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

Re: [Synoptic-L] POREUOMAI

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 4/30/2002 10:58:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, zeba.crook@utoronto.ca writes:
    Message 1 of 13 , May 1 9:16 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 4/30/2002 10:58:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      zeba.crook@... writes:

      << On the Griesbach Hypothesis (GH), Matt used the word a lot in a variety of
      places, both in simple and compound form. Lk came along and used the word
      23x
      on his own. He took it over from Matt 5x and used it 3x in the same pericope
      but in a different place. He also added it to Mt 21x, and omitted it from Mt
      15x. Then Mark: Mk never takes over the the simple verb from his courses.
      But
      he does take over some compounds: from Mt 7x and from Lk 1x. He adds them
      to
      Mt 12x, makes a compound of Mt's simple verb 3x. With Lk, he changes 3
      simples
      to compounds, and changes the preposition 1x, and adds the compound to Lk 8x.
      Only 3x did Mk find the word in both Mt and Lk, and yet not take it over. As
      for redactional policies, here too there is nothing problematic with how the
      GH
      might envision the evangelists working.>>


      I haven't checked your statistics here, but if they are accurate I think they
      make a slightly stronger case for the GH than your conclusion suggests. You
      write:

      "He [...Mark] makes a compound of Mt's simple verb 3x. With Lk, he changes 3
      simples to compounds..."

      The symmetry here (the fact that Mark three times has a compound form of
      POREUOMAI when a simple form occurs in Matt and three times when a simple
      form occurs in Luke) requires a surprising conjunction of two independent
      causes on the theory of Markan priority, but is what would be expected on the
      theory of Markan posteriority, reflecting the consistency of a single
      redactor in his use of sources. Note too that there is a consistency in the
      statistics when seen from a GH perspective in that a later author (Luke /
      Mark) never uses the simple form of the verb where a compound form occurs in
      his source (if I have read your statistics correctly). Although the reverse
      relationship is certainly a theoretical possibility, I wonder if this could
      be shown to be a general rule or tendency with regard to the use of sources:
      is there a general, verifiable tendency in the direction of a more widespread
      use of compound verb forms by secondary authors with respect to their
      sources? Of course, even if there were, this would hardly amount to
      definitive proof of Markan posteriority because even if such a tendency could
      be demonstrated I doubt very much that it would be an ironclad rule without
      exceptions.

      Leonard Maluf

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Zeba Crook
      ... But you make it sound as if Mk consistently makes compounds of simple forms. He does it three times in each case (Mk 2:23//Mt 12:1; 11:2//21:2; 13:1//24:1
      Message 2 of 13 , May 1 10:36 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Maluflen@... wrote:

        > I haven't checked your statistics here, but if they are accurate I think they
        > make a slightly stronger case for the GH than your conclusion suggests. You
        > write:
        >
        > "He [...Mark] makes a compound of Mt's simple verb 3x. With Lk, he changes 3
        > simples to compounds..."
        >
        > The symmetry here (the fact that Mark three times has a compound form of
        > POREUOMAI when a simple form occurs in Matt and three times when a simple form
        > occurs in Luke) requires a surprising conjunction of two independent causes on
        > the theory of Markan priority, but is what would be expected on the theory of
        > Markan posteriority, reflecting the consistency of a single redactor in his use
        > of sources.

        But you make it sound as if Mk consistently makes compounds of simple forms. He
        does it three times in each case (Mk 2:23//Mt 12:1; 11:2//21:2; 13:1//24:1 and Mk
        1:21//Lk 4:30; 4:19//8:14; 10:1//9:51). But he when he finds the compound already
        made in Mt, 19x, he only takes it over 7x, and only once in Lk when he finds it
        9x. It's hard to argue based on these numbers that Mk has a strong attraction to
        the compounds, but only that he has a strong aversion to the simple form, which he
        never uses or takes over.

        > Note too that there is a consistency in the statistics when seen from a GH
        > perspective in that a later author (Luke / Mark) never uses the simple form of
        > the verb where a compound form occurs in his source (if I have read your
        > statistics correctly). Although the reverse relationship is certainly a
        > theoretical possibility, I wonder if this could be shown to be a general rule or
        > tendency with regard to the use of sources: is there a general, verifiable
        > tendency in the direction of a more widespread use of compound verb forms by
        > secondary authors with respect to their sources? Of course, even if there were,
        > this would hardly amount to definitive proof of Markan posteriority because even
        > if such a tendency could be demonstrated I doubt very much that it would be an
        > ironclad rule without exceptions.

        This is a good question. On the one hand, E.P. Sanders showed, I think, with
        respect to a large number of tests, that when it came to style it was not possible
        to argue that authors did things consistently, and thus to move from there to
        direction arguments. I don't know that this test was among them, but I'd be
        surprised to find out that it worked and was unnoticed by Sanders.


        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.