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

Re: [Synoptic-L] PWRWSIS: piecemeal and cumulative solutions to the Synoptic...

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 4/26/2002 7:19:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, zeba.crook@utoronto.ca writes:
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 27, 2002
      In a message dated 4/26/2002 7:19:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      zeba.crook@... writes:

      First, that Mark has a redactional purpose here, and that this term works
      within it, says nothing about priority or posteriority. This is reversible
      evidence, which is to say Mark could have redacted *any* material to place
      disciples in a negative light, not only Matt or Luke.>>

      I don't think this comment effectively responds to, if it even understands,
      my argument. Of course one can posit any number of scenarios based on texts
      that we do not have. The presupposition of my argument, which perhaps should
      have been made explicit, was that either Matthew (and Luke) depend on Mark,
      or the relationship is vice versa. One does not reverse the observation I
      made regarding the term PWRWSIS by noting that Mark could have been redacting
      some other text. One simply departs from the parameters of the discussion.

      << Second, what are these two
      explanations which I am required to posit? On the 2DH, I would argue that
      phrase (hardness of heart) is Mark's, and that Luke and Matt are 100%
      in avoiding it. The data supports that much. Attempts to explain *why*
      terms have been left out are often nothing more than a restatement of the
      evidence. What does not need interpreting is that either Mark consistently
      this phrase to his sources, or Matt and Luke consistently avoid it in

      It is not clear to me why you think the fact that Matt and Luke consistently
      avoid the Markan phrase in question "does not need interpreting". I think it
      certainly does.

      << The evidence is reversible and therefore useless for arguing direction of
      dependence one way or the other.>>

      You will have to explain this highly arcane remark. I have never denied that
      the reverse of what I think happened can be posited. I only said that this
      results in a less probable scenario (namely that Matt and Luke both removed
      the term where they found it in Mark).

      > 2. Removal of the term PEPWRWMENH in the Matthean parallel to Mark 6:54 and
      > of PEPWRWMENHN in the Matthean parallel to Mark 8:17 would still leave
      > unexplained the removal of PWRWSIS from the Markan original in the Matthean
      > parallel to Mark 3:5. Whereas Markan addition in all these passages
      creates a
      > neat pattern of addition of a theme dear to Mark in all three texts,
      > confirmed, on the 2 GH, by the absence of the term in Luke's parallel to
      > 3:5 as well.

      <<Again, that Matt removes the phrase in 3:5, where it does not refer to the
      disciples, is a problem only if one argues as your straw man has -- that Matt
      removed them out of piety, a position further rendered untenable by your
      point 3
      below. But, that Matt removes this instance of the phrase as well might
      illustrate even more than the previous examples Matthew's distaste for this

      But your position implies that Matthew was incapable of saying something just
      as negative regarding the Pharisees, whom he clearly despises, as the phrase
      of Mark for which you assume he has a "distaste". Instead he says nothing at
      all in this place, in spite of finding this negative allusion in Mark. Again,
      this is of course possible (and in this limited sense, the evidence is
      "reversible"), but it is simply less likely than the scenario I envisioned,
      namely that Mark added a phrase secondarily to his source in order to vilify
      the Pharisees.

      > 3. The fact that Matthew would have removed the term PEPWRWMENH or related
      > forms of the same words from two Markan texts because of a concern for the
      > negative portrayal of disciples the term conveys leaves totally unexplained
      > why the same Matthew would have retained from Mark Jesus' address to Peter
      > "Satan" (16:23) and even added to that a further, negative "rocky"
      > to Peter, SKANDALON, not found in the Markan text.

      Places where the writers have been 100% consistent in their redactional
      might not be very helpful in assessing direction of dependence. What they
      is only that the writers have been 100% consistent -- either the one in
      or the others in removing material. As for attempting to conjure *reasons*
      this is done, these are at best conjectural (regardless of which camp is
      them), and so can be allowed to carry little weight.>>

      If I were to hold you to your word here, you would lose to your case for
      Markan priority even the few pieces of evidence that might otherwise support

      <<Such data as a term like
      this generates are useful only to show a hypothesis at work; if the data are
      consistent with what the hypothesis predicts then you have support from your
      data. But this would not *prove* a hypothesis, it would simply support it.>>

      This is exactly what I have attempted to do. To show that this particular bit
      of evidence supports a late Mark, dependent on Matt and Luke. It certainly
      does not prove Markan posteriority in general. Nor did I ever claim that it
      did. On the other hand, by "support" the theory, I do intend something more
      than that the evidence is "consistent with" the hypothesis.

      Leonard Maluf

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