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

[Synoptic-L] Re: The Topography of the Great Omission

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    ... That is what Streeter inhis Four Gospels noted! He tried to reconstruct the text of Mark known to Lk at this position, which omited the text either by
    Message 1 of 17 , Mar 22, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      R. Steven Notley wrote:
      > I have never seen a comment in the literature that recognizes that Mark's
      > "literary journey" (6:45-8:26) begins with a topographical problem that tips his
      > editorial hand. It is resolved precisely at the moment that he rejoins Luke's
      > narrative at the end of the "Great Omission".

      That is what Streeter inhis Four Gospels noted! He tried to reconstruct the text of Mark
      known to Lk at this position, which omited the text either by mutilation or for editorial
      reasons. I am wondering if anybody has studied this in greater detail. Sounds interesting.

      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      ------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • R. Steven Notley
      ... Thanks for your comment. However, I think you missed the point (as did Streeter). I looked at his comments on Mk 6:45 on p. 173 of The Four Gospels. You
      Message 2 of 17 , Mar 23, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
         

        Wieland Willker wrote:

        R. Steven Notley wrote:
        > I have never seen a comment in the literature that recognizes that Mark's
        > "literary journey" (6:45-8:26)  begins with a topographical problem that tips his
        > editorial hand.  It is resolved precisely at the moment that he rejoins Luke's
        > narrative at the end of the "Great Omission".

        That is what Streeter inhis Four Gospels noted! He tried to reconstruct the text of Mark
        known to Lk at this position, which omited the text either by mutilation or for editorial
        reasons. I am wondering if anybody has studied this in greater detail. Sounds interesting.

        Thanks for your comment.  However, I think you missed the point (as did Streeter).  I looked at his comments on Mk 6:45 on p. 173 of The Four Gospels.  You are correct that he recognized the block begins as they set off for Bethsaida and ends when they arrive.  Nevertheless, my topographical observation (which is not seen by Streeter) is that the boat ride begins and ends from the same point—thus necessitating a U-turn on the lake.  This is the topographical failure by Mark that tips his editorial hand—not just the lengthy time of arrival to Bethsaida.

        I must confess that I found Streeter's comments (disturbingly) amuzing.  He comments that if one lops off the beginning and end of the Markan Montage (i.e. now we have just 6:53-8:21), it actually is "a more coherent story."  Conveniently, of course it also eliminates the topographical dilemma with which he is dealing.  Would that we all had such liberty to reshape the data!

        Shalom,
        Steven

         

        Best wishes
            Wieland
              <><
        ------------------------
        Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
        http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

      • Eric Eve
        Steven Notley makes some very interesting observations about the topography Mk 6.45-26. One wonders whether Mark knew he was having the disciples make a U-Turn
        Message 3 of 17 , Mar 23, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Steven Notley makes some very interesting observations about the topography
          Mk 6.45-26. One wonders whether Mark knew he was having the disciples make a
          U-Turn in the boat trip at 6.45-53, or whether he was simply rather vague
          about where places like Gennesaret and Bethsaida were. This depends in part
          on whether Mark uses EIS TO PERAN (4.35; 5.1, 21; 6.45, 8.13) simply a loose
          cliché to mean the end point of any boat trip on the lake, or whether he
          means it in the more careful sense of actually crossing from one side to the
          other. Interestingly, although Mark 6.45 has Jesus urge the disciples to
          PROAGEIN EIS TO PERAN PROS BHQSAIDAN, when they arrive instead at Genneserat
          in 6.53 Mark does not use his normal expression EIS TO PERAN but instead KAI
          DIAPERASANTES (cf 5.21). Did Mark employ this related term as a synonym or
          not?

          Whatever the precise nuances of Mark's usage here, I'd like to suggest that
          Mark's narrative makes admirably good sense if one attends to his interests
          and his symbolism. Mark's account of the boat trip at Mk 6.45-52 makes it
          quite clear that the disciples have failed to understand what they should
          have done about the preceding feeding and that they fail to understand
          Jesus' walking on the sea (6.52). After the feeding they should have
          realized that Jesus was the true shepherd king (cf. 6.34 and Ezekiel 34),
          and he planned to cap that with a sea-walking epiphany in which he would
          have passed them by as YHWH once passed by Moses and Elijah. But the dimness
          of the disciples foils his attempt to communicate. It is thus entirely
          fitting that the disciples, ordered to cross to Bethsaida, should instead
          make a U-turn and end up more or less back where they started - this is
          precisely what Mark wants to tell us about the disciples! They then have go
          through a whole lot more until we have a reprise of the feeding story
          (8.1-10) and a final sea crossing (8.14-21) which finally brings the
          disciples to their intended destination (8.22). In 8.21 Jesus has just asked
          them 'Do you not yet understand?'. At 8.22-26 Jesus, with some difficulty,
          open the eyes of a blind man at Bethsaida (which is where the disciples
          should have arrived at in 6.53 if only they'd understood). Thereafter, as we
          all know, Peter shows his eyes have been partly opened when he confesses
          Jesus as Messiah but shows he doesn't know what it really entails.

          Thus, I find your topographical observations helpful in focusing on Mark's
          symbolism here, but far from persuading me that Mark has interpolated
          something into a previous text, they serve to confirm my impression of the
          unity of his narrative.

          Best wishes,

          Eric
          ---------------------------
          Eric Eve
          Harris Manchester College, Oxford
          email: mailto:eric.eve@...
          Home page: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~manc0049


          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • R. Steven Notley
          Eric, Thanks for your comments. As you have noted, Mark does not repeat the expression EIS TO PERAN when concluding the journey by boat. However, his use of
          Message 4 of 17 , Mar 23, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Eric,

            Thanks for your comments. As you have noted, Mark does not repeat the
            expression EIS TO PERAN when concluding the journey by boat. However, his use
            of the verb DIAPERASANTES—as he also does in Mark 5:21—indicates that Mark
            understood that Jesus and the disciples "crossed over" the lake—even though in
            reality (according to Mark) they arrive where they start. Matthew (not
            surprisingly) follows Mark in employing the verb on both occasions. Luke
            (while not following Mark and Matthew) does use the verb elsewhere with the
            same sense "to cross over" (Luke 16:26).

            Unless we follow your spiritualization of Mark's montage, we are still faced
            with a topographical failure. Personally, the resort to a "symbolic" (as you
            suggest) reading of Mark's narrative I find difficult to follow. I am being
            asked to ignore what Mark wrote in lieu of what Mark meant. That is a slippery
            animal to catch!

            Over the years, I have found that one of the challenging (yet refreshing)
            elements of working in biblical scholarship within Israel itself, is that your
            reading of the text must take into account the concrete data that lies
            literally outside your door. Although the disciplines of archaeology and
            historical geography in Israel are only a little over one hundred years old,
            their results impose (necessary) limits upon scholarly speculation.
            Unfortunately, NT scholarship all too often ignores this data. Indeed, one
            renowned German scholar in the previous century (I will not mention his name)
            publicly boasted about never having visited the Holy Land. Not surprisingly he
            was a leading advocate of a "theological reading" of the Gospels (i.e. there is
            no credible historical data).

            Indeed, released from the moorings of concrete realities (language, cultural,
            physical settings) one is freed to drift on the seas of speculation. My fear
            is that our journey will be like those who set out by boat in Mark 6:45. We
            will not reach our destination (i.e. move from mere possibility to at least
            probability).

            I repeat, in this instance Mark's narrative failure is triggered by his
            editorial insertion of a literary montage and is resolved only when that
            intrusion is concluded.

            My suggestion should not be construed as profound. Quite simply, Mark (like
            also Matthew and Luke) works with written sources and edits his material.
            Matthew knew Mark's editorial creation. Luke did not.

            Shalom,
            Steven Notley

            Eric Eve wrote:

            > Steven Notley makes some very interesting observations about the topography
            > Mk 6.45-26. One wonders whether Mark knew he was having the disciples make a
            > U-Turn in the boat trip at 6.45-53, or whether he was simply rather vague
            > about where places like Gennesaret and Bethsaida were. This depends in part
            > on whether Mark uses EIS TO PERAN (4.35; 5.1, 21; 6.45, 8.13) simply a loose
            > cliché to mean the end point of any boat trip on the lake, or whether he
            > means it in the more careful sense of actually crossing from one side to the
            > other. Interestingly, although Mark 6.45 has Jesus urge the disciples to
            > PROAGEIN EIS TO PERAN PROS BHQSAIDAN, when they arrive instead at Genneserat
            > in 6.53 Mark does not use his normal expression EIS TO PERAN but instead KAI
            > DIAPERASANTES (cf 5.21). Did Mark employ this related term as a synonym or
            > not?
            >
            > Whatever the precise nuances of Mark's usage here, I'd like to suggest that
            > Mark's narrative makes admirably good sense if one attends to his interests
            > and his symbolism. Mark's account of the boat trip at Mk 6.45-52 makes it
            > quite clear that the disciples have failed to understand what they should
            > have done about the preceding feeding and that they fail to understand
            > Jesus' walking on the sea (6.52). After the feeding they should have
            > realized that Jesus was the true shepherd king (cf. 6.34 and Ezekiel 34),
            > and he planned to cap that with a sea-walking epiphany in which he would
            > have passed them by as YHWH once passed by Moses and Elijah. But the dimness
            > of the disciples foils his attempt to communicate. It is thus entirely
            > fitting that the disciples, ordered to cross to Bethsaida, should instead
            > make a U-turn and end up more or less back where they started - this is
            > precisely what Mark wants to tell us about the disciples! They then have go
            > through a whole lot more until we have a reprise of the feeding story
            > (8.1-10) and a final sea crossing (8.14-21) which finally brings the
            > disciples to their intended destination (8.22). In 8.21 Jesus has just asked
            > them 'Do you not yet understand?'. At 8.22-26 Jesus, with some difficulty,
            > open the eyes of a blind man at Bethsaida (which is where the disciples
            > should have arrived at in 6.53 if only they'd understood). Thereafter, as we
            > all know, Peter shows his eyes have been partly opened when he confesses
            > Jesus as Messiah but shows he doesn't know what it really entails.
            >
            > Thus, I find your topographical observations helpful in focusing on Mark's
            > symbolism here, but far from persuading me that Mark has interpolated
            > something into a previous text, they serve to confirm my impression of the
            > unity of his narrative.
            >
            > Best wishes,
            >
            > Eric
            > ---------------------------
            > Eric Eve
            > Harris Manchester College, Oxford
            > email: mailto:eric.eve@...
            > Home page: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~manc0049
            >
            > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Eric Eve
            ... Dear Steven, Many thanks for your feedback, but I beg to disagree. Far from ignoring what Mark wrote I m offering an interpretation of it, and one that
            Message 5 of 17 , Mar 23, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Steven Notley wrote:

              > I am being asked to ignore what Mark wrote in lieu of what Mark meant.

              Dear Steven,

              Many thanks for your feedback, but I beg to disagree. Far from ignoring what
              Mark wrote I'm offering an interpretation of it, and one that relies heavily
              on features of his text. Does your objection to my 'symbolic' interpretation
              mean that you think Mark was trying to write a straightforward factual
              narrative? If not, what is objectionable about attending to his theological
              (and other concerns)?

              Best wishes,

              Eric
              ---------------------------
              Eric Eve
              Harris Manchester College, Oxford
              email: mailto:eric.eve@...
              Home page: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~manc0049


              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Wieland Willker
              ... From: R. Steven Notley [mailto:Notley@optonline.net] ... Correct, this is not noted by Streeter. ... This is not Streeter s conclusion. He just presents
              Message 6 of 17 , Mar 23, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                -----Original Message-----
                From: R. Steven Notley [mailto:Notley@...]
                > Nevertheless, my topographical observation (which is not seen by Streeter) is
                > that the boat ride begins and ends from the same point—thus necessitating a
                > U-turn on the lake. This is the topographical failure by Mark that tips his
                > editorial hand—not just the lengthy time of arrival to Bethsaida.

                Correct, this is not noted by Streeter.

                > I must confess that I found Streeter's comments (disturbingly) amuzing. He
                > comments that if one lops off the beginning and end of the Markan Montage (i.e.
                > now we have just 6:53-8:21), it actually is "a more coherent story."
                > Conveniently, of course it also eliminates the topographical dilemma with which
                > he is dealing. Would that we all had such liberty to reshape the data!

                This is not Streeter's conclusion. He just presents some evidence that CAN be interpreted
                this way. He goes on with noting serious objections: p. 174 ff.

                What I found interesting is Streeter's idea to take Luke's verse 9:18 as a "best he could
                do" with a mutilated copy that looked like this:
                6:44 KAI HSAN OI FAGONTES TOU ARTOUS PENTAKISCILIOI ANDRES 45 KAI ... APHLQEN EIS TO OROS
                PROSEUXASQAI ... KAI AUTOS MONOS ... [lacuna] . . . 8:27 ... KAI EN TH ODW EPHRWTA TOUS
                MAQHTAS AUTOU LEGWN AUTOIS TINA ME LEGOUSIN OI ANQRWPOI EINAI

                In Streeter's suggestion Lk made of this:
                9:18 KAI EGENETO EN TW EINAI AUTON PROSEUCOMENON KATA MONAS SUNHSAN AUTW OI MAQHTAI, KAI
                EPHRWTHSEN AUTOUS LEGWN, TINA ME LEGOUSIN OI OCLOI EINAI

                This is a rather strange sentence.
                Take it as this, the variant in Lk 9:18 by B, 157, pc: SUNHNTHSAN = "meet", makes better
                sense. The problem with 9:18 is how to interpret the KATA MONAS. If Jesus prays alone, why
                are suddenly his disciples with him?

                Probably LUKE is defective here in all copies and originally there never was a Great
                Omission. :-)

                Best wishes
                Wieland
                <><
                ------------------------
                Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
                http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/


                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • R. Steven Notley
                Wieland, Thanks for your clarification on Streeter. His suggestion, however, of the mutilated Markan text which Luke tries to mend remains only convincing to
                Message 7 of 17 , Mar 23, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Wieland,
                  Thanks for your clarification on Streeter.  His suggestion, however, of the mutilated Markan text which Luke tries to mend remains only convincing to those who feel the need for an explanation to Luke's otherwise inexplicable omission of the Markan Montage.

                  Wieland Willker wrote:

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: R. Steven Notley [mailto:Notley@...]
                  > Nevertheless, my topographical observation (which is not seen by Streeter) is
                  > that the boat ride begins and ends from the same point—thus necessitating a
                  > U-turn on the lake.  This is the topographical failure by Mark that tips his
                  > editorial hand—not just the lengthy time of arrival to Bethsaida.

                  Correct, this is not noted by Streeter.

                  > I must confess that I found Streeter's comments (disturbingly) amuzing.  He
                  > comments that if one lops off the beginning and end of the Markan Montage (i.e.
                  > now we have just 6:53-8:21), it actually is "a more coherent story."
                  > Conveniently, of course it also eliminates the topographical dilemma with which
                  > he is dealing.  Would that we all had such liberty to reshape the data!

                  This is not Streeter's conclusion. He just presents some evidence that CAN be interpreted
                  this way. He goes on with noting serious objections: p. 174 ff.

                  Correct!
                   

                  What I found interesting is Streeter's idea to take Luke's verse 9:18 as a "best he could
                  do" with a mutilated copy that looked like this:
                  6:44 KAI HSAN OI FAGONTES TOU ARTOUS PENTAKISCILIOI ANDRES 45 KAI ...  APHLQEN EIS TO OROS
                  PROSEUXASQAI ... KAI AUTOS MONOS ... [lacuna] . . . 8:27 ... KAI EN TH ODW EPHRWTA TOUS
                  MAQHTAS AUTOU LEGWN AUTOIS TINA ME LEGOUSIN OI ANQRWPOI EINAI

                   

                  In Streeter's suggestion Lk made of this:
                  9:18 KAI EGENETO EN TW EINAI AUTON PROSEUCOMENON KATA MONAS SUNHSAN AUTW OI MAQHTAI, KAI
                  EPHRWTHSEN AUTOUS LEGWN, TINA ME LEGOUSIN OI OCLOI EINAI

                  Again, this is nothing more than Streeter's well-known mutilated Mark hypothesis.  Yet, without the need (of Two-Document adherents) to explain Luke's omission, no one would ever suggest such a farfetched notion.
                   

                  This is a rather strange sentence.
                  Take it as this, the variant in Lk 9:18 by B, 157, pc: SUNHNTHSAN = "meet", makes better
                  sense. The problem with 9:18 is how to interpret the KATA MONAS. If Jesus prays alone, why
                  are suddenly his disciples with him?

                  This is only a strange sentence in your reading of it.  You are pushing the sense of MONAS too far.  The context gives meaning to the word.  I cite an example to illustrate:

                  Ex. 18:14 When Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he was doing for the people, he said,  “What is this that you are doing for the people? Why do you sit alone (LXX: MONOS), and all the people stand about you from morning till evening?”

                  In the OT account it does not mean that Moses was completely alone—as is clear.  The same nuance is intended here.  Luke has just concluded a setting with a large multitude.  He means to convey that Jesus is no longer with the multitude.  Nothing more.

                   

                  Probably LUKE is defective here in all copies and originally there never was a Great
                  Omission. :-)

                  While I do see Luke's editorial hand elsewhere, there is no inherent problem in this verse with the sense of Luke's text , nor is it defective.  More importantly, there is no need for Streeter's unbelievable cut-and-paste job to explain Luke.

                  After 75 years, his resolution of this Markan dilemma still comes across as an idea invented out of pure necessity.

                  I repeat, Mark's topographical slip evidences his editorial hand.  I see no problem concluding that Mark (like his fellow Evangelists) edited his sources.  Unless we acknowledge that Mark was more than just a copyist (I know I am exaggerating here--forgive me:-)) we will fail to recognize the flow of the text in the development of the Synoptic tradition.

                  Best regards,
                  Steven Notley

                   

                  Best wishes
                      Wieland
                        <><
                  ------------------------
                  Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                  mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
                  http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/

                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

                • Emmanuel Fritsch
                  ... On the opposite, I may not resist to refer to Lagrange, whose program for the Ecole Biblique of Jerusalem, more than a century ago, was exactly in your
                  Message 8 of 17 , Mar 25, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > Over the years, I have found that one of the challenging (yet refreshing)
                    > elements of working in biblical scholarship within Israel itself, is that your
                    > reading of the text must take into account the concrete data that lies
                    > literally outside your door. Although the disciplines of archaeology and
                    > historical geography in Israel are only a little over one hundred years old,
                    > their results impose (necessary) limits upon scholarly speculation.
                    > Unfortunately, NT scholarship all too often ignores this data. Indeed, one
                    > renowned German scholar in the previous century (I will not mention his name)
                    > publicly boasted about never having visited the Holy Land. Not surprisingly he
                    > was a leading advocate of a "theological reading" of the Gospels (i.e. there is
                    > no credible historical data).

                    On the opposite, I may not resist to refer to Lagrange, whose
                    program for the Ecole Biblique of Jerusalem, more than a century
                    ago, was exactly in your perspective.

                    > My suggestion should not be construed as profound. Quite simply, Mark (like
                    > also Matthew and Luke) works with written sources and edits his material.
                    > Matthew knew Mark's editorial creation. Luke did not.

                    Great demonstration.

                    Without quoting in detail the objections against your position,
                    I would like to point out the main fact, that is : geographical
                    incoherency in Mark fits the great omission of Luke.

                    Each theory that gives different explanations for these fitting
                    observations assumes a coincidence, and so far presents a lower
                    probability than a unifying explanation.

                    As unifying explanation, I do not see others than Luke working
                    on a proto-Mark.

                    Luke cleaning Mark from the geographical loop means :
                    - Mark wanted to creat a loop, with all the doublet he created with.
                    - Luke detected the loop and come back to the first status of the text.
                    Two different explanations for two fitting phenomena.

                    More over, I wonder if we may give to Luke such a scholar ability
                    to reverse Markan edition. And if we accept it, I do not see why
                    we should limit this scholar ability in any way : Luke, as a scholar,
                    would give us the original text he reconstructed from Mark, and so
                    he would be the witness of a pre-Markan text.

                    a+
                    manu

                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • R. Steven Notley
                    Emmanuel, thanks for your comments! They encourage me that there is some common basis for a way forward on these troublesome issues. ... You are absolutely
                    Message 9 of 17 , Mar 25, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Emmanuel, thanks for your comments! They encourage me that there is some common
                      basis for a way forward on these troublesome issues.

                      Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

                      > > Over the years, I have found that one of the challenging (yet refreshing)
                      > > elements of working in biblical scholarship within Israel itself, is that your
                      > > reading of the text must take into account the concrete data that lies
                      > > literally outside your door. Although the disciplines of archaeology and
                      > > historical geography in Israel are only a little over one hundred years old,
                      > > their results impose (necessary) limits upon scholarly speculation.
                      > > Unfortunately, NT scholarship all too often ignores this data. Indeed, one
                      > > renowned German scholar in the previous century (I will not mention his name)
                      > > publicly boasted about never having visited the Holy Land. Not surprisingly he
                      > > was a leading advocate of a "theological reading" of the Gospels (i.e. there is
                      > > no credible historical data).
                      >
                      > On the opposite, I may not resist to refer to Lagrange, whose
                      > program for the Ecole Biblique of Jerusalem, more than a century
                      > ago, was exactly in your perspective.

                      You are absolutely correct! The program at Ecole Biblique is one of the finest
                      opportunities to work integratively with text and land—especially when it comes to
                      NT concerns.

                      >
                      >
                      > > My suggestion should not be construed as profound. Quite simply, Mark (like
                      > > also Matthew and Luke) works with written sources and edits his material.
                      > > Matthew knew Mark's editorial creation. Luke did not.
                      >
                      > Great demonstration.
                      >
                      > Without quoting in detail the objections against your position,
                      > I would like to point out the main fact, that is : geographical
                      > incoherency in Mark fits the great omission of Luke.
                      >
                      > Each theory that gives different explanations for these fitting
                      > observations assumes a coincidence, and so far presents a lower
                      > probability than a unifying explanation.
                      >
                      > As unifying explanation, I do not see others than Luke working
                      > on a proto-Mark.

                      Actually, I think we are close here. I would prefer not to use the term
                      "proto-Mark". It confuses the matter. But I do agree that Luke is using at least
                      one source that is pre-Markan. Can we agree on the term proto-Gospel rather than
                      proto-Mark. [I might even be agreeable to pre-Markan Source if we understood a
                      distinct disjuncture between it an canonical Mark.] To use the term "proto-Mark"
                      suggests that it looked much like our canonical Mark. Such an assumption
                      minimalizes the editorial activity of the redactor of canonical Mark—which was
                      considerable!

                      By contrast with Luke (who I think was fairly conservative in the handling of his
                      source(s)), I think Mark was relatively creative.

                      >
                      >
                      > Luke cleaning Mark from the geographical loop means :
                      > - Mark wanted to creat a loop, with all the doublet he created with.
                      > - Luke detected the loop and come back to the first status of the text.

                      I don't think Luke "cleaned" Mark nor detected the geographical loop. I think it
                      simply was not present in his source(s). The redactor of canonical Mark inserted
                      it.

                      >
                      > Two different explanations for two fitting phenomena.
                      >
                      > More over, I wonder if we may give to Luke such a scholar ability
                      > to reverse Markan edition.

                      Again, your statement falls back into the assumption that Luke is relying upon
                      canonical Mark—something I do not see demonstrable in the data.

                      > And if we accept it, I do not see why
                      > we should limit this scholar ability in any way : Luke, as a scholar,
                      > would give us the original text he reconstructed from Mark, and so
                      > he would be the witness of a pre-Markan text.

                      I would agree that Luke does witness to the pre-Markan state of the source(s) to our
                      Gospels. Yet, I do not think that this results through any restructuring of our
                      Mark. It results from an ignorance of canonical Mark.

                      >
                      >
                      > a+
                      > manu

                      Shalom,
                      Steven Notley
                    • David Gentile
                      R. Steven Notley wrote in response to Emmanuel Fritsch ... at least ... rather than ... understood a ... proto-Mark ... was ... Hello Steven, I agree with
                      Message 10 of 17 , Mar 25, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        R. Steven Notley wrote in response to Emmanuel Fritsch

                        >
                        > Actually, I think we are close here. I would prefer not to use the term
                        > "proto-Mark". It confuses the matter. But I do agree that Luke is using
                        at least
                        > one source that is pre-Markan. Can we agree on the term proto-Gospel
                        rather than
                        > proto-Mark. [I might even be agreeable to pre-Markan Source if we
                        understood a
                        > distinct disjuncture between it an canonical Mark.] To use the term
                        "proto-Mark"
                        > suggests that it looked much like our canonical Mark. Such an assumption
                        > minimalizes the editorial activity of the redactor of canonical Mark-which
                        was
                        > considerable!
                        >


                        Hello Steven,

                        I agree with you that it seems likely that Luke had a pre-Markian source.
                        And the question of calling it proto-Mark vs. a proto-gospel is just a
                        matter of degrees. However, I think the recent HHB analysis offers a little
                        insight here. It finds 122 related to 121. But finds 112 is not closely
                        related to 122. Indicating Mark => Luke, on balance. Also it finds 020 much
                        like the rest of Mark, meaning that most of Mark's unique text was omitted
                        by others, not added by Mark.

                        However, it's interesting to note, that the Mark => Matthew relation shows
                        up as about 8 orders of magnitude more significant that the Mark => Luke
                        indicator, and there are some striking counter examples that would argue
                        Luke => Mark, like EUQUS, for example.

                        But, on balance, it indicates the vocabulary supports Mark=> Luke, so I feel
                        more comfortable with calling it proto-Mark. Here is one example of a word,
                        that it finds to support Mark=> Luke:
                        PERIBLEPOMAI ("look around") occurs 6 times in Mark, and never in Matthew.
                        It occurs only once in Luke, in parallel with Mark. Mk3:5==Lk6:40

                        Dave Gentile
                        Riverside, Illinois
                        M.S. Physics
                        Ph.D. Management Science candidate



                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • R. Steven Notley
                        David, Thanks for your note. I must confess that I have not followed all of the numbers and statistics. ... I do not find the linguistic data convincing. For
                        Message 11 of 17 , Mar 25, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          David,
                          Thanks for your note.  I must confess that I have not followed all of the numbers and statistics.

                          David Gentile wrote:

                          Hello Steven,

                          I agree with you that it seems likely that Luke had a pre-Markian source.
                          And the question of calling it proto-Mark vs. a proto-gospel is just a
                          matter of degrees. However, I think the recent HHB analysis offers a little
                          insight here. It finds 122 related to 121. But finds 112 is not closely
                          related to 122. Indicating Mark => Luke, on balance.

                          I do not find the linguistic data convincing.  For example  I would be interested in your analysis of Luke 9:44=Mark 9:31=Matt 17:22-23.
                           
                          Also it finds 020 much
                          like the rest of Mark, meaning that most of Mark's unique text was omitted
                          by others, not added by Mark.
                          Omitted, unknown, or rejected (at points I find Matthew corrects Mark).
                           

                          However, it's interesting to note, that the Mark => Matthew relation shows
                          up as about 8 orders of magnitude more significant that the Mark => Luke
                          indicator, and there are some striking counter examples that would argue
                          Luke => Mark, like EUQUS, for example.

                          This is not surprising in the least.  As has long been recognized, Matthew shows much greater signs of affinity (similarity) to Mark than Luke to Mark.  Thus, scholarship regularly speaks of Luke's "independence."  Indicative is Luke's Passiona Narrative.  Scholarship has found it difficult to understand how Luke could be understood to derive his Passion Narrative from Mark (both in terms of language and historical content).  Thus, the resort to "Luke's special source"  (Jeremias, Taylor, et al).
                           

                          But, on balance, it indicates the vocabulary supports Mark=> Luke, so I feel
                          more comfortable with calling it proto-Mark. Here is one example of a word,
                          that it finds to support Mark=> Luke:
                          PERIBLEPOMAI ("look around") occurs 6 times in Mark, and never in Matthew.
                          It occurs only once in Luke, in parallel with Mark. Mk3:5==Lk6:40

                          First, it is Luke 6:10 (not 6:40).  Second, I do not understand how the mere appearance of PARABLEPOMAI suggests Lukan dependence upon Mark.  Are you suggesting that because this is a singular occurence of the verb in Luke and occurs another 5 times in Mark?  If so, I think you are pushing the data too far.

                          I would counter that we have in this pericope evidence of Mark's knowledge of and redaction of an earlier story that looked more like Luke (though evidence of Lukan editorial work is also present).  What I mean is that Mark knows the traditional statement by Jesus utilizing the verb APOLLUMI (=Luke 6:9).  Jesus' statement in Luke mirrors well-known ideas within developing Jewish humanism that voice a high esteem for the individual (see m. San. 4:5).  Thus, the healing on the Sabbath is intended to illustrate the idea of the importance of the individual (and his needs) to God.  BTW this is a continuing theme from the previous pericope.

                          BTW, note that there is no hint of anger, fury or violence at the conclusion of Luke's text—as contrasted with Mark (and Matthew dutifully following).  This is in spite of the fact that in every English translation I know they render Luke's ANOIAS in 6:11 as "anger, fury"—a sense the Greek term never (I repeat never!) possesses on any other occasion (inside or outside of the NT) except for the rendering given by the translators here.  They have clearly translated Luke through the eyes of Mark's attempt to heighten the opposition to Jesus.  You now witness how pervasive Markan priority is—even to the extent of coloring the very translation of the other Gospels.  Sad, really.

                          In Mark APOLLUMI is adopted to describe a plot to kill Jesus.  By so doing Mark moves violent opposition to Jesus by the religious authorities chronologocially forward to the beginning of his ministry and broadens the opposition to include the Pharisees.  In Luke the "plot" to do away with Jesus does not occur until the last week (Luke 19:47) and is not the Pharisees but the priestly establishment (i.e. Sadducees).

                          Luke is more historically reliable not only in his chronology of events but identification of the opposition to Jesus.  Mark (as do all the Gospels) fails to include the Pharisees by name among those hand Jesus over to the Romans.

                          Again, on a linguistic basis I would be interested to hear your assessment of the verse:

                          Luke 9:44=Mark 9:31=Matt 17:22-23

                          From my view, there is absolutely no question that the flow of this saying is Luke=>Mark=>Matthew.

                           

                          Dave Gentile
                          Riverside, Illinois
                          M.S. Physics
                          Ph.D. Management Science candidate

                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

                        • Maluflen@aol.com
                          In a message dated 3/25/2002 7:10:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, Notley@optonline.net writes:
                          Message 12 of 17 , Mar 25, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In a message dated 3/25/2002 7:10:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                            Notley@... writes:

                            << Again, on a linguistic basis I would be interested to hear your assessment
                            of
                            the verse:

                            Luke 9:44=Mark 9:31=Matt 17:22-23

                            From my view, there is absolutely no question that the flow of this saying is
                            Luke=>Mark=>Matthew.>>


                            I agree with you on the Luke => Mark part of the sequence here. But can you
                            explain to me why you think, if you do, that the sequence Matt =>Luke =>Mark
                            wouldn't work as well? And shouldn't Mark's parallel text be identified as
                            Mark 9:30-31 instead of just Mk 9:31? Also, the Lukan influence on the Markan
                            text is perhaps most evident in Mk 9:32 (which has no parallel in Matt).

                            Leonard Maluf

                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          • R. Steven Notley
                            Thanks Leonard for your comments. My query to David was simply for his analysis of the passion prediction itself—thus the limited verse reference. I agree
                            Message 13 of 17 , Mar 25, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thanks Leonard for your comments.

                              My query to David was simply for his analysis of the passion prediction
                              itself—thus the limited verse reference. I agree that for the verse cited
                              Matthew is also quite good—perhaps (though not necessarily) even preferable to
                              Luke on the basis of syntax.

                              While it is possible that Matthew derived 17:22b from Luke [or more likely the
                              primitive source(s) that lie behind Luke], I find it difficult to follow that
                              Luke has drawn his saying from Matthew. Luke possesses primitive material that
                              has not been derived from Matthew. He gives us the non-LXXism: THESTHE HUMEIS
                              EIS TA HWTA TOUS LOGOUS TOUTOUS. In addition, it is difficult to imagine any of
                              the Evangelist's fabricating a passion prediction that lacked specific details of
                              Jesus' death and resurrection—something that only occurs here in Luke.

                              Personally, I think Luke's saying is the most primitive form of the passion
                              prediction that we possess—and perhaps the kernel from which the multiple
                              predictions developed.

                              The remainder of the prediction in Matthew I would view to be influenced by
                              Mark. Thus, Matthew (as happens elsewhere) is conflating the various forms of
                              the tradition before him. By and large (and I generalize here) when Matthew is
                              free from Markan influence he preserves very good, primitive material—at times
                              even preferable to Luke. Nevertheless, I think it is clear he both knew Mark and
                              was influenced by him. By contrast, I can see no evidence that Luke knew or used
                              Mark.

                              For myself the question of historical priority is not the most important issue to
                              ask in understanding the development of the Synoptic tradition. Instead, it is
                              understanding the sources (whether canonical or non-canonical) that lie behind
                              each of our Gospels and what they have done with them. As is the case at times
                              in textual traditions, we may have a late composition that is reliant upon older,
                              superior (non-canonical) witnesses.

                              The flow of this text I would still contend is Luke=>Mark=>Matthew (with the
                              caveat that Matthew may also know a non-Markan form of the saying).

                              BTW another good example of Matthew's preservation of excellent primitive
                              material but then conflating it with Mark is Matthew 12:31-32. The core of this
                              saying is Matt's v. 32a which closely parallels Luke 12:10 (and is even superior
                              to Luke, in my estimation). Mark is a muddle and Matthew has been unduly
                              influenced by Mark in v. 31.

                              As you can see, my approach is not a simple re-ordering of the synoptic
                              relationship, but an attempt to understand the quality of individual pericopes
                              (determined on the basis of language, culture, history and physical setting) and
                              what the data may tell us of the inter-synoptic relationship (if it exists at
                              all).

                              As I stated, I am not suprised by David's statistics that suggest a far stronger
                              relationship between Mark and Matthew than between Mark and Luke. That has been
                              widely recognized. My departure from David is that I know of no instance where
                              Lukan dependence upon Mark is required by the data. Scholarship, of course,
                              assumes it—but that is a different matter altogether.

                              Shalom
                              Steven Notley


                              Maluflen@... wrote:

                              > In a message dated 3/25/2002 7:10:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                              > Notley@... writes:
                              >
                              > << Again, on a linguistic basis I would be interested to hear your assessment
                              > of
                              > the verse:
                              >
                              > Luke 9:44=Mark 9:31=Matt 17:22-23
                              >
                              > From my view, there is absolutely no question that the flow of this saying is
                              > Luke=>Mark=>Matthew.>>
                              >
                              > I agree with you on the Luke => Mark part of the sequence here. But can you
                              > explain to me why you think, if you do, that the sequence Matt =>Luke =>Mark
                              > wouldn't work as well? And shouldn't Mark's parallel text be identified as
                              > Mark 9:30-31 instead of just Mk 9:31? Also, the Lukan influence on the Markan
                              > text is perhaps most evident in Mk 9:32 (which has no parallel in Matt).
                              >
                              > Leonard Maluf
                              >
                              > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                              > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                            • David Gentile
                              Steven, Thank you for your reply. You wrote: Second, I do not understand how the mere ... and ... too ... That is what I am suggesting. But, the weight of a
                              Message 14 of 17 , Mar 25, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Steven,

                                Thank you for your reply.
                                You wrote:

                                Second, I do not understand how the mere
                                > appearance of PARABLEPOMAI suggests Lukan dependence upon Mark. Are you
                                > suggesting that because this is a singular occurrence of the verb in Luke
                                and
                                > occurs another 5 times in Mark? If so, I think you are pushing the data
                                too
                                > far.
                                >

                                That is what I am suggesting. But, the weight of a statistical argument
                                comes from many examples. This is just one case. Even if I make an
                                assumption that relationship implies the same author, the strongest
                                statement we could make based on this one word, is that based on this
                                evidence in isolation, it is somewhat more likely than not that PARABLEPOMAI
                                at Mark 3:5 has the same original author as the other occurrences of
                                PARABLEPOMAI. This only argues against Lk=>Mk. It does not argue directly
                                against a common source for both. While this one case alone is a very weak
                                argument, over the 800+ words analyzed, examples like this add up to a
                                statistically significant case.

                                > Again, on a linguistic basis I would be interested to hear your assessment
                                of
                                > the verse:
                                >
                                > Luke 9:44=Mark 9:31=Matt 17:22-23
                                >
                                > From my view, there is absolutely no question that the flow of this saying
                                is
                                > Luke=>Mark=>Matthew.
                                >

                                I looked into this. The analysis I did works on the frequency of individual
                                words, so I really can't apply it here. I looked for key words that might
                                have been found particularly significant in the analysis, but I didn't find
                                any. I don't disagree with your ordering, but I can't really apply the
                                results of the analysis here.


                                Dave Gentile
                                Riverside, Illinois
                                M.S. Physics
                                Ph.D. Management Science candidate
                                >


                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                              • Karel Hanhart
                                ... Dear Eric, Thank your for your fine analysis. I agree entirely. In fact, in his Passover story (or hagaddah) Mark retrojects later post crucifixion
                                Message 15 of 17 , Mar 26, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Eric Eve wrote:

                                  > Steven Notley wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > I am being asked to ignore what Mark wrote in lieu of what Mark meant.
                                  >
                                  > Dear Steven,
                                  >
                                  > Many thanks for your feedback, but I beg to disagree. Far from ignoring what
                                  > Mark wrote I'm offering an interpretation of it, and one that relies heavily
                                  > on features of his text. Does your objection to my 'symbolic' interpretation
                                  > mean that you think Mark was trying to write a straightforward factual
                                  > narrative? If not, what is objectionable about attending to his theological
                                  > (and other concerns)?

                                  Dear Eric,

                                  Thank your for your fine analysis. I agree entirely. In fact, in his Passover
                                  story (or hagaddah) Mark retrojects later post crucifixion developments of the
                                  christian movement. A prime example, I think, is the 'conspiracy' of the
                                  Pharisees with the Herodians to 'kill Jesus' as early as Mark 3,6 (comp 12,13).
                                  Clearly the Pharisees were as far apart from the satellites of the worldly
                                  Herodian dynasty as the East is from the West. Why the charge by Mark? In Acts
                                  12 we get a picture of Herod Agrippa I, severely persecuting the young
                                  christian movement going as far as beheading James Zebedee and incarcerating
                                  Simon Peter. But only this particular Herodian is highly praised in the Mishna
                                  and by Josephus. Why? It appears to me that it was Herod Agrippa I who
                                  introduced the Pharisaic dating of the first of the fifty days of Pentecost to
                                  a fixed date on the festival calendar, namely Nisan 16.
                                  In Mark's passion narrative this happens to be the Sabbath of the burial while
                                  the vision of the women is dated early on "the first day of the 'feast of
                                  Weeks'", that is the first day of the pentecostal harvest. In this case Mark
                                  could have conceived this to have been a 'conspiracy' of the Pharisees with a
                                  Herodian. In appr. 72, when canonical Mark was written, a bitter rivalry had
                                  developed between the ecclesia and the Pharisaic party, which had taken over
                                  leadership of the synagogue.
                                  Mark and Matthew mirror this bitter rivalry. Historically it seems improbable
                                  that Jesus was engaged in a struggle with the Pharisees in general. Now the
                                  curious Passover story of Peter's delivery from prison in Acts 12 seems to
                                  reflect the introduction of this new dating of the "first day of Pentecost"
                                  based on a new interpretation of the old priestly calendar of Lv 23.11.15
                                  (always on the Sunday after Pesach}. For the angel rescuing Peter leads him to
                                  "street One" having passing the "guards" [Gr. also 'observers', in this case the
                                  number of days between Pesach and Day One of the counting of fifty harvest
                                  days]. To the ecclesia the angel's message to the women was heard on [lit] "Day
                                  One [Gr miai] of Shabuoth" or on the "first day of the Feast of Weeks". In the
                                  year of the crucifixion this was Nisan 17. The introduction of the Pharisaic
                                  fixed date of Nisan 16 was the day of the burial and according to Luke it was
                                  accompanied by severe persecution.
                                  All this to make the point that Luke indeed was interpreting cryptic allegations
                                  or teachings in Mark's Gospel that reflected later developments.
                                  No doubt, the calendar question is complicated; but Luke does make an attempt to
                                  clarify Herod's evil intentions vis a vis the burgeoning christian movement for
                                  his Hellenistic audience; 'killing Jesus' as Mark termed it.

                                  cordially, Karel H



                                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                • Emmanuel Fritsch
                                  ... Sure. I was speaking here from the point of view of a Markan priorist, to enlight how far we may go in few persuasive scenario. ... Sure. I was accepting
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Mar 26, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > > Luke cleaning Mark from the geographical loop means :
                                    > > - Mark wanted to creat a loop, with all the doublet he created with.
                                    > > - Luke detected the loop and come back to the first status of the text.
                                    >
                                    > I don't think Luke "cleaned" Mark nor detected the geographical loop. I think it
                                    > simply was not present in his source(s). The redactor of canonical Mark inserted
                                    > it.

                                    Sure. I was speaking here from the point of view of
                                    a Markan priorist, to enlight how far we may go in
                                    few persuasive scenario.

                                    > > Two different explanations for two fitting phenomena.
                                    > >
                                    > > More over, I wonder if we may give to Luke such a scholar ability
                                    > > to reverse Markan edition.
                                    >
                                    > Again, your statement falls back into the assumption that Luke is relying upon
                                    > canonical Mark-something I do not see demonstrable in the data.

                                    Sure. I was accepting the conviction of Markan priorists, and the Lukan
                                    scholar ability that they should posit to Luke in order to explain some
                                    facts similar to the bad topography of the Great Omission you pointed out.

                                    > > And if we accept it, I do not see why
                                    > > we should limit this scholar ability in any way : Luke, as a scholar,
                                    > > would give us the original text he reconstructed from Mark, and so
                                    > > he would be the witness of a pre-Markan text.
                                    >
                                    > I would agree that Luke does witness to the pre-Markan state of the
                                    > source(s) to our Gospels. Yet, I do not think that this results
                                    > through any restructuring of our Mark. It results from an ignorance
                                    > of canonical Mark.

                                    Sure. I was just saying that if markan priorists posit Luke being
                                    able to doing the job of scholars, then let him do it, and take the
                                    result as witnessing the pt-Mk.

                                    a+
                                    manu

                                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                  • Eric Eve
                                    ... Dear Stephen, Thank your for your continuing contributions and your interesting obesrvations about the followers of John the Baptist. It seems that here is
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Apr 1, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Stephen Notley wrote:

                                      > Again, not exactly. What you and Goodacre have overlooked is probably
                                      > the most significant element in this story. The (reason and) timing of
                                      > the withdrawal and miraculous feeding occurs immediatley after John's
                                      > death at the hands of Antipas (tetrarch of Galilee). BTW this is why
                                      > the immediate travel to Bethsaida in Luke is more reasonable than Mark's
                                      > U-turn and return to Galilee (Antipas' tetrarchy).

                                      Dear Stephen,

                                      Thank your for your continuing contributions and your interesting
                                      obesrvations about the followers of John the Baptist. It seems that here is
                                      another point where we read the Gospel texts a little differently, for I
                                      would take both Mark 6.14-29 and Luke 9.7-9 to be referring to an execution
                                      of John the Baptist that had taken some time before (with Mark's more
                                      detailed account being a flashback) rather than to events that immediately
                                      preceded, and hence precipitated, Jesus' withdrawal.

                                      > (1) an understanding of geographical setting related to
                                      > John's ministry [e.g. A. Of the synoptic gospels only in Matthew is the
                                      > "wilderness" identified in "Judah."

                                      True enough, though Mark 1.5, which mentions the people of Jerusalem and
                                      Judea coming to John for baptism, could be taken as implying a Judaean
                                      location. I grant you, though, that John's arrest by Antipas tends to
                                      support your argument.

                                      > Moreover, Goodacre has made two assumptions that in fact create a
                                      > problem that is not necessitated by the text. First, as I have
                                      > mentioned above that the multitudes are residents of Bethsaida (and thus
                                      > can easily go home to get food). As explained above, I am not certain
                                      > this is true. Second, that Bethsaida was easily accessible. The area
                                      > that Nun identified is a considerable expanse. It would not have been
                                      > easily traversed at the end of the day.

                                      I don't recall Goodacre making either assumption; at least, I don't think
                                      either assumption is essential to his case. Goodacre's point is simply that
                                      at Luke 9.10 Jesus and the disciples withdraw to Bethsaida, at Luke 9.11 the
                                      crowds follow him (since they apparently follow him to Bethsaida presumably
                                      there are *not* residents of Bethsaida, and I would therefore assume
                                      precisely the opposite of the view you attribute to Mark Goodacre). At Luke
                                      9.12 the disciples tell Jesus that they are in a lonely place and need to
                                      send the crowd into the surrounding villages and farms for food and lodging.
                                      To me (and I think to Goodacre) this indicates that Bethsaida was *not*
                                      easily accessible, which is once again the precise opposite of the
                                      assumption you attribute to Goodacre here. That the area identified by Nun
                                      is a considerable expanse in fact helps to reinforce this point. Luke 9.11
                                      indeed suggests that the crowds were at a distance from Bethsaida that could
                                      not be easily traversed at the end of the day. Agreed - completely! But then
                                      Goodacre's point is that Jesus and the disciples arrive in Bethsaida at Luke
                                      9.10, the crowds follow him there at 9.11, and yet in 9.12 they are suddenly
                                      at some distance from Bethsaida. This is precisely the continuity error to
                                      which Goodacre is calling attention here. Far from undermining his case your
                                      geographical obesrvations only serve to reinforce it.

                                      Best wishes,

                                      Eric
                                      --------------------
                                      Eric Eve
                                      Harris Manchester College
                                      Oxford


                                      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.