is a strikingly prominent one, but as far as I can see it
            is as supporters and caretakers, not as disciples. The devotion of women is
            a reproach to the scanter hospitality of men, and their faith is sufficient
            to permit their being healed miraculously, but they are not (unless I am
            missing something) called to take up their crosses (or sell their worldly
            goods) and follow Jesus.

            I find much more literarily cogent (thinking back to the preparation of
            16:7 by 14:28) the preparation of 16:1 by 14:3-9. "She has done a beautiful
            thing to me. . . she has anointed my body beforehand for burying." This is
            so explicit, indeed so emphatic, in the text, and the text itself is so
            close to 16:1-6, 8, that I think we are entitled to say that AMark (or his
            interpolator, but let's waive that for the moment) meant that
            readers/hearers should see, and that they did in fact see, the connection:
            "And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of
            James [Jacob], and Salome, brought spices, so that they might go and anoint
            him. . ."

            The only problem with this theory from a lit point of view, anno 1998, is
            that you can't get tenure for asserting it. It's been done. Philologically,
            I think it is quite convincing.

            In the (lit critical, but in this case surely authoritatively lit critical)
            words of 14:6, the connection beautifies the ending. I can only think it
            was meant to. Whereas the equation of the tomb women with the disciples'
            doubt ends GMark on a final *note* of doubt; the death of the Lord has
            scattered the flock, and even his rising has only further confused them.

            I don't think it is much of a finish. For all his abruptness, indeed
            modularity, AMark must be presumed to be, at minimum, a pro-Christian
            writer. Whereas on the "doubt" reading, his "Gospel" becomes something of
            an epitaph for Christianity. All has been suffered, all has been
            transcended - and all is in vain. I think it would have been a hard sell in
            the churches.

            SHAWN: I am not sure how much this changes the overall question of Gospel
            priority. . . I still see Mark as first and Matthew and Luke as having
            revised Mark's story. It seems to me that this is another instance where
            Matthew is less successful in retelling Mark's story than is Luke. Matthew
            has the women leaving the tomb with "fear and great joy"- which does not
            make a lot of sense. I think he says that because he tends to slavishly
            follow Mark, even when Mark leads him in directions he doesn't particularly
            want to go. Luke, on the other hand, has the good sense to rewrite the
            whole sentence and leave out "fear" entirely. We should also note that
            Luke has carefully reworked the metaphor of "fear" throughout the course of
            the story so that, in his narrative world, fear implied awe rather than
            lack of faith. This has the effect of transposing the Lukan meaning of
            "phobos" as awe onto Mark, where it does not belong.

            BRUCE: I feel the same way about the general closerness of Mt to Mk,
            compared to Lk/Mk, though there are complications (I have suggested that Lk
            likes to one-up Mt by sometimes following classic Mk more closely than does
            revisionist Mt). That's not evidence - at most, a summary of cumulative
            reactions to evidence, but for what it's worth. . . I am not so sure that
            the Matthean expansion "fear and joy" is not a valid improvement, or (I am
            sure he felt) clarification of Markan "fear," from which the more integral
            reworking in Lk then follows, as Shawn suggests, as the third and most
            artful - the most literarily satisfying - of the three. As for "awe," it
            may indeed be a retrospective transposition into Mark. I'm willing to
            consider it. But then how are we to read the meaning of the end of Mark?
            Consistent with a presumed pro-Jesuine intent on the part of Mark?

            Bruce

            E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts
          • PetersnICS@aol.com
            In a message dated 8/18/98 8:41:10 AM, E. Bruce Brooks wrote:
            Message 5 of 12 , Aug 18 1:02 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 8/18/98 8:41:10 AM, E. Bruce Brooks wrote:

              <<That Mk 16:7 is intrusive in context of course I grant. . . . As for
              "mechanically" (meaning that its lack of fit in Mark is due, so to speak, to a
              *failure* to rewrite sufficiently to maintainconsecutivity in the new
              version), that will not wash. It would describe a situation where *carelessly
              retained* wording in 16:7 is causing the trouble. But, as Taylor notes, the
              narrative break is actually signalled, by ALLA "but," in parallel with
              Matthew's KAI "and." Here is Taylor on the effect of this word, and it is his
              first statement on this passage: "The

              announcement *breaks off* (ALLA; cf 9:22, 14:36) and gives place to a

              message which the women are to convey to the disciples and Peter" (my

              emphasis).>>

              I confess that I'm unable to see the disjunction or intrusiveness in Mark 16:7
              that Bruce, Leonard, and Vincent Taylor agree in recognizing. The announcement
              of the NEANISKOS in vv. 6–7 seems tightly knit together at least from the
              clause beginning with IHSOUN ZHTEITE, turning on the contrast between the tomb
              where the women expected to see the corpse of Jesus (cf. hWDE, hO TOPOS hOPOU
              EQHKAN AUTON in v. 6) and Galilee (cf. PROAGEI hUMAS EIS THN GALILAIAN, EKEI,
              v. 7), where Jesus' disciples and Peter (and the women?) will see him raised
              from the dead. The ALLA that opens v. 7 accentuates the contrast between these
              two locales -- the one where the crucified Jesus is sought, the other where
              the resurrected Jesus will be found. Have I imagined this?

              That there are interpretive puzzles to be solved at the close of Mark is
              evident, but I do not at present see how the interpolation proposal
              contributes to their solution.

              Jeff Peterson
              Institute for Christian Studies
              Austin, Texas, USA
              e-mail: peterson@...
            • Maluflen@aol.com
              Topic: the two anointings From: Leonard Maluf To: Bruce and Group Responding to one point made by Bruce in a conversation with Shawn, dated some time ago,
              Message 6 of 12 , Aug 20 7:50 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Topic: the two "anointings"
                From: Leonard Maluf
                To: Bruce and Group

                Responding to one point made by Bruce in a conversation with Shawn, dated some
                time ago, namely the following:

                BRUCE: I find much more literarily cogent (thinking back to the preparation
                of
                16:7 by 14:28) the preparation of 16:1 by 14:3-9. "She has done a beautiful
                thing to me. . . she has anointed my body beforehand for burying." This is
                so explicit, indeed so emphatic, in the text, and the text itself is so
                close to 16:1-6, 8, that I think we are entitled to say that AMark (or his
                interpolator, but let's waive that for the moment) meant that
                readers/hearers should see, and that they did in fact see, the connection:
                "And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of
                James [Jacob], and Salome, brought spices, so that they might go and anoint
                him. . ."... Philologically, I think it is quite convincing.

                LEONARD: Philologically, it is problematic, because the Greek word used for
                "anointing" in the two passages is different. However I do agree that a
                thematic connection between the two passages is probably intended by the AMk.
                Let me present a Griesbachian perspective on the triple tradition at this
                point. In Matt, the anointing of Jesus' body for burial takes place in Matt 26
                (the passage parallel to Mk 14) (cf. Matt 26:12). The women come only "to see"
                (theoresai) the tomb in Matt 28:1. Luke comes next, with a very different
                agenda for his parallel to the story in Matt 26. His "parallel" story takes
                place early instead of late in the ministry of Jesus (chapter 7), and the
                "anointing" involved (Lk 7:38) loses all connection with the burial of Jesus.
                The "gospel proclaimed in the whole world" (cf. Matt 26:13) now tells the
                story of a sinful woman forgiven, forgiveness of sin being the heart of the
                gospel message in Luke's understanding (cf. Lk 24:47). But Luke still feels
                the need for a reference to Jesus' body being "anointed for burial", so it is
                he who introduces the ointments (Lk 23:56: ... kai myra) into the story of the
                women coming to the tomb -- at least in terms of their implied intention in
                this passage, later to be rendered explicit by Mark (16:1). In the event, the
                ointments turn out to be useless (a waste, as in Matt 26:8), because the women
                "did not find the body of the Lord Jesus". Mark, coming third, has chosen to
                follow the story of the woman in Matt 26 (rather than the Lk 7 version), who
                anoints the body of Jesus for his burial (Mk 14:8), but like the good
                conflator of sources that he is, he prefers to keep Luke's novelty of
                ointments brought (and bought: a typical Markan vivid expansion) by the women
                coming to the tomb, together with his reference to the women "seeing"
                (theorousin) that the stone had been roled away (16:4). I agree with Bruce
                above that the AMk intends a connection at the level of his redaction between
                this passage and that of the woman in Mk 14, but I am unsure of exactly how to
                evaluate this connection (as Bruce seems also to be above, where he points
                out, but fails to interpret the connection). Perhaps one should throw in a
                thematic connection at this point also to the woman's copper coins in Mk
                12:41-44, a story also borrowed by Mark from Luke, who favors widows
                throughout his two-volume work. The reference in Mk 16:1 to the "buying" of
                ointments, which ultimately go to "waste", may reinforce this connection. But
                again, I will await from the group an interpretation of these raw data.

                Leonard Maluf
              • E. Bruce Brooks
                Topic: Mk 16:7 From: Bruce In Response To: Stephen Carlson STEPHEN (on my claim that Mk 16:7 // Mt 28:7 shows Mk Mt directionality): I believe that Leonard
                Message 7 of 12 , Aug 20 9:08 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Topic: Mk 16:7
                  From: Bruce
                  In Response To: Stephen Carlson

                  STEPHEN (on my claim that Mk 16:7 // Mt 28:7 shows Mk >Mt directionality):
                  I believe that Leonard made this point, but I'd like to be a little more
                  explicit about it. Mk16:7 has "tell his disciples and Peter" and Mt28:7
                  has "tell his disciples" [no Peter]. Given Mt's glowing endorsement of
                  Peter earlier, wouldn't you say that the puzzling nature of Mt's lack of a
                  reference to Peter when his alleged source contains it is, on balance, a
                  directional indicator of Mt > Mk? I'm not saying that it is impossible for
                  Matthew to omit this reference to Peter, just that the relative probability
                  for this one feature points to Mark's dependence on Matthew.

                  BRUCE: Let me take it by steps, so as to invite criticism of methodology as
                  well as outcome.

                  1. The problem as stated is to account for the Mt 28:7 omission of Peter
                  from the Mk 16:7 parallel and presumed source. The implication is that this
                  omission implies a directionality opposite to that previously determined
                  (on textual rather than thematic grounds) for that pair; that is, one most
                  easily explained on the premise Mt > Mk.

                  2. The Markan Position. The problem of the omission of Peter in Mt 28:7 is
                  widely recognized as problematic, though commentators do not agree on the
                  nature of the problem, or even on whether Peter is praised or criticized by
                  implication in both passages. Some of the various opinions may be
                  eliminated as unjustified on their face. Thus the Markan phrase "The
                  disciples and Peter" may not validly (conta Rawlinson) be taken as
                  complimentary to Peter through singling him out from the rest, and/or as
                  reflecting a special Roman interest in Peter. Gundry would seem to be
                  correct in saying that such a nuance would more naturally be expressed by
                  "Peter and the [other] disciples." Other commentators point to the previous
                  apostasy of Peter (his denial of Jesus), and opine that by this form of the
                  command, the speaker is conveying to Peter the message that, though in
                  disgrace (as being mentioned last), he will eventually be forgiven, and
                  indeed recertified as a member of the disciple group, by receiving his own
                  separate vision of the risen Jesus. But it cannot reasonably be expected
                  that the women would carry this inference intact to Peter as a consolation
                  to him. At most they would simply notify him of the contents of the
                  message, not of its verbal address form. Therefore the consolation theory
                  fails in, so to speak, historical time.

                  However, the *audience* of GMk might well have felt that Peter would be
                  singled out by having his own separate appearance. Again with Gundry, 1 Cor
                  15:5 implies an early tradition of a separate appearance. In the light of
                  the rational probabilities, then, having in view not the accuracy of the
                  story but the expectations of its audience, Mk 16:7 both acknowledges the
                  special guilt of Peter (itself predicted in the long scene 14:29f, which
                  will surely have been prominent in the memories of any consecutive
                  readers/hearers of GMk; see my earlier discussion of this readership aspect
                  with Shawn Kelley) and forefigures a coming special reconciliation. I
                  suppose on balance that this makes Mk 16:7 at once adverse and incipiently
                  conciliatory toward Peter. We may with confidence say that it fits
                  thematically with the tendency of GMk toward Peter in the area Mk 14-16
                  (either as native to it, or, if interpolated, as consistently elaborative
                  of it), and also with the tradition of post-Crucifixion appearances (that
                  documented in 1 Cor) which seems most likely to have been in the minds of
                  the Markan audience.

                  3. The Matthean Position. The claim is that GMt is favorable to Peter, as
                  witness such passages as Mt 16:17-18: "Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona! For
                  flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in
                  heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my
                  church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it." It would be
                  hard to imagine a more ringing endorsement, even apart from the keys of the
                  kingdom of heaven, which are handed over in 16:19. None of this in GMk or
                  indeed in GLk; it is exclusively Matthean, and noone has yet said why,
                  quadrans or no quadrans, it does not put GMt first in line to be the Roman
                  gospel. In any case, it would seem to establish GMt as pro-Petrine, in
                  areas that, on present assumptions, are not suspect as being imported from
                  another (ie, Markan) source, and thus presumptively of Matthean authorship.

                  4. Consistency Test. We should next test this by seeing how GMt handles the
                  predicted and actual denial of Peter, which is so thematically prominent in
                  the GMk story. The answer is that it substantially retains it (Mt 26:30-46,
                  and the actual denial in Mt 26:69-75). We may note in passing that this
                  portion preserves, identically, the forefiguring promise Mk 14:28 (as Mt
                  26:32). So the approval of Peter in authorial sections of GMt does not
                  carry over into suppressing negative reports of Peter in derivative
                  sections of the same text. But how negative in fact are they? It is fair to
                  notice that the account of Peter in the courtyard of the high priest (Mt
                  26:58f // Mk 14:54f) depicts him as being the only one of the disciples to
                  follow Jesus so far into the trial procedure. His courage failed, but it
                  held out longer than that of any of the others. It was probably
                  historically given that the disciples were not arrested with Jesus. It was
                  narratively predicted (in both texts) that they would flee. It is
                  narratively fulfilled (in both texts) that they fled. But to any naive
                  reader (my ideal reader), Peter's *relative* courage is not only visible
                  but emphasized in these passages. How shall I put it? They are as positive
                  as adherence to the historically given scenario will allow. This somewhat
                  reduces any problem that might be seen in GMt's retention of the GMk
                  negative image of Peter. By the same token, it does not explain the
                  difference that GMt makes with Peter in Mt 28:7. It merely confirms the
                  background of the problem as defined by Stephen.

                  5. Back to Mt 28:7 / Mk 16:7. With that preamble, I think it suffices to
                  note that, though we were forced to conjecture (and supply from Paul) GMk's
                  probable scenario for post-Crucifixion appearances, in the also rushed
                  ending of GMt we actually possess the scenario of that text. It does not
                  include a separate appearance to Peter. It includes only a joint appearance
                  to all the eleven, in Galilee. Therefore, most probably Mt 28:7 omits Peter
                  because the *tradition of appearances which Matthew is reflecting* did not
                  include a separate appearance to Peter. Each passage is consistent with its
                  appearance scenario.

                  6. History Check. In terms of the Galilee/Jerusalem evolution which has
                  been explored on a parallel thread (thanks to Yuri for helping to develop
                  that argument), we find on the above argument the following. (Mark): A
                  prediction (not narratively realized) of appearances in Galilee, and a
                  hint, seemingly also reflected in 1 Cor, that these included a separate
                  appearance to Peter. (Matthew): A preliminary appearance to the women in
                  Jerusalem, and a later, single appearance in Galilee to the Eleven. (Luke):
                  No Galilean appearances, but instead many in Jerusalem. That would be
                  consistent with the following evolution: (1) A tradition of at least two
                  Galilean appearances, (2) A reduced tradition of one Galilean appearance,
                  further diluted by a prior Jerusalem appearance, and (3) A tradition of
                  only, and multiple, Jerusalem appearances. This is absolutely consistent,
                  even linear, as a historical development, and it could easily reflect the
                  replacement of a Galilean tradition by a later superimposed Jerusalem
                  tradition, consistent with Acts (which stands to GLk as 1 Cor stands to
                  GMk).

                  7. Conclusion. There is no proper inference to be drawn by what has been
                  seen as the omission of the Mk 16:7 Peter from the Mk 28:7 parallel. Both
                  passages are completely consistent with their respective scenarios (with
                  GMk, probable scenarios) for post-Crucifixion appearances, and these
                  scenarios are in turn consistent with a plausible evolution of the
                  appearance tradition itself. There is thus no directional pointer in the
                  Peter detail of Mk 16:7/Mt28:7. There may however be a directional pointer
                  in the implied evolution of the appearance tradition. If so, it would seem
                  to run Mk > Mt > Lk, each step being a Jerusalemization of the preceding.

                  STEPHEN (on my remark, concerning directional pairs, "Ninety-nine more, all
                  pointing in the same direction, and we could perhaps claim to have a leg up
                  on the Synoptic Problem"): What if they don't all point in the same
                  direction?

                  BRUCE: Then it's a Synoptic metaProblem, and it will require restudy,
                  beginning with the seeming exceptions to any perceived general tendency.
                  More complicated models may be required, including conjectured lost texts.
                  Investigations of this kind normally proceed this way, by upward spirals,
                  and not by one mighty sword thrust. I think it's smart experiment design to
                  give yourself a chance of being lucky. But if that frontal assault (so to
                  speak) doesn't come off, then you settle down to the longer haul, making
                  what the technicians of war call "regular approaches." A siege to the
                  problem, and there is no guarantee that it will not take twenty-five years.
                  I have been in some that did.

                  Anyway, assuming the above argument sound, we have one directional passage,
                  and one defeated objection to it (the argument from historical plausibility
                  of the implied tradition doesn't count; it's just a check, and the detail
                  of Peter doesn't count separately; it's just part of the consistent
                  directionality argument for Mk 16:7). Still ninety-nine to go.

                  Bruce

                  E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts
                • E. Bruce Brooks
                  Topic: Mk 16:7 From: Bruce In Response To: Jeff Peterson JEFF: I confess that I m unable to see the disjunction or intrusiveness in Mark 16:7 that Bruce,
                  Message 8 of 12 , Aug 20 1:30 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Topic: Mk 16:7
                    From: Bruce
                    In Response To: Jeff Peterson

                    JEFF: I confess that I'm unable to see the disjunction or intrusiveness in
                    Mark 16:7 that Bruce, Leonard, and Vincent Taylor agree in recognizing. The
                    announcement of the NEANISKOS in vv. 6–7 seems tightly knit together at
                    least from the clause beginning with IHSOUN ZHTEITE, turning on the
                    contrast between the tomb where the women expected to see the corpse of
                    Jesus (cf. hWDE, hO TOPOS hOPOU EQHKAN AUTON in v. 6) and Galilee (cf.
                    PROAGEI hUMAS EIS THN GALILAIAN, EKEI, v. 7), where Jesus' disciples and
                    Peter (and the women?) will see him raised from the dead. The ALLA that
                    opens v. 7 accentuates the contrast between these two locales -- the one
                    where the crucified Jesus is sought, the other where the resurrected Jesus
                    will be found. Have I imagined this?

                    BRUCE: Well, if Bruce/Leonard/Vincent don't compel intellectual assent, it
                    would be vain to pile up lesser authorities, some of whom do however accept
                    the interpolation, and others of whom, though rejecting it, still find a
                    shift in discourse at this point. I would refer the ALLA contrast to the
                    verbs, making it interruptive in effect; Jeff would seemingly relate it to
                    a lower-level adverb contrast. Certainly it can do either, but Mk 16:7
                    strikes me as coming under Arndt description #3: "Before independent
                    clauses, to indicate that the preceding is to be regarded as a settled
                    matter, thus forming the transition to something new." Mk 16:7 is not cited
                    as an example, but the following, with clause-initial ALLA as in 16:7, and
                    all implying a contrast or a transition in the action and not merely the
                    place of two balanced actions, seem to me relevant: 1:44 "But go, show
                    yourself to the priest." 7:25 "But immediately a woman, whose little
                    daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit, heard of him." 8:33 "But
                    turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter, and said, Get behind
                    me, Satan!" 13:24 [following the cadential "I have told you all things
                    beforehand], "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be
                    darkened." 14:28 "But after I am raised up, I will go before you to
                    Galilee" [this of course being exactly the counterpart of, in my view the
                    co-interpolation with, 6:17; on either view highly relevant]. 14:49 "But
                    let the scriptures be fulfilled." These would seem to me to establish a
                    fair precedent for the more-interruptive reading of 16:7. I find it easy to
                    imagine many of them, as spoken (or for those not direct speech, as
                    expressively narrated) accompanied by subject-changing body language.

                    JEFF: That there are interpretive puzzles to be solved at the close of Mark
                    is evident, but I do not at present see how the interpolation proposal
                    contributes to their solution.

                    BRUCE: On Jeff's view that there is no puzzle in 16:7, where *are* the
                    puzzles?

                    Bruce

                    E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts
                  • Stephen C. Carlson
                    ... Actually, the problem as I ve stated it is: Whether [Mk16:7 KAI TWi PETRWi // Mt28:7 omit] is a directional indicator. Methodologically, I use a Bayesian
                    Message 9 of 12 , Aug 22 12:37 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 12:08 PM 8/20/98 -0400, E. Bruce Brooks wrote:
                      >BRUCE: Let me take it by steps, so as to invite criticism of methodology as
                      >well as outcome.
                      >
                      >1. The problem as stated is to account for the Mt 28:7 omission of Peter
                      >from the Mk 16:7 parallel and presumed source. The implication is that this
                      >omission implies a directionality opposite to that previously determined
                      >(on textual rather than thematic grounds) for that pair; that is, one most
                      >easily explained on the premise Mt > Mk.

                      Actually, the problem as I've stated it is: Whether [Mk16:7 KAI TWi PETRWi
                      // Mt28:7 omit] is a directional indicator. Methodologically, I use a
                      Bayesian understanding of directional indicators: what is the relative
                      probability that A used B versus B used A? If it seems more likely that
                      A used B than B used A in a particular passage, then we can be infer that
                      there is a directional indicator.

                      The rest of the steps seems to be directed to determine whether is it
                      possible or plausible that Matthew would omit KAI TWi PETRWi. For this
                      scenario, it is speculated that author of Matthew only knew a tradition
                      of a resurrection appearance to the Eleven but not to Peter separately,
                      despite the currency of the latter (e.g. Paul), and "corrected" Mark to
                      account for it by omit KAI TWi PETRWi. Even if this is true, there were
                      other options to Matthew (e.g. the disciples *with* Peter), so the
                      absolute likelihood that Matthew would make this particular redaction
                      seems fairly low to me. On the other hand, Mark likes to emphasize
                      Peter among the disciples (for good or for ill), and the absolute
                      likelihood for Mark to perform the opposite redaction seems much higher.
                      Therefore, in terms of relative probability, the directional indicator
                      points to Matthew's priority over Mark.

                      Just a single swallow does not make a summer, a single directional
                      indicator does not make a Synoptic theory. If we are confident on
                      other grounds that Mark is prior to Matthew, then Bruce's explanation
                      (similar to Davies & Allison, e.g.) could be accepted as what "must"
                      have happened. However, in *de novo* approach to solving the Synoptic
                      Problem, we are not there yet.

                      Finally, I endorse Brian's point (which I have been hinting at for
                      while), that contradictory directional indicators point to an indirect
                      literary relationship between two documents. This is discussed in
                      Humphrey Palmer, THE LOGIC OF GOSPEL CRITICISM: An Account of the
                      Methods & Arguments Used by Textual, Documentary, Source, & Form
                      Critics of the New Testament (London: Macmillian, 1968): 121-26.

                      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
                    • E. Bruce Brooks
                      Topic: Mk 16:7 (and Directional Indicators) From: Bruce In Response To: Stephen Carlson STEPHEN: Actually, the problem as I ve stated it is: Whether [Mk16:7
                      Message 10 of 12 , Aug 23 4:38 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Topic: Mk 16:7 (and Directional Indicators)
                        From: Bruce
                        In Response To: Stephen Carlson

                        STEPHEN: Actually, the problem as I've stated it is: Whether [Mk16:7 KAI
                        TWi PETRWi
                        // Mt28:7 omit] is a directional indicator. Methodologically, I use a
                        Bayesian understanding of directional indicators: what is the relative
                        probability that A used B versus B used A? If it seems more likely that A
                        used B than B used A in a particular passage, then we can infer that there
                        is a directional indicator.

                        BRUCE: I don't quite see what the words "Bayesian" and "relative
                        probability" are doing in there. It seems sufficient to say: "If it seems
                        more likely that A used B in a particular passage (than the reverse), we
                        can infer that the directionality in that passage is B > A."

                        STEPHEN: The rest of the steps seems to be directed to determine whether it
                        is possible or plausible that Matthew would omit KAI TWi PETRWi. For this
                        scenario, it is speculated that author of Matthew only knew a tradition of
                        a resurrection appearance to the Eleven but not to Peter separately,
                        despite the currency of the latter (e.g. Paul), and "corrected" Mark to
                        account for it by omitting KAI TWi PETRWi.

                        BRUCE: Let me intrude in passing the thought that the ignoring of Paul (or
                        the appearance tradition known to Paul) by Matthew need not be as absurd as
                        the chronological sequence Peter (died c62) > GMt (presumed written after
                        c70) might suggest. For and against may play a role, as well as before and
                        after. To rely on generalities for a moment, I should think it plausible
                        that Matthew represents the "lawfulness" that Paul (and the ALuke of Acts)
                        strongly opposed. And might make less use of Pauline traditions
                        accordingly.

                        STEPHEN: Even if this is true, there were other options to Matthew (e.g.
                        the disciples *with* Peter), so the absolute likelihood that Matthew would
                        make this particular redaction seems fairly low to me. On the other hand,
                        Mark likes to emphasize Peter among the disciples (for good or for ill),
                        and the absolute likelihood for Mark to perform the opposite redaction
                        seems much higher. Therefore, in terms of relative probability, the
                        directional indicator points to Matthew's priority over Mark.

                        BRUCE: I think the interpretation of a particular passage according to the
                        general tendency of the whole text, overruling any contrary indications in
                        the particular passage, is invalid. Our sense of general tendencies must be
                        built up from the study of particular passages (where else could it come
                        from?). In addition, we have not done a preliminary survey of the authorial
                        integrity of (say) GMk, as to Peter or other topic, and until we do so (or
                        argue for accepting someone else's conclusions in the matter), we have
                        literally no place to "lodge" any accumulating single-passage evidences of
                        authorial persona. Under those circumstances, to say that any passage
                        including Peter has a higher probability for authorial Mark than for
                        authorial Matthew is, to me, perilously premature. I argued (among other
                        things) that the form "and Peter" in Mk 16:7 requires particular
                        explanation, and offered a possible explanation. Stephen seems to want to
                        rank as equiprobable all grammatical ways for Matthew to have included
                        Peter in his parallel passage, and then to reject one because of the
                        resulting low probability of any. If he had included in his range of
                        possibilities the null case of not mentioning Peter at all, he would emerge
                        with a proof that that option too is unlikely to have occurred. We need to
                        remember that if *all* options have indeed been listed, the absolute
                        probaility is 100% that *one* of them must occur (try it with the case of
                        picking one of six differently-colored balls out of a bag. The probability
                        for *any* is 1/6, but the probability for *one* is 1/1). To borrow a phrase
                        from the math people, that reduces the argument to absurdity. No?

                        STEPHEN: Just as a single swallow does not make a summer, a single
                        directional indicator does not make a Synoptic theory. If we are confident
                        on other grounds that Mark is prior to Matthew, then Bruce's explanation
                        (similar to Davies & Allison, e.g.) could be accepted as what "must" have
                        happened. However, in *de novo* approach to solving the Synoptic
                        Problem, we are not there yet.

                        BRUCE: Again, I have a priority problem with this. A single directional
                        indicator is surely not to be despised as a valid contribution to a
                        Synoptic theory. At worst, it is a datum that must be accommodated, if only
                        as an unwelcome exception, in any larger theory.

                        At the other end of the discovery process, if we are confident on any
                        grounds whatever that Mark is prior to Matthew, then as respects that
                        aspect of the Synoptic Problem, we are through. Done. "There." All finished
                        reading Davies and Allison and the rest of the tribe. All done scalpelizing
                        particular bits of text, and collating miniscule manuscript variants. I
                        have earlier acknowledged that this is not presently the case, and that,
                        for those equally skeptical, the road is just beginning. I can only see it
                        as consisting, initially, of much fine-grained examination of particulars,
                        to establish a firm basis for the erection of generalities. I am glad to
                        have Stephen's agreement that the end is not yet, and I will add that I
                        accept Yuri's admonition (on an earlier message) and Stephen's reiteration
                        (this message, not here quoted) that the final answer, when we get to it,
                        may be more complex than the initial assumption, and that, for example,
                        third sources to explain the literary relations of two texts may be
                        required. I expect that we will discover, in the failure of simple
                        assumptions, the path to right set of more complex assumptions. I remain
                        open to Brian Wilson's earlier offer to provide, as a shortcut, finite
                        examples which defeat any one-way relation theory, and make mandatory the
                        assumption of a third source. The present "Markan Interruption" discussion
                        is, as far as protocol goes, simply keeping a place warm until Brian
                        chooses to occupy it.

                        Bruce

                        E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.