R. Steven Notley wrote:
> No. Mark's penchant for (otherwise
insignificant) detail is an indication of
> secondary editing and has
absolutely nothing to do with language (Aramaic or
> otherwise) or
oral sources. It is nothing more nor less than Markan style.
> does not suggest Mark was dependent upon Luke or Matthew, but it
> that witnesses that lack "Markan color" could attest to an
> (pre-Markan or at least non-Markan) form of the story.
This has to be
> evaluated on a pericope bybasis.
I apologize if I'm misunderstanding you here, so
please bear with me. What exactly do you mean by 'secondary
editing'. Are you using secondary in a temporal sense (i.e. that an
earlier document has been edited by Mark), or in the sense of being 'less
important'. My understanding is that you mean the former. I agree
that "Markan color" could indicate editing of an earlier form of the story, but
I don't see why this has to be the case. What evidence is there that
"Markan color" was not in the original, and that witnesses without it attest to
a later, edited, version of the story. As far as I can see both
positions are equally likely.
> > 9. The reversal of the naming of the inner circle (Mark and
Matt : J takes
> > Peter and James his brother and John) whereas
Sondergut L has: "he took
> > Peter and John and James") perhaps for
> > theological/personal/historical reasons to heighten John's
being next to
> > Peter?
> Mark is often the one guilty
of changing insignificant ordering like thisnot
> for any theological
purposes, but as a matter of literary style.
Doesn't your comment imply that you know what the original ordering
was? Granted the ordering is different, but until it is established once
and for all which came first surely we can't say who changed the order, or for
3538 O'Connor Drive
Lafayette, CA, USA