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

Re: [Synoptic-L] POREUOMAI

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 13 , May 1, 2002
      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.