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

Mk 2:27

Expand Messages
  • E. Bruce Brooks
    Topic: Mk 2:27 (Markan Interruptions; was: Directional Indicators) From: Bruce In Response To: Jim Deardorff Jim suggests we start at the beginning of his list
    Message 1 of 27 , Aug 22 1:31 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Topic: Mk 2:27 (Markan Interruptions; was: Directional Indicators)
      From: Bruce
      In Response To: Jim Deardorff

      Jim suggests we start at the beginning of his list of Markan Interruptions,
      namely Mk 2:27. I note at once that his list (22 Aug 98) has ten examples,
      whereas that of Stephen Carlson, previously cited, has fourteen. Several of
      Stephen's lack parallels in other GSyn, and may be otherwise difficult of
      analysis; I am content for the nonce to accept Jim's list as defining the
      data set, but I note for the record this unresolved question of
      eligibility. It is noticeable that all Stephen's fourteen occur between Mk
      2:10 [not on Jim] and 9:1. Jim's last, 11:24 [not on Stephen,
      exceptionally; all other divergences are omissions by Jim of Stephen's
      items], still reaches only into Mk 11, with nothing in the last four
      chapters (and very brief fifth) of the text. This distribution may already
      be part of the story. The trait in question, whatever it is, is not evenly
      spread over GMk.

      JIM (Having earlier noted the view of Jameson 1922, "that Mark introduced
      his phrase at these points in order to bridge over any discontinuity that
      his editorial alterations may have caused"): Mk 2:27 The interruptive
      phrase here is "And he said to them," which breaks into the 4-verse
      discourse of Mk 2:25-28 for no apparent reason. The Matthean parallel to
      this short discourse is Mt 12:3-8. Mt 12:5-7 is absent from Mark; at the
      end of this omission is where Mark's interruptive break occurs. (Within Mk
      2:27 there is an additional Markan clause re Abiathar).

      BRUCE (or VINCENT): Herewith a partial reconnaissance. Taylor 1952 adds at
      2:27 a note on the trait in question, or a subset of it. For Taylor, the
      subset is defined by the phrase KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS "and he said to them" and
      comprises, besides 2:27, 4:13, 4:21, 6:10, 7:9, and 9:1, total six (6).
      Taylor calls it a "connecting link." The term is only superficially
      redundant, since it might contrast with adversative and other links. T
      notes that the entire saying is omitted in Text D (Bezae), an early but
      famously problematic MS. Neither Bezae nor any other early text
      consistently omits all the other Taylor set passages, so there is no MS
      authority for declaring a nonproblem. Drat.

      It will be seen from Aland p66 that Mt/Mk/Lk end in parallel with some
      arrangement of the words "and did eat the shewbread, which it is not lawful
      to eat save for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him" [tr
      Thompson]. Then comes a gap in both Mk and Lk, ending in both with a
      resumed text after the incipit KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS. The gap corresponds in
      GMt to Mt 12:5-7: "or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath
      day the priests in the temple proface the sabbath, and are guiltless? But I
      say unto you, that one greater than the temple is here. But if ye had known
      what this meaneth, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice," ye would not have
      condemned the guiltless." All three resume at Mk 2:27 / Mt 12:8 / Lk 6:5,
      in Mk/Lk with incipit as noted, with a "Son of Man is lord of the sabbath"
      saying, longer in GMk than in the others. On first view, ignoring the
      longer Mk 2:27 and focusing on the large difference, we have either an
      extension in Mt (12:5-7) or an abbreviation in Mk/Lk, both times introduced
      by KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS. Presumably one of the latter is indebted to the
      other; I here consider only whether extension or omission is likelier for
      the set of Mt vs Mk/Lk. My merely literary sense is that Matthean extension
      is more likely.

      (1). Mk 2:27, to my ear, is not an interruption in discourse. It is a shift
      within discourse. It feels to me so exactly like the way concluding
      classical (as it were, OT) quotations are introduced at the conclusion of
      Chinese wisdom or philosophical segments that I have trouble not singing a
      couplet from the Shr (as it were, the Psalms) myself. Assuming merely an
      analogous and not a historically connected usage, I would instinctively
      ascribe Mk's KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS to such a rhetorical shift into a concluding
      quote or an equivalently highlighted original saying, a sort of verbal
      self-underlining, with which every preacher and public speaker is
      presumably much acquainted. Actors even have a term (throw away) for
      *failure* to emphasize an expectedly highlighted exit or
      discourse-concluding line. One imagines it delivered with suitable
      body-language bracketing gestures. In sum, Mk reads like a speech, perhaps
      a sermon; Mt reads like a legal brief. I make no claim of intrinsic
      plausibility for sermons preceding arguments in the early history of the
      church, but I do note that on this view of KAI etc, there is no reason to
      think that anything is amiss with the rhetorical continuity (culminativity)
      of Mk 2:22-28 or its generally similar Lk par.

      (2) Turning to the other end, Mt 12:5-7. It is overt in the text that
      12:5-6 is cited as a second instance ("*Or* have ye not read . . . "). It
      is easy to imagine this as a legalistic addition, intended to add force to
      the Davidic example in Mk, but in reality only weakening it rhetorically. I
      find also that 12:7 is non sequitur and interruptive with respect to the
      bridge 12:6/8 ("But if ye had known what this meaneth . . . "). I would
      suspect that it might have been associated with the preceding text on the
      basis of the common word "guiltless," which however does not (in my ear)
      resonate effectively with it. I find that is has a pedantic effect. I can
      readily imagine 12:5-6 to be a legalistic addition to the highly apposite
      Davidic precedent in Mk 2:26, and I can as readily visualize 12:7 to be a
      further, even less relevant, keyword-associated further addition (from
      Hosea 6:6). It is the interpolative character of these passages, rather
      than their pedantic character (imagined as part of a legalizing historical
      background development, which background we have not established), let
      alone as a trait of Matthean authorial preference (we have not ascertained
      anything about the general character of authorial Matthew), that suggests
      to me that (1) they are secondary *in context,* that (2) the original
      context must have more closely resembled Mk (whether with or without the
      exit-gesture KAI . . . it is not possible to conjecture), and that
      therefore (3) . . . surprise! Exactly nothing as respects Mk/Mt priority.
      It is quite statable that Mt/Mk/Lk were at one point quite similar, and
      that Mt later acquired interpolations, so that the process leading to their
      original similarity is not spoken to by the interpolations per se. We would
      have to base a priority decision on the evidence of the parallel texts
      *exclusive* of the Mt 12:5-7 segment and its parallel absences.

      I am out of space in which to attempt this, and leave it, as well as
      criticism of the above inferences, to others.

      CODICIL. JIM: From the Mk > Mt perspective, the writer of Matthew wished to
      add 3 verses here dealing with temple matters. And he corrected Mark's
      mistake about Abiathar by omitting the clause rather than by putting in the
      priest's correct name. While he was at it, he removed Mark's unnecessary
      interruptive break.

      BRUCE: AMatt or somebody after him. I have argued the latter. Mark's
      cadential transition is neither unnecessary nor interruptive in its own
      context, but for whatever reason it did not suit AMatt; I have suggested a
      difference in rhetorical model. As for Abiathar, commentators agree it is a
      simple error, to which I would add: not a ritualizing error, but a failed
      attempt to date the story referred to. I don't know that there is a
      directionality to errors per se, and decline to point one here. See however
      below.

      On the logic of a Matthean addition, Davies and Allison seem convincing:
      "The addition of 12:5-7 was perhaps motivated by the belief that the
      argument in 12:3-4 is of itself insufficient. Useful as was the reference
      to the conduct of David, it probably had no strict relevance to the
      question of the sabbath, and was, moreover, merely of haggadic
      significance. To produce a strong argument, such as Matthew desiderated for
      Jesus' justification of his disciples' conduct, more was needed. 'It was of
      the essence of the rabbinic system that any detailed rule, any halakha,
      must rest, directly or indirectly, on an actual precept promulgated in
      Scripture. . . . ' [quote from Daube]." As to 12:7, I find that Davies and
      Allison again agree: "Matthew now inserts Hos 6:6, a verse already cited in
      9:13 (qv). The citation interrupts the continuity that otherwise obtains
      between 12:6 and 8. . . Perhaps, as Allen (p128) suggested, Mt 12:7 is 'of
      the nature of a parenthesis' (cf McNeile 169)." So also, largely, Gundry,
      who however argues that 12:7 is not an interpolation but an echo. We then,
      adding the two, have either a Matthean extension (Gundry) or that plus a
      later post-Matthean interpolation (not claimed by, but more consistent
      with, Davies and Allison, than is their own seeming position).

      Time long gone, but in the interest of credibility I cannot omit to
      symmetrically mention:

      JIM: From the Mt > Mk perspective, the writer of Mark wished to omit
      Matthew's Judaistic verses that weren't too essential, so he omitted Mt
      12:5-7. And for the sake of change he added a name for the high priest
      during David's time, but got it wrong. For no apparent textual reason he
      also added "And he said to them."

      BRUCE: The statement seems at various points needlessly pejorative, but as
      a naive reader I would agree that it is harder to find a psychological
      scenario in this direction. Someone concerned to deritualize a preceding Mt
      might well have tried to enhance its historical versimilitude and thus
      authority (of a different sort), but such an authorial agenda would tend to
      imply historical knowledge, which is inconsistent with the historical error
      (though, be it said in a whisper, worse things happen in Acts). At bottom
      it is easier to imagine an original untrained and thus careless historian,
      than an intentionally revisionist and but still careless historian. As for
      KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS, it is in my view rhetorically justified, but only for
      someone close to oral style. One scenario is that Jesus's perhaps
      remembered sayings were originally orally delivered, and subject to
      deoralization in later writing down; this favors the Mk > Mt
      directionality. Another is that Jesus's originally written sayings (so
      Papias, to whom we may have to devote attention, but later) were oralized
      through being read in the churches. One can *state* either option, in such
      a way that the statements look symmetrical. The latter option, however,
      seems at variance with the oft noted general ecclesiality of Mt.

      Thus, whatever such stuff may be worth, and I don't put any of it too high,
      still, none of it on a naive view looks like it supports the Mt > Mk
      option. I would then read both halves of the investigation as emerging,
      consistently, with Mk > Mt.

      OK, somebody else's turn.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts
    • Yuri Kuchinsky
      ... Well, Bruce, I think this is significant. It seems to me like the last chapters of Mk are the most heavily edited and interpolated ones. In general I find
      Message 2 of 27 , Aug 22 11:42 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sat, 22 Aug 1998, E. Bruce Brooks wrote:

        > Jim suggests we start at the beginning of his list of Markan
        > Interruptions, namely Mk 2:27. I note at once that his list (22 Aug
        > 98) has ten examples, whereas that of Stephen Carlson, previously
        > cited, has fourteen. Several of Stephen's lack parallels in other
        > GSyn, and may be otherwise difficult of analysis; I am content for the
        > nonce to accept Jim's list as defining the data set, but I note for
        > the record this unresolved question of eligibility. It is noticeable
        > that all Stephen's fourteen occur between Mk 2:10 [not on Jim] and
        > 9:1. Jim's last, 11:24 [not on Stephen, exceptionally; all other
        > divergences are omissions by Jim of Stephen's items], still reaches
        > only into Mk 11, with nothing in the last four chapters (and very
        > brief fifth) of the text. This distribution may already be part of the
        > story. The trait in question, whatever it is, is not evenly spread
        > over GMk.

        Well, Bruce, I think this is significant. It seems to me like the last
        chapters of Mk are the most heavily edited and interpolated ones.

        In general I find arguments re: significance of these Markan interruptions
        as given by Stephen quite persuasive.

        http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/interrpt.htm

        Repeated use by Mk of KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS, and similar such phrases, seems
        to mark places where editorial activity of Mk is apparent. So it is likely
        that a later editor of Mk was working with the text of Mt to create these
        passages in Mk.

        The fact that last chapters of Mk do not show an editorial activity of
        such a type may indicate that even more later editorial activity has
        covered up such markers.

        ...

        > As for KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS, it is in my view rhetorically justified, but
        > only for someone close to oral style. One scenario is that Jesus's
        > perhaps remembered sayings were originally orally delivered, and
        > subject to deoralization in later writing down; this favors the Mk >
        > Mt directionality. Another is that Jesus's originally written sayings
        > (so Papias, to whom we may have to devote attention, but later) were
        > oralized through being read in the churches. One can *state* either
        > option, in such a way that the statements look symmetrical. The latter
        > option, however, seems at variance with the oft noted general
        > ecclesiality of Mt.
        >
        > Thus, whatever such stuff may be worth, and I don't put any of it too high,
        > still, none of it on a naive view looks like it supports the Mt > Mk
        > option. I would then read both halves of the investigation as emerging,
        > consistently, with Mk > Mt.

        I beg to disagree. In my view, and Stephen will probably agree, it seems
        quite difficult to explain why Mt would be deleting just this phrase KAI
        ELEGEN AUTOIS consistently, while also consistenly adding text to Mk.

        In general, all this would tend to add weight to the thesis that we should
        try to move away from considering these Synoptic relationships in a
        simplistic fashion, i.e. as interplay of fixed and monolithic textual
        unities. In other words, our gospels are not monoliths, but, instead, are
        highly complex composite entities that went through extensive editing,
        interpolation, and cross-pollination over many Christian generations.

        Obviously it is a highly complex picture that will emerge as the result of
        such investigations. It is not surprising that many commentators may be
        frightened by such complexity... But this is the only realistic view,
        IMHO.

        Regards,

        Yuri.

        Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

        http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

        The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
        equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
      • Stephen C. Carlson
        ... I was about to respond, but Yuri has expressed more clearly and succintly what I wanted to state. Methodologically, when someone is calling for a
        Message 3 of 27 , Aug 22 12:43 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          At 02:42 PM 8/22/98 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
          >I beg to disagree. In my view, and Stephen will probably agree, it seems
          >quite difficult to explain why Mt would be deleting just this phrase KAI
          >ELEGEN AUTOIS consistently, while also consistenly adding text to Mk.

          I was about to respond, but Yuri has expressed more clearly and succintly
          what I wanted to state. Methodologically, when someone is calling for a
          consideration of a pattern of evidence, the following suggested approach
          is not able to see the forest for the trees:

          >BRUCE: Why not? Somebody who knows this material well can pick one example
          >(for a start), state a case for it, and then we can all look at it.

          Stephen Carlson
          --
          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
          Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
          "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
        • E. Bruce Brooks
          Topic: Markan Interruptions From: Bruce In Response To: Yuri and Stephen These objections were raised to my attempt to consider the single example of Markan
          Message 4 of 27 , Aug 23 3:37 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Topic: Markan Interruptions
            From: Bruce
            In Response To: Yuri and Stephen

            These objections were raised to my attempt to consider the single example
            of Markan Interruption in Discourse proposed for discussion by Jim
            Deardorff:

            YURI: I beg to disagree. In my view, and Stephen will probably agree, it
            seems quite difficult to explain why Mt would be deleting just this phrase
            KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS consistently, while also consistently adding text to Mk.

            STEPHEN: I was about to respond, but Yuri has expressed more clearly and
            succintly
            what I wanted to state. Methodologically, when someone is calling for a
            consideration of a pattern of evidence, the suggested approach [beginning
            with one example - EBB] is not able to see the forest for the trees.

            BRUCE: Yuri has already taken the phrase, or I in turn would beg to
            disagree. On Matthean editorial consistency, see below. As to methodology,
            a forest (pattern of usage) is a second-order concept, and is in principle
            no stronger than the least accurate of the first-order observations (trees;
            claimed Mk discourse interruptions) on which it rests. It is thus as valid
            to re-examine those particular cases as to discuss the final pattern
            itself. If the cases can be otherwise explained, the alleged pattern
            vanishes. With Mk 2:27, I argued from direct re-inspection that (a) GMk's
            KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS can be construed as an intentional gesture of discourse
            culmination, and thus need not in this passage be an inexplicably redundant
            and thus plausibly intrusive statement that Jesus is speaking to an
            audience to which he has already been identified as speaking. (b) The
            passage in Mt directly preceding what would have been the KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS
            line in Mk is, as commentators (some cited) have noted, suspect as
            expansive and/or interpolative. Only implicit in that argument is the
            counter-possibility that KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS is original in the Markan
            source, may have been present also in the Matthean revision of that
            passage, and if so may have been interfered with when the Matthean
            expansion, and especially the seemingly later interpolation Mt 12:7, were
            added. It was alternatively suggested that the orally valid gesture KAI
            ELEGEN AUTOIS was seen by AMt as superfluous, and editorially excised, here
            and in all other cases being considered, for that reason.

            So, to the original proposal that AMk added KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS to suture his
            excision of Mt 12:5-7 from his Matthean source, we now have another
            possibility, that AMt removed KAI etc either as an incident of his
            expansion of his Markan source at that point, or because he no longer
            understood its original function in oral discourse. Let's check that out
            against the rest of the passages cited as close parallels by Taylor, Mt
            2:27 being case #1.

            CASE #2, Mk 4:13 / Mt 13:18 / Lk 8:11. (a [rhetorical fit of KAI etc]) All
            parr use some form of turn-of-discourse signal to mark the shift from the
            rebuke of disciple misunderstanding in the previous text, which is
            prolegomenal, to the actual explanation. Thus [tr Thompson]: Mk *And he
            saith unto them,* know ye not this parable, Mt *Hear then* ye the parable
            of the sower, Lk *Now* the parable is this. This is analogous to the
            explanation proposed in Case #1. KAI etc is here perfectly comfortable as a
            Markan analogue of equivalent transition idioms in the parallel texts. (b
            [excisions in Mt) There is no material in Mt which is absent in Mk and
            which is or would have been *directly* propinquitous to Mk's KAI etc, and
            for the excision of which KAI etc might be construed as a compensation. The
            respective lines *immediately* preceding Mk 4:13 parr are: Mk and it should
            be forgiven them, Mt and I should heal them, Lk and hearing they may not
            understand [directly parallel line missing in Lk; this is from earlier in
            the segment]. Mt 13:14-15 is however a much longer, and directly
            attributed, quotation from Isaiah 6:9-10 than the faint echo in Mk 4:12. So
            on the one hand, we have no disturbance of the *immediate* Mt context [I
            leave out of consideration for the moment the Lukan parallel] which might
            have led to a compensatory Mk insertion of KAI etc, and on the other hand
            we have a recurrence of the Case #1 situation, where Mt is not only longer,
            but longer in an OT way, and more precise about its citation. This is
            parallel to the additional cases cited in Mk 2:27 parr, and to the Mt
            correction by omission of a Mk error of fact (Abiathar). Very consistent.
            Mk is abrupt and careless where Mt is extensive and scrupulous. We now have
            a pattern consisting of two instances.

            CASE #3, Mk 4:21 / Mt 5:15 [but the parallel to Mk 4:20 is Mt 13:23] / Lk
            8:16. (a) Mk 4:20 is the end of the explanation of the parable of the sower
            (Case #3), and Mk 4:21 begins a new comparison/simile, namely that of the
            light not put under a bushel, ending in the familiar formula "If any man
            hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Mk 4:23). KAI etc is intelligible as a
            discourse-transition marker. The functional parallels are mere
            conjunctional words (Mt *Neither* do men . . . Lk *And no* man . . .),
            though sentence-initial conjunctional words need not be wholly despised as
            discourse punctuation. (b) In terms of Mk, the parallel Mt text is detached
            from its context. If visualized as Mk assembling his text from Mt, AMk will
            have not so much excised Mt 5:14 as transferred, and in terms of his own
            manuscript, added, Mt 5:15f. In its own context, Mt 5:15f is part of the
            Sermon on the Mount, and directly follows the thematically identical Mt
            5:14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid."
            Whereas the material beginning with Mk 4:21 is merely miscellaneous in its
            Markan context (the Thompson synopsis labels this portion Five Short
            Sayings, admitting an ability to find a consistent theme linking them with
            each other, still less with the previous text). The proposal that Mk is
            here disrupting the Beatitudes section in order to add thematically
            miscellaneous material to the Parable of the Sower is a predication of
            editorial activity producing disorder from order. I am sorry, O Luminaries
            of Synoptic-L, but like thousands before me, run as I will, I simply cannot
            get that particular kite into the air. The opposite possibility, that
            Matthew has combed out the minimally sequitur strings of Markan individual
            dicta and crafted them into a literarily magnificent if orally implausible
            "Sermon," needs in my opinion very little wind to lift it off. I find no
            difficulty in Case #3 with either the functionality of KAI etc in Markan
            context or with the proposition that Mt used Mk.

            CASE #4, Mk 4:24 / Mt 7:2b / Lk 8:18. (a) another use of KAI etc as a
            new-discourse marker, following the "he who has ears" formula of 4:23 and
            introducing the saying about "with what measure ye mete." The Matthean
            parallel lacks its incipit; Lk has the conjunctional transition "Take heed
            *therefore* how ye hear." Within Mk, no more problem than in Case #3. As to
            parallel transition markers, same modest level as in Case #2, but not
            wholly absent. (b) Another claimed Markan discerption from the Matthean
            Sermon. See Case #3.

            CASE #5, Mk 6:10 / Mt 10:11 / Lk 9:4, within the Instructions to the
            Twelve. (a) Preceding text specifies what they shall take with them;
            present text prescribes how they shall behave when arriving. Overall
            subject continuous, but this is a valid subsection within the manual. All
            parr acknowledge the discourse transition, Mk as in previous cases with KAI
            etc; Mt/Lk as in some previous cases with conjunctional words: Mk *And he
            said unto them,* wheresoever ye enter into a house, Mt *And* into
            whatsoever city or village ye shall enter, Lk *And* into whatsoever house
            ye enter. A modern trainer of salesmen would have said: "All right, folks,
            now under this next section in the manual we have the question of where you
            go when you reach the next town, and I want to emphasize to you . . . " The
            ancients did it so much more efficiently. (b) The immediately preceding
            text in all parr is identical: Mk And, said he, put not on two coats, Mt
            neither two coats, Lk neither have two coats. There can thus be no
            disruption of immediate context, on any assumption as to directionality
            within the three texts, and thus no problem of discontinuity for the
            supposed suture KAI etc to compensate for or distract from. This passage is
            the clearest refutation in the set, of that part of the proposed account.
            At Mk 6:8, the parallel Mt 10:5b is much longer, including a prohibition
            against going in the ways of the Gentiles or Samaritans, but "only to the
            lost sheep of the house of Israel." This might seem to be written earlier,
            at a time before the church had begun to expand among the Gentiles; I would
            say that it rather attests, and opposes, Gentile believers and indeed
            missions to the same. We thus do not have hear a clear historical marker,
            rather a suggestive marker of attitude toward history. We can on this basis
            locate Matthew within early Church opinion, but not as reliably place it
            within early Church chronology. Best postponed in any case. The text
            evidence in all parr precludes any theory of Markan or other disruption in
            Matthean discourse. The text evidence at Mt 10:5b shows the same
            lengthierness relative to Mk that has been found in previous Cases, the the
            content is also largely compatible: OT precision there; Israel-centeredness
            here. That particular pattern now rests on three instances.

            CASE #6, Mk 7:9 / Mt 15:3b / Lk [Great Omission], The Tradition of the
            Elders (Against Defilement). (a) I wouldn't care to offer this as a
            shining example of coherency of discourse in GMk, but such as it is, it may
            be subject to interpretation as having a shift of sorts, defined rather by
            a return to than a progression in, wording. Thus, following the (Isaiah)
            quote on teaching as doctrines the precepts of men (Mk 7:7 = Mt 15:9), we
            have in Mk the resumptive and thus plausibly cadential summary: "[7:8] Ye
            leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men." Then
            [7:9] the KAI etc phrase, and this: "Full well do you reject the
            commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition, [7:10] For Moses said,
            'Honor thy father and thy mother . . . " The same God/man contrast is used
            as an incipit to the Moses citation. The tail of one becomes the head of
            the next (chiasmus). In oral delivery, the identity of phrase might cause
            initial trouble to hearers, who would be liable to misinterpret it as a
            repetition and not a beginning; the KAI etc phrase, serving as an oral
            spacer and a rhetorical transition marker, prevents this, and by isolating
            the second segment gives it more force as a separate, not a continued,
            argument. (b) The summary Mk 7:8 is missing in Mt, as is the KAI etc phrase
            in Mk 7:9. Mt's 7:3b [I do not here take up the question of the
            micro-reshuffling of verses as between Mk/Mt] combines the function of
            transitioning out of the Isaiah quote and applying the parallel to the
            Pharisees: "Why do you *also* [this being a minimal transition-marker,
            perhaps here indicating a transition from quotation to direct discourse]
            transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?" Our options
            as to directionality are that Mk has imposed a more complicated
            summary-plus-introduction pattern on the simpler Matthean material, this in
            turn necessitating use of the spacer KAI etc, thus creating and then
            solving a problem that did not exist before, or that Mt has simplified an
            overelaborate Markan text. I think the latter has the greater appeal. As
            with Cases #3-4, I find the idea of transition to complexity and then a
            simultaneous fixing of the complexity as intrinsically hard to credit. That
            makes three cases so far, out of six, where the Mt > Mk scenario seems
            notably counterintuitive. Further as to patterns, I should emphasize that
            here it is the Markan text, not the Matthean, that is longer. This refutes
            the claim, sometimes made, that Matthew "consistently" adds text. He does
            not. What he does consistently seem to do is clean up roughnesses, non
            sequiturs, and ill-conceived rhetorical complexities, in his text. He also
            has, consistently so far, an OTifying agenda. The devices of shortening
            text and lengthening text seem equally available to him in the pursuit of
            those, so far consistent, objectives. A rash person would claim that we
            have identified a Matthean authorial/processive persona. I am content to
            note that the data so far considered do not point in inconsistent
            directions as to such a persona, assuming indeed that AMatt is indeed
            operating on previous text, and not creating a source de novo.

            CASE #7, Mk 9:1 / Mt 16:28 / Lk 9:27, Imminence of the Kingdom. It might
            seem that Mk 9:1, being at the head of a chapter, cannot be a close
            transition from anything preceding, so that here at least the
            rhetorical-transition interpretation of KAI etc must fail. Amazingly
            enough, the synopses take it as continuous with the preceding Mk 8:38, and
            end the passage with it; the following Transfiguration narrative beginning
            at Mk 9:2. Mt numbers its parallel text as continuous within one chapter.
            So also Lk. The Markan chapter division is thus an anomaly, which might
            deserve investigation on some other occasion. As to the position of Mk 9:1
            within that discourse, the previous text has general predictions of the Son
            of Man's disavowal of those who "are ashamed of me and my words" (Mk/Lk,
            the disjunct parallel in Mt 16:27b is "and shall render unto every man
            according to his deeds," a quote from Ps 42) when he comes in glory.
            Concluding this predictional material there follows an assurance as to the
            time of the coming: "[Mk: And he said unto them,] Verily, I say unto you,
            There shall be some here of them that stand by, which shall in no wise
            taste of death . . ." The Mt/Lk parr vary slightly in wording, but the
            chief difference is the KAI etc. It seems valid to call this assurance a
            conclusion, and to distinguish it from the preceding matter. Mk does so
            with the full KAI etc treatment, awkward because of LEGO# "he said" in the
            immediately following text (so all parr). Lk 9:27 has the faintly
            transitional "But" (noninitial DE);' Matthew no marker at all. Within
            Markan context, and with faint support from Lk, it seems valid to
            distinguish a rhetorical transition to a discourse-final assurance, and to
            accept KAI etc as its marker. The awkwardness of the root duplication
            ELEGEN / LEGO# is not inconsistent with the overwrought Markan chiasmus in
            Case #6. (b) On the assumption Mt > Mk, the schematic module represented by
            Mt 16:27v has been (1) changed in its substance, (2) transferred to before
            16:27a, and (3) all connectives rewritten to adjust the change. There is
            intrinsic and overt argument against all of this: (1) the Lukan agreement
            in substance "be ashamed" with Mk against Mt, making Mt the odd text out;
            (2) the specific threat against those who disbelieve (Mk/Lk) is more
            continuous with the promise to those who believe and die for their beliefs
            in the immediately preceding text, whereas the more general image of Jesus
            sitting in final judgement on the whole range of human behavior (Mt) is
            less so; and (3) the skillful rewriting of connectives attributed to AMk on
            this hypothesis is inconsistent with the stylistic faults which must, here
            and elsewhere, be attributed to AMk at other points in the text. Emerging
            inconsistency in the authorial persona which is being built up as we
            consider these specific cases is not good support for the interpretations
            on which that attributed persona is founded. It tends to impugn those
            interpretations. I would judge that it does so in this case.

            SUMMARY: (1) Only four of these seven cases involve disruption of Matthean
            source text for which Markan KAI etc might be construed as a compensation;
            in these and all other cases there is available a plausible alternative
            interpretation of KAI etc as a rhetorical transition marker, either within
            a discourse (typically in introducing its final segment) or, in two cases,
            between discourses. The compensation hypothesis is thus superfluous. The
            assumption that a more stylish and also more literary AMt eliminated this
            sometimes clunky and always oral spacing device will suffice to explain its
            elimination by AMt. (2) The assertion that Matthew consistently adds text,
            making it anomalous that he would at the same delete occurrences of KAI
            etc, has been found to be without merit. On either assumption of relatively
            priority, both Mk and Mt must be admitted to add as well as subtract from
            the presumed source. Thus, Mt expands the Isaiah quote in Mk 4:12, but also
            deletes Abiathar in Mk 2:27, or mutatis mutandis. (3) The hypothesis Mt >
            Mk entails inconsistent Markan authorial persona assumptions in some cases,
            and violently counterintuitive ones in other cases. The hypothesis Mk > Mt
            was found to lead to no such problems, other than requiring the assumption
            of a somewhat clunky original stylist as the Markan authorial persona,
            which has the merit of being more plausibly than the assumption of an
            equally clunky editorial stylist later in the absolute chronology. (4) To
            that extent, the hypothesis Mk > Mt, though by no means established (how
            absurd!), now has eight swallows for its summer. Ninety-two to go.

            APPEAL TO THE LIST ADMINISTRATOR. I do not complain of the doubling of
            antagonists at each stage of this discussion (1 > 2), since there is
            classical Greek precedent for it. What I do wish to point out is that the
            roster of antagonists is subject to 100% replacement (Jim > Yuri/Stephen).
            It's not fair that these people get to sleep in relays. Please see to it.

            Bruce

            E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            I ve got a couple of things to say in response to Bruce s lengthy response on Markan interruptions. First, I don t view myself as an antagonist nor
            Message 5 of 27 , Aug 23 1:55 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              I've got a couple of things to say in response to Bruce's lengthy
              response on Markan interruptions. First, I don't view myself as an
              "antagonist" nor Synoptic-L as a list for antagonists. Granted,
              some of our disagreements may appear sharp, but I have no animus
              against Bruce personally and I have hoped to keep our discussion
              focused politely on the issues and not on the personalities.

              Second, Bruce's examination did not directly address Jameson's
              argument (from the use of the phrase KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS) or my own
              from the Markan narrator's interruption of Jesus' discourse. An
              argument to properly be refuted must first be engaged. Rather, he
              followed Vincent Taylor's list of seven instances of KAI ELEGEN
              AUTOIS, in which Taylor, an able advocate of the Four Source
              Hypothesis, thought that it was apparently used a connecting link
              (Taylor, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK, p.218, s.v. 2:27).
              Taylor also cited four additional instances of the phrase without
              comment, and these were not included in Bruce's analysis. Thus,
              I am not surprised that Bruce is able to find a consistent strain
              in favor of Markan priority in Taylor's examples.

              Although the selection of instances was filtered through a Markan
              prioritist, even the detailed discussion of particular instances
              did not touch on the textual phenomenon being adduced. For example,
              Mk4:13 is parallel to Mt13:18 and follows Mk4:12 // Mt13:15. Thus,
              the Matthean text includes 50 additional words of blessing the
              disciples that are not found in Mark. This fact is never mentioned
              in Bruce's analysis. Although I'm not familiar with Thompson's
              synopsis that Bruce cited, I've heard that it is based on Mark.
              However, such Markan-based synopses tend to obscure this example,
              e.g. Abbott & Rushbrooke, THE COMMON TRADITION OF THE SYNOPTIC
              GOSPELS (London: Macmillan, 1884), pp.24-27, because they only
              print parallels to Mark. If so, the oversight belongs to Thompson.

              Finally, I still find it difficult to account for Matthew's behavior
              on the assumption of Markan priority with Mark's interruptions into
              Jesus' discourse in the following twelve instances: Mk2:27 3:4 4:9
              13 21 24 26 30 6:10 7:9 20 9:1. Luke's behavior does not seem so
              problematic: he generally found them awkward and merely removed them
              except in one place, betraying his dependence. Enclosed is what I
              thought may be going on from my article at
              http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/interrpt.htm

              >Briefly, these insertions betray some redactionary activity, usually
              >deletion, on Mark's part of a source similar to Matthew. Obvious cases of
              >deletion account for five of these examples: 2:27 (cf. Mt12:5-7, 27 words
              >deleted); 3:4 (cf. Mt12:11-12a, 27 words); 4:13 (cf. Mt13:14-15, 50 words);
              >6:10 (cf. Mt10:2-8 12-13, 138 words); and 9:1 (cf. Mt16:27b, 8 words). All
              >of these examples use KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS, except for 3:4 which substitutes
              >LEGEI. Two more instances of KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS introduce sayings found in
              >the Sermon on the Mount (4:21 24), so they indirectly attest to a deletion
              >from Matthew -- of the Sermon. Finally, 4:30 KAI ELEGEN can be thought of a
              >deletion: of the parables of the tares (Mt13:24-30, 148 words), and 4:26 is
              >the introduction to a new parable, of the secretly growing seed.
              >
              >Of the remaining three instances, two show transposition of material: 4:9
              >KAI ELEGEN, reversing the order of the yield of the sown seeds (cf. Mt13:8);
              >and 7:9 KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS, which shows transposition of a considerable
              >amount of material in the pericope on what defiles a person (cf. Mt15:3-6
              >moved). The final case is 7:20 ELEGEN DE hOTI which is due to Mark's
              >editorial insertion, KAQARIZWN PANTA TO BRWMATA ("cleansing all foods").
              ...
              >Moreover, Markan priority fails to plausibly explain Matthew's redactional
              >behavior. While we may understand a later redactor eliminating such
              >interruptions, as we see with Luke, it is much more problematic to explain
              >why Matthew would consistently add text or perform other editorial
              >operations (including the complete removal of several of Mark's parables
              >[Mk4:21-25]). Although it is possible to devise a plethora of reasons for
              >this phenomenon under Markan priority, Matthean priority, however, appears
              >to be most parsimonious solution for this feature of Mark's gospel.

              Stephen Carlson
              --
              Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
              Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
              "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
            • E. Bruce Brooks
              Topic: Markan Interruptions From: Bruce In Comment On: Stephen Carlson s response of today STEPHEN: I ve got a couple of things to say in response to Bruce s
              Message 6 of 27 , Aug 23 5:57 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Topic: Markan Interruptions
                From: Bruce
                In Comment On: Stephen Carlson's response of today

                STEPHEN: I've got a couple of things to say in response to Bruce's lengthy
                response on Markan interruptions. First, I don't view myself as an
                "antagonist" nor Synoptic-L as a list for antagonists. Granted, some of
                our disagreements may appear sharp, but I have no animus against Bruce
                personally and I have hoped to keep our discussion focused politely on the
                issues and not on the personalities.

                BRUCE: Sigh. I must remind myself once again not to attempt humor on this,
                or any other, list. Least of all, Ohio humor. I can say for the record (no
                humor) that I very much appreciate Stephen's focus on the questions at
                issue, and have not been aware of any animus on his part, or indeed of any
                feeling other than an interest in the subject and a scrupulous regard for
                both personal and philological propriety in its pursuit. I would not have
                replied to his posting otherwise. As to my reply itself (other than its
                ill-considered final paragraph), I am only too well aware, even without the
                reminder of his word "lengthy," that it was, at 3 pages in wide-format
                printout, far over the length limit specified as desirable in Rule 1 of the
                Synoptic-L prospectus. I take this opportunity to apologize, to him as one
                of the Syn-L advisory committee, and to the Syn-L subscribers, for
                infringing so far on, respectively, their hospitality and their patience.

                STEPHEN: Second, Bruce's examination did not directly address Jameson's
                argument (from the use of the phrase KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS) or my own from the
                Markan narrator's interruption of Jesus' discourse. An argument to
                properly be refuted must first be engaged.

                BRUCE: Not agreed. It can also be undermined by accounting for the data on
                another basis. I have made an argument, in the message in question and its
                predecessor (on Mk 2:27), that the data for KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS so far
                considered can be satisfactorily accounted for in local-rhetorical terms.
                Recourse to other factors is unnecessary. To refute Q, it suffices (in
                principle, though of course not in the hearts of its adherents) to refute
                Mt/Lk independence, since that is the assumptional rock which makes a crux
                of the Mt/Lk agreements and invites, nay, requires, the positing of a
                conjectural source. It should not also be necessary to give a detailed
                counter-position to every page that issueth from the International Q
                Project.

                STEPHEN: Rather, he followed Vincent Taylor's list of seven instances of
                KAI ELEGEN
                AUTOIS, in which Taylor, an able advocate of the Four Source Hypothesis,
                thought that it was apparently used a connecting link . . .

                BRUCE: My use of Taylor was not in deference to his advocacy of the 4SH (of
                which I could not be less convinced), but as a way of getting a list of KAI
                etc passages without leaving the computer to find my printout of Jim's
                list, or abandoning the message to get on the web to check Stephen's
                (Taylor, bless his learned heart, is thick enough to find beneath unfiled
                papers). With leisure since in which to collate, I find that Taylor's
                primary seven (Mk 2:27, 4:13, 4:21, 4:24, 6:10, 7:9, 9:1) are all on Jim's
                list of ten. To respond fully to him, I need still only deal with 4:9,
                7:20, and 11:24. Taylor's seven are also on Stephen's list of twelve, and
                to respond fully to his web article, I need still only deal with 3:4, 4:9,
                4:26, 4:30, and 7:20. That is to say, Taylor's list happens to be two
                passages (Mk 4:9, 7:20) shy of exactly defining the area of agreement
                between Jim and Stephen. I can't see a problem here, methodological or
                other. Though I must admit my filing is not what it could be.

                STEPHEN: Taylor also cited four additional instances of the phrase without
                comment, and these were not included in Bruce's analysis.

                BRUCE: These were, and are: Mk 4:11, 7:14, 7:20, and 8:34. Of them, only
                7:20 is within the zone of Jim/Stephen overlap, and thus would be an
                efficient first use of scarce space to analyze in present context. To have
                continued with that second Taylor list in full might have fairly deserved
                the following comment -

                STEPHEN: Thus, I am not surprised that Bruce is able to find a consistent
                strain in favor of Markan priority in Taylor's examples.

                BRUCE: When in fact they are Jim/Stephen examples, if admittedly two less
                than all of them.

                STEPHEN: Although the selection of instances was filtered through a Markan
                prioritist, . . .

                BRUCE: I guess I will have to admit that Jim had it right on 21 Aug
                (archive #838): "Is it not predictable that the examples Brian will be
                "trotting out" will be found reversible by Bruce, . . ." I would be glad to
                continue the discussion along the lines suggested by Stephen in the rest of
                his post, but it would seem that a Markan finding on my part is going to be
                regarded as predetermined and therefore negligible. Nor, on the evidence so
                far, am I optimistic about being able to come up with a Matthean one in the
                examples still to be considered. Perhaps, therefore, another voice would be
                more effective than mine at this point, either to take up my proposed
                alternate solution of the KAI etc problem, or, still better, offer a new
                one. At a minimum, contributions from others would help to assure Stephen
                and me (and Yuri) that someone besides ourselves is interested in the
                outcome of the present discussion.

                Bruce

                E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts
              • Jim Deardorff
                ... Bruce, I think you ll find that we tend to pause a while before replying, which action should give you some measure of respite. If you wish to do the same,
                Message 7 of 27 , Aug 23 10:46 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 06:37 AM 8/23/98 -0400, E. Bruce Brooks wrote:

                  >[...]What I do wish to point out is that the
                  >roster of antagonists is subject to 100% replacement (Jim > Yuri/Stephen).
                  >It's not fair that these people get to sleep in relays.[...]

                  Bruce,

                  I think you'll find that we tend to pause a while before replying, which
                  action should give you some measure of respite. If you wish to do the same,
                  you may then find that you are actually within a majority opinion even on
                  this list, and that others would chip in on your side of the discussion,
                  thus giving you further respite.

                  >These objections were raised to my attempt to consider the single example
                  >of Markan Interruption in Discourse proposed for discussion by Jim
                  >Deardorff:
                  >
                  > With Mk 2:27, I argued from direct re-inspection that (a) GMk's
                  >KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS can be construed as an intentional gesture of discourse
                  >culmination, and thus need not in this passage be an inexplicably redundant
                  >and thus plausibly intrusive statement that Jesus is speaking to an
                  >audience to which he has already been identified as speaking.

                  In this first instance of the superfluous KAI-etc clause within Mark, we
                  note that (from the Mt-->Mk view) it involves not only an omission from Mt
                  (Mt 12:6-7) but an addition also (Mk 2:27b as well as 2:27a) (thus a
                  substitution). So AMk had particular cause to ponder here if this
                  combination of editorial alterations might not have caused a disruption in
                  the flow of thought, prompting his initiation of the usage of the KAI-etc
                  clause to cover it up. As an ostensible literary culminatation device,
                  however, such was simply not needed: there were only one or two sentences
                  before this point, and adding an interruption only separates the culminating
                  sentences from their buildup, tending to detract from the whole. This is
                  especially true if the verses are spoken rather than read. The extra time
                  needed to say KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS, and the switch of the listener's attention
                  from what had been said to the interruption, makes it not as facile to
                  immediately grasp the connection between what came before and what will come
                  after the connection, which detracts from the impact of the culmination.
                  However, this serves the purpose of inserting the interruption, which is to
                  help mask any discontinuity that AMk's editorial omissions/alterations may
                  have caused in the hearer's/reader's understanding of the text (helps suture
                  the incision, as Bruce put it). The "culmination" "explanation" is thus a
                  non-explanation. (I hope it's OK if I make use of your abbreviations: AMt,
                  AMk, etc.)

                  You have commented elsewhere on the occurrence within Mk 2:26 of "when
                  Abiathar was priest," which is not present in Matthew, as an example of AMt
                  making his own omissions. But what are the odds that, if AMt had been
                  editing Mark and noticed that Mark was incorrect there, that he instead of
                  correcting it would have omitted the clause? We agree that it was AMt, not
                  AMk, who was most aware of the Scriptures,even if he distorted some of the
                  ones he cited or allued to, and who most loved to insert them into his
                  source. (Once again, keep in mind that AMt's source need not have been
                  Mark.) AMt would have known, or quickly reread in the Scriptures, that it
                  was Ahimelech who had been priest when David ate the Bread of the Presence,
                  not Abiathar his father. There is no chance that AMt would simply have
                  omitted this -- he would have corrected AMk. (This is a very important datum
                  that must be accomodated. In fact, it is so important and any accomodation
                  so implausible that in regard to the Mt-Mk aspect of the Synoptic Problem,
                  we are through. Done! Matthew preceded Mark, just as tradition dictates.)

                  > (b) The
                  >passage in Mt directly preceding what would have been the KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS
                  >line in Mk is, as commentators (some cited) have noted, suspect as
                  >expansive and/or interpolative. [...]

                  This suspicion could be true, but is irrelevant if Matthew indeed holds
                  priority over Mark, for in that case, AMt was expanding upon *his* source,
                  which was not Mark. And of course my modified AH has a lot to say about this
                  source. In that case, it is easily seen that the omission fits the Markan
                  stratagem of omitting what AMk felt was unnecessary for gentiles outside of
                  Judaism to hear, and what was scarcely understandable to him. Mt 12:7 is
                  quite enigmatic and was likely not understandable to AMk.

                  Your next case here is Mk 4:13; you skipped over Mk 4:9, and my apologies
                  for not recalling or being able to locate what you said about 4:9 earlier. I
                  note that 4:9 is immediately preceded by the reversed arrangement of the
                  manifold increase of yield of grain. It is less plausible that AMt would
                  have altered Mk's order of 30-fold, 60-fold and 100-fold than vice versa,
                  since Mark's order gives the greatest climax at its culmination, 100. Hence
                  AMk was improving upon Matthew here. (Two down, 98 to go.)

                  >CASE #2, Mk 4:13 / Mt 13:18 / Lk 8:11. (a [rhetorical fit of KAI etc]) All
                  >parr use some form of turn-of-discourse signal to mark the shift from the
                  >rebuke of disciple misunderstanding in the previous text, which is
                  >prolegomenal, to the actual explanation. [...] KAI etc is here perfectly
                  >comfortable as as a Markan analogue of equivalent transition idioms in the
                  >parallel texts.

                  However, AMk not only inserted "lest they should turn again, and be
                  forgiven," immediately preceding the break, but inserted two questions
                  immediately after the break. This caused a very substantial difference
                  between Mt and Mk here, which called for another "suture of the incision."

                  >(b [excisions in Mt) There is no material in Mt which is absent in Mk and
                  >which is or would have been *directly* propinquitous to Mk's KAI etc, and
                  >for the excision of which KAI etc might be construed as a compensation.

                  It is not only omissions that can cause disruption of continuity, but also
                  insertions. Jameson never claimed that omissions prompted all of AMk's
                  interruptive clauses, but also other important editing alterations including
                  insertions. These are also disturbances caused by editing, which would have
                  been recognized as such by the editor. Yet, AMk did omit Mt 13:16-17a also,
                  and it can be cogently argued that he omitted Mt 13:12-13a, then 13:14-17,
                  which latter lies immediately preceding his break. It is in Matthew but not
                  in Mark. Thus there were both omissions and an insertion immediately
                  preceding the break.

                  > The
                  >respective lines *immediately* preceding Mk 4:13 parr are: Mk and it should
                  >be forgiven them, Mt and I should heal them, Lk and hearing they may not
                  >understand [directly parallel line missing in Lk; this is from earlier in
                  >the segment]. Mt 13:14-15 is however a much longer, and directly
                  >attributed, quotation from Isaiah 6:9-10 than the faint echo in Mk 4:12.

                  Mk 4:12 is better argued as a parallel to Mt 13:13b, with AMk having omitted
                  the entire Isaiah quote. But as already noted, Mark's insertion here,
                  relative to Matthew, was cause in itself for AMk to have inserted his
                  KAI-etc clause.

                  >So on the one hand, we have no disturbance of the *immediate* Mt context [I
                  >leave out of consideration for the moment the Lukan parallel] which might
                  >have led to a compensatory Mk insertion of KAI etc, [...]

                  You really do need to go back and think about that again, Bruce. AMk's
                  insertion "lest they should turn again and be forgiven" comes *immediately*
                  before the KAI-etc interruption.

                  There's a strong consideration at this point that indicates Mt-->Mk
                  directionality. In AMk's insertion of Mk 4:13, the question is asked "Do you
                  not understand this parable? (this parable = PARABOLHN TAUTHN). This refers
                  to the parable previously spoken -- the parable of the sower. It refers to
                  the parable as a whole, as the singular "this" indicates. Then the
                  immediately following question of 4:13 is, "How then will you understand all
                  the parables?" (all the parables = PASAS TAS PARABOLAS, acc. plural). But
                  these other parables haven't been spoken yet! They haven't been presented in
                  Mark yet. However, AMk knew about them, as they were in his source: Matthew.
                  Following this slip-up by AMk, the parable of the sower is explained. (3
                  down, 97 to go!)

                  >CASE #3, Mk 4:21 / Mt 5:15 [but the parallel to Mk 4:20 is Mt 13:23] / Lk
                  >8:16. (a) Mk 4:20 is the end of the explanation of the parable of the sower
                  >(Case #3), and Mk 4:21 begins a new comparison/simile, namely that of the
                  >light not put under a bushel, ending in the familiar formula "If any man
                  >hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Mk 4:23). KAI etc is intelligible as a
                  >discourse-transition marker. The functional parallels are mere
                  >conjunctional words (Mt *Neither* do men . . . Lk *And no* man . . .),
                  >though sentence-initial conjunctional words need not be wholly despised as
                  >discourse punctuation.

                  This seems plausible enough here, re Mk 4:21. I think Jameson was wrong to
                  have included this one here, since the discourse in Matthew did not continue
                  past Mt 13:23 / Mk 4:20. Yet the insertion that Mark has here relative to
                  Matthew, namely Mk 4:21-24 from the Sermon on the Mount, and Mk 4:25 from Mt
                  13:12, rather strongly suggests Matthean priority. It is much more feasible
                  for AMk to have extracted his 4:21-24 from the Sermon and place them in a
                  location where they have no intelligible context than for AMt to have
                  erected a 108-verse Sermon around them. Your arguments contrariwise (not
                  reproduced here) seemed very belabored to me. (4 down 96 to go.)

                  >CASE #4, Mk 4:24 / Mt 7:2b / Lk 8:18. (a) another use of KAI etc as a
                  >new-discourse marker, following the "he who has ears" formula of 4:23 and
                  >introducing the saying about "with what measure ye mete." The Matthean
                  >parallel lacks its incipit; Lk has the conjunctional transition "Take heed
                  >*therefore* how ye hear." Within Mk, no more problem than in Case #3. As to
                  >parallel transition markers, same modest level as in Case #2, but not
                  >wholly absent. (b) Another claimed Markan discerption from the Matthean
                  >Sermon. See Case #3.

                  This one (Mk 4:24) fits Jameson's definition in the sense that the KAI-etc
                  clause occurs in the midst of a discourse comprised of AMk's editings from
                  Matthew plus his insertions that include the "ears to hear" phrase.
                  Otherwise various weak arguments could be used in either direction here, so
                  I see no definitive directionality here.

                  >CASE #5, Mk 6:10 / Mt 10:11 / Lk 9:4, within the Instructions to the
                  >Twelve. (a) Preceding text specifies what they shall take with them;
                  >present text prescribes how they shall behave when arriving. Overall
                  >subject continuous, but this is a valid subsection within the manual. All
                  >parr acknowledge the discourse transition, Mk as in previous cases with KAI
                  >etc; Mt/Lk as in some previous cases with conjunctional words: Mk *And he
                  >said unto them,* wheresoever ye enter into a house, Mt *And* into
                  >whatsoever city or village ye shall enter, Lk *And* into whatsoever house
                  >ye enter. [...]

                  However, the point is that AMk could have simply used KAI also instead of
                  breaking in on the discourse. KAI by itself represents a conjunction of
                  continuity -- a continuation of the flow. KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS at Mk 6:10 is an
                  interruptive break of a whole clause. That's an important distinction. The
                  break fits well into Jameson's category since the preceding Matthean text
                  (Mt 10:10) has "...nor sandals, nor a staff; for the laborer deserves his
                  food. Mk 6:9, just before the iterruption, instead has "but to wear sandals,
                  and not put on two tunics." AMk's alteration of Matthew's order is a minor
                  consideration; the main alterations were that his disciples were allowed to
                  wear sandals (as normal persons did), and they were allowed to carry a staff.

                  There is a very strong indicator of directionality here. It was quite
                  unnecessary to have to instruct one's disciples to wear sandals. Wearing
                  them came naturally. So if Mark were first, AMk had no reason to mention any
                  need to wear sandals. None whatsoever. But since Matthew says to wear no
                  sandals, which is most peculiar, AMk needed to correct Matthew there.
                  Similarly for the staff.

                  As to why AMt had several peculiar instructions here (no sandals, no staff,
                  no money whatsoever), these were explained by Robert Morosco (JBL 103
                  (1984), pp. 554-55) as due to his desire to have the instructions be in
                  accord with Ex 3:5, Ex 4:2-3 and Ex 3:22, re Moses. Thus AMt made these
                  alterations upon *his* source, which as we have seen above could not have
                  been Mark. (5 down 95 to go.)

                  I'll try to find time to continue this later.

                  Jim Deardorff
                  Corvallis, Oregon
                  E-mail: deardorj@...
                  Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                • Mark Goodacre
                  I find this discussion most interesting. I wonder if I might ask a few questions of those who feel that this data makes good sense on the assumption of
                  Message 8 of 27 , Aug 24 8:16 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I find this discussion most interesting. I wonder if I might ask a few
                    questions of those who feel that this data makes good sense on the assumption
                    of Matthean Priority. Although I have read all the correspondence on this,
                    please forgive me if I have failed to digest all of it properly.

                    1. What do you make of occasions where Mark does not have KAI ELEGEN etc.
                    after having supposedly omitting / adding to / rearranging Matthew? For
                    example, Mark 3.27 // Matt. 12.29 has no KAI ELEGEN but rather continues on
                    with the oratio recta begun in Mark 3.23. This is in spite of the fact that
                    Mark has just (supposedly) omitted Matt. 12.27-28. On Jameson's logic, would
                    we not expect Mark here to have added a KAI ELEGEN? Do not instances like this
                    diminish the impressiveness of Jameson's case?

                    2. Sometimes the supposed omitting / adding / rearranging is decidedly weak.
                    In Mark 4.9 // Matt. 13.9 we have a KAI ELEGEN in Mark immediately after only a
                    very minor rearrangement in wording (a hundredfold / sixtyfold / thirtyfold to
                    thirtyfold / sixtyfold / a hundredfold). Is it the case then that anything
                    except absolute verbatim agreement constitutes omitting / adding / rearranging
                    and, if so, does not this make Jameson's argument all the easier, for absolute
                    verbatim agreement is not all that common? In other words, the net is so wide
                    that almost everything gets in.

                    3. Might it not be said that Matthew is much more given to long passages of
                    oratio recta than is Mark? Witness the Sermon on the Mount, for example. Here
                    are three chapters of direct speech with not a single KAI EIPEN etc. to
                    break it up. Mark's more colloquial style, with frequent "And he said" is
                    often remarked upon. Do not these general features of Matthew and Mark again
                    diminish the likelihood that the pattern under examination is significant
                    source-critically?

                    Mark Goodacre

                    --------------------------------------
                    Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
                    Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham

                    Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                    --------------------------------------

                    Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.findmail.com/list/synoptic-l
                    Synoptic-L Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Jim Deardorff
                    ... this ... Mark, The answer would seem to be affirmative if AMk had conscientiously adopted an editing plan of this nature that he would strictly carry out.
                    Message 9 of 27 , Aug 24 7:21 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 03:16 PM 8/24/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                      >I find this discussion most interesting. I wonder if I might ask a few
                      >questions of those who feel that this data makes good sense on the assumption
                      >of Matthean Priority. Although I have read all the correspondence on this,
                      >please forgive me if I have failed to digest all of it properly.
                      >
                      >1. What do you make of occasions where Mark does not have KAI ELEGEN etc.
                      >after having supposedly omitting / adding to / rearranging Matthew? For
                      >example, Mark 3.27 // Matt. 12.29 has no KAI ELEGEN but rather continues on
                      >with the oratio recta begun in Mark 3.23. This is in spite of the fact that
                      >Mark has just (supposedly) omitted Matt. 12.27-28. On Jameson's logic, would
                      >we not expect Mark here to have added a KAI ELEGEN? Do not instances like
                      this
                      >diminish the impressiveness of Jameson's case?

                      Mark,

                      The answer would seem to be affirmative if AMk had conscientiously adopted
                      an editing plan of this nature that he would strictly carry out. But with
                      the latter being improbable in any strict sense, I think one would allow
                      that AMk would have overlooked some opportunities to implement his interruption.

                      >2. Sometimes the supposed omitting / adding / rearranging is decidedly weak.
                      >In Mark 4.9 // Matt. 13.9 we have a KAI ELEGEN in Mark immediately after
                      only a
                      >very minor rearrangement in wording (a hundredfold / sixtyfold / thirtyfold to
                      >thirtyfold / sixtyfold / a hundredfold). Is it the case then that anything
                      >except absolute verbatim agreement constitutes omitting / adding / rearranging
                      >and, if so, does not this make Jameson's argument all the easier, for absolute
                      >verbatim agreement is not all that common? In other words, the net is so wide
                      >that almost everything gets in.

                      I think that's a valid observation, but it makes Jameson's argument more
                      difficult to uphold, not easier, does it not? For then your argument #1
                      would come into play more frequently. On the other hand, an editor can't (or
                      shouldn't) simply insert KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS too frequently, especially within
                      the same discourse, without looking like an especially inept writer.

                      >3. Might it not be said that Matthew is much more given to long passages of
                      >oratio recta than is Mark? Witness the Sermon on the Mount, for example. Here
                      >are three chapters of direct speech with not a single KAI EIPEN etc. to
                      >break it up. Mark's more colloquial style, with frequent "And he said" is
                      >often remarked upon. Do not these general features of Matthew and Mark again
                      >diminish the likelihood that the pattern under examination is significant
                      >source-critically?

                      I think it does. Thus I would (now, thanks to these discussions) give my own
                      argument of "change for the sake of change" (with editorial reasons existing
                      for desiring a changed text) as more plausible than Jameson's.

                      Jim Deardorff
                      Corvallis, Oregon
                      E-mail: deardorj@...
                      Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                    • Stephen C. Carlson
                      ... I m happy that you are taking this pattern head-on and looking for counter- examples that might falsify the hypothesis. I m not directly familiar with
                      Message 10 of 27 , Aug 24 9:50 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 03:16 PM 8/24/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                        >1. What do you make of occasions where Mark does not have KAI ELEGEN etc.
                        >after having supposedly omitting / adding to / rearranging Matthew? For
                        >example, Mark 3.27 // Matt. 12.29 has no KAI ELEGEN but rather continues on
                        >with the oratio recta begun in Mark 3.23. This is in spite of the fact that
                        >Mark has just (supposedly) omitted Matt. 12.27-28. On Jameson's logic, would
                        >we not expect Mark here to have added a KAI ELEGEN? Do not instances like this
                        >diminish the impressiveness of Jameson's case?

                        I'm happy that you are taking this pattern head-on and looking for counter-
                        examples that might falsify the hypothesis. I'm not directly familiar with
                        Jameson's argument (I can't find his book anywhere), but he was an Augustinian,
                        which I am not. To the extent I entertain the idea of a shared source for
                        Matthew and Mark, it seems most compatible with Parker's (1953) idea that
                        proto-Matthew = Mark + M. When proto-Matthew was augmented to form our
                        Matthew, much of the new material was more oriented to Gentiles and pleasing
                        to Luke (normally designated as Q material in reference to the hypothetical
                        source).

                        I went through my synopsis looking for the instances where Matthew includes
                        Jesus' discourse material in between Jesus' discourse material of Mark. I
                        found about 15 such instances, of which six (6) feature M material in the
                        alleged Markan suture of KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS or KAI LEGEI AUTOIS: 10:10b//6:10;
                        12:5-7//2:27; 12:11-12a//3:4; 13:16-17//4:13; 13:24-30//4:26; and 16:27b//9:1.
                        It is unclear whether two of the remaining cases are examples: 21:21//11:24,
                        for which the suture is in Jesus' speech, and 13:12//4:25, a transposition
                        to a section starting with KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS (v24). Five (5) include Q-type
                        material: 10:12-13; 12:27-28,30,31b-32; 18:7; 19:28; and 24:26-28. Harder
                        to account for are 9:13a (Hosea 6:6), 16:23c (You are a stumbling block),
                        and the Synoptic Apocalypse, each of which has its own special problems.

                        So, to answer your question, it seems that the insertion of Q material into
                        Markan discourse does diminish the impressiveness of Jameson's argument.
                        However, I remain impressed at the apparent explanatory power of Parker's
                        proto-Matthew.

                        >2. Sometimes the supposed omitting / adding / rearranging is decidedly weak.
                        >In Mark 4.9 // Matt. 13.9 we have a KAI ELEGEN in Mark immediately after only a
                        >very minor rearrangement in wording (a hundredfold / sixtyfold / thirtyfold to
                        >thirtyfold / sixtyfold / a hundredfold). Is it the case then that anything
                        >except absolute verbatim agreement constitutes omitting / adding / rearranging
                        >and, if so, does not this make Jameson's argument all the easier, for absolute
                        >verbatim agreement is not all that common? In other words, the net is so wide
                        >that almost everything gets in.

                        It is also a valid counterargument to inquire whether I'm seeing a pattern
                        or an inkblot. For Luke the substantial verbatim agreement is common
                        enough, but for Matthew less so. In this example, there are other grounds
                        for thinking Mark to be secondary. The climactic ordering of Mark
                        (30-60-100) seems to be better explained as a reordering of the
                        anti-climactic Matthew (100-60-30) rather than the reverse. So, here, at
                        least this example of Jameson's is corroborated by an independent,
                        plausible directional indicator.

                        >3. Might it not be said that Matthew is much more given to long passages of
                        >oratio recta than is Mark? Witness the Sermon on the Mount, for example. Here
                        >are three chapters of direct speech with not a single KAI EIPEN etc. to
                        >break it up. Mark's more colloquial style, with frequent "And he said" is
                        >often remarked upon. Do not these general features of Matthew and Mark again
                        >diminish the likelihood that the pattern under examination is significant
                        >source-critically?

                        When I scoured my synopsis for Matthew's insertion of material into the middle
                        of Mark's oratio recta, I was surprised how little that occurred -- and how
                        often it seems be M material at an alleged Markan suture. I think that editing
                        away from Mark's colloquial style and/or alleged suture is an adequate
                        explanation for Luke's behavior (and there often substantial verbatim agreement
                        around it). It is this pattern in Luke, in fact, that is one of the strongest
                        reasons why I am ultimately not convinced by the neo-Griesbach Two Gospel
                        Hypothesis. For Matthew, however, I still remain impressed that Matthew inserts
                        always M material for this alleged Markan suture and usually Q material when the
                        suture is lacking.

                        Furthermore, I view Markan interruptions as an objective entry-point into
                        exploring other, correlated traces of Mark's abbreviation of a Matthean-like
                        source, such as KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS (without interruption), EN DIDACHi AUTOU,
                        and ERXATO.

                        Stephen Carlson
                        --
                        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                        Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                      • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                        ... Pardon my bluntness, but if I have understood you correctly, Jim, this is just nonsense. In the first place, you engage in bifurcation. It is not a case
                        Message 11 of 27 , Aug 24 10:55 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In response to a message from E. Bruce Brooks, Jim Deardorff wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > You have commented elsewhere on the occurrence within Mk 2:26 of "when
                          > Abiathar was priest," which is not present in Matthew, as an example of AMt
                          > making his own omissions. But what are the odds that, if AMt had been
                          > editing Mark and noticed that Mark was incorrect there, that he instead of
                          > correcting it would have omitted the clause? We agree that it was AMt, not
                          > AMk, who was most aware of the Scriptures,even if he distorted some of the
                          > ones he cited or allued to, and who most loved to insert them into his
                          > source. (Once again, keep in mind that AMt's source need not have been
                          > Mark.) AMt would have known, or quickly reread in the Scriptures, that it
                          > was Ahimelech who had been priest when David ate the Bread of the Presence,
                          > not Abiathar his father. There is no chance that AMt would simply have
                          > omitted this -- he would have corrected AMk. (This is a very important datum
                          > that must be accomodated. In fact, it is so important and any accomodation
                          > so implausible that in regard to the Mt-Mk aspect of the Synoptic Problem,
                          > we are through. Done! Matthew preceded Mark, just as tradition dictates.)
                          >

                          Pardon my bluntness, but if I have understood you correctly, Jim, this
                          is just nonsense. In the first place, you engage in bifurcation. It is
                          not a case here of either correction or ommission, since one (including
                          AMatt) can make corrections (changes to things one thinks another writer
                          was wrong about) *by* ommitting the material taken to be erroneous. In
                          the second place, you equivocate. The change of a name is not the same
                          as inserting scripture, nor is the non use of a name or of a reference
                          to a particular high priest in a reference made by Jesus to a biblical
                          story a refusal on the part of AMatt to go against his "known" tendancy
                          to insert scripture. For Matthew's "insertions" (which in any case are
                          full citations occuring in narration and are introduced by "this
                          happened in order to fulfill ...) do not occur in these contexts. In the
                          third place, you beg the question. To add weight to your case, namely,
                          that AMatt couldn't possibly be editing GMark, you ask us to keep in
                          mind that it is likely that Matthew took the bulk of his (what appears
                          to be Markan) material from some "other" unnamed (and notably
                          undelineated) source. But we have only your word on this. In the fourth
                          place, in your claim about "what tradition dictates vis a vis the
                          relationship between GMatt and GMark, you once again (as I have pointed
                          out on previous occasions) misread and distort "tradition", especially
                          that stemming from Papias and Irenaeus, which does *not* necessarily say
                          (as you claim) that Matthew preceded Mark, but instead (see, e.g.,
                          Gundry, _Matthew_, 613-614) testifies that Mark was written first and
                          that Matthew did what he did with the "logia" as a deliberate corrective
                          to Mark's disorderly account. And finally, here and throughout the
                          posting from which the snippet above was taken, you indulge in the
                          fallacy of personal incredulity. Just because *you* cannot see what "the
                          odds are" that AMatt would have done X, or that AMatt would have worked
                          editorially in anyway other than the ways you claim he must have worked,
                          does not mean that this is how he acted or edited.

                          Indeed, as I have read what you have been posting over the last few
                          months I am increasingly reminded of the (probably apocryphal) anecdote
                          told of Hegel. It seems that when Hegel was lecturing on how certain
                          events in recent history "proved" his thesis about Spirit realizing
                          itself in the way he thought it would, one of his students objected,
                          "But Herr Professor, the facts speak otherwise!" To which Hegel replied,
                          "Then so much for the facts".

                          Jeffrey Gibson
                          --
                          Jeffrey B. Gibson
                          7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
                          Chicago, Illinois 60626
                          e-mail jgibson000@...
                        • Jim Deardorff
                          ... Of course I realize that one way to make corrections is by making omissions, and the AH sees AMk as having done this very frequently. I was simply pointing
                          Message 12 of 27 , Aug 25 11:57 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 10:55 PM 8/24/98 -0700, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
                            >In response to a message from E. Bruce Brooks, Jim Deardorff wrote:
                            >>
                            >> You have commented elsewhere on the occurrence within Mk 2:26 of "when
                            >> Abiathar was priest," which is not present in Matthew, as an example of AMt
                            >> making his own omissions. But what are the odds that, if AMt had been
                            >> editing Mark and noticed that Mark was incorrect there, that he instead of
                            >> correcting it would have omitted the clause? We agree that it was AMt, not
                            >> AMk, who was most aware of the Scriptures,even if he distorted some of the
                            >> ones he cited or allued to, and who most loved to insert them into his
                            >> source. (Once again, keep in mind that AMt's source need not have been
                            >> Mark.) AMt would have known, or quickly reread in the Scriptures, that it
                            >> was Ahimelech who had been priest when David ate the Bread of the Presence,
                            >> not Abiathar his father. There is no chance that AMt would simply have
                            >> omitted this -- he would have corrected AMk. (This is a very important datum
                            >> that must be accomodated. In fact, it is so important and any accomodation
                            >> so implausible that in regard to the Mt-Mk aspect of the Synoptic Problem,
                            >> we are through. Done! Matthew preceded Mark, just as tradition dictates.)

                            >Pardon my bluntness, but if I have understood you correctly, Jim, this
                            >is just nonsense. In the first place, you engage in bifurcation. It is
                            >not a case here of either correction or ommission, since one (including
                            >AMatt) can make corrections (changes to things one thinks another writer
                            >was wrong about) *by* ommitting the material taken to be erroneous.

                            Of course I realize that one way to make corrections is by making omissions,
                            and the AH sees AMk as having done this very frequently.

                            I was simply pointing out that had the editor who was most knowledgeable
                            about the scriptures (AMt not AMk) been altering Mark, he would in all
                            probability have corrected Mark here by giving the name of who indeed had
                            been the priest. His failure to do this *is* a point in favor of the AH.
                            That would have been a correction that lets one know that the writer
                            understands his scriptures. As precedent for that attitude, one may consider
                            the temptation discourses of Mt 4 as showing not only that Jesus knew the
                            scriptures better than did the devil, but that AMt did too.

                            >In
                            >the second place, you equivocate. The change of a name is not the same
                            >as inserting scripture, nor is the non use of a name or of a reference
                            >to a particular high priest in a reference made by Jesus to a biblical
                            >story a refusal on the part of AMatt to go against his "known" tendancy
                            >to insert scripture. For Matthew's "insertions" (which in any case are
                            >full citations occuring in narration and are introduced by "this
                            >happened in order to fulfill ...) do not occur in these contexts.

                            They do occur in many other places than in just those formal introductions.
                            There are a lot of allusions.

                            > In the
                            >third place, you beg the question. To add weight to your case, namely,
                            >that AMatt couldn't possibly be editing GMark, you ask us to keep in
                            >mind that it is likely that Matthew took the bulk of his (what appears
                            >to be Markan) material from some "other" unnamed (and notably
                            >undelineated) source. But we have only your word on this.

                            This source I summarized earlier, and it's in my web site.

                            >In the fourth
                            >place, in your claim about "what tradition dictates vis a vis the
                            >relationship between GMatt and GMark, you once again (as I have pointed
                            >out on previous occasions) misread and distort "tradition", especially
                            >that stemming from Papias and Irenaeus, which does *not* necessarily say
                            >(as you claim) that Matthew preceded Mark, but instead (see, e.g.,
                            >Gundry, _Matthew_, 613-614) testifies that Mark was written first and
                            >that Matthew did what he did with the "logia" as a deliberate corrective
                            >to Mark's disorderly account. [...]

                            The fact that Eusebius's brief explanation about Mark appears before his
                            even briefer explanation for Matthew in his historical writings needn't
                            reflect chronological order. However, I'm on record as giving credence to
                            the written document that Peter and Mark had with them in Rome, and that
                            *did* precede the later apearance of Matthew. So to the extent that that
                            document had priority and was associated with (John) Mark and then much
                            later utilized in the construction of GMk, I wouldn't fault Papias or
                            Eusebius re the order of mention.

                            That's really a far-out interpretation, if Gundry said what you summarized.
                            In the Papias quote, "Matthew compiled the Logia in the Hebrew language, and
                            each interpreted them [the Logia] as best he could," "each" is most easily
                            interpreted as others than the writer of Matthew. The first half tells what
                            "Matthew" (the writer of Matthew) did, and so the second half tells of the
                            difficulty others had in interpreting the Logia, and perhaps also the
                            difficulty others had of even being allowed to look at the Logia to try to
                            utilize it for their gospels. That's the interpretation that fits the facts
                            of my web site. But the "Hebrew tongue" portion of the quote is important
                            also. Mark's disorderly account, on the other hand, must have been reckoned
                            relative to some other preexisting *writing*, which is most plausibly taken
                            to be Matthew.

                            I'm sure that most of us would agree that Irenaeus is on record as having
                            given the (Hebrew) Matthew, Mark Luke, John order of gospel appearance in
                            _Against Heresies_.

                            But this has all been raked over the coals quite a lot before, on this list.

                            Jim Deardorff
                            Corvallis, Oregon
                            E-mail: deardorj@...
                            Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                          • Mark Goodacre
                            ... I cannot find his book either. It is not even in the Bodleian Library. I had a friend who searched for it there in vain and concluded that Canon Streeter
                            Message 13 of 27 , Aug 28 10:12 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On 25 Aug 98 at 0:50, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                              > I'm happy that you are taking this pattern head-on and looking for counter-
                              > examples that might falsify the hypothesis. I'm not directly familiar with
                              > Jameson's argument (I can't find his book anywhere), but he was an
                              > Augustinian, which I am not.

                              I cannot find his book either. It is not even in the Bodleian Library. I had
                              a friend who searched for it there in vain and concluded that Canon Streeter
                              must have smuggled it out in his cassock one day in the 1920s. It is clear,
                              however, that Streeter was familiar with Jameson's work -- he reviewed it for
                              _Theology_ in 1923 (see the fascinating discussion of Streeter and Jameson in
                              David Neville's _Arguments From Order in Synoptic Source Criticism_).

                              > To the extent I entertain the idea of a shared
                              > source for Matthew and Mark, it seems most compatible with Parker's (1953)
                              > idea that proto-Matthew = Mark + M. When proto-Matthew was augmented to form
                              > our Matthew, much of the new material was more oriented to Gentiles and
                              > pleasing to Luke (normally designated as Q material in reference to the
                              > hypothetical source).
                              >
                              > I went through my synopsis looking for the instances where Matthew includes
                              > Jesus' discourse material in between Jesus' discourse material of Mark. I
                              > found about 15 such instances, of which six (6) feature M material in the
                              > alleged Markan suture of KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS or KAI LEGEI AUTOIS: 10:10b//6:10;

                              But Matt. 10.10b is Q material, AXIOS GAR hO ERGATHS THS TROFHS AUTOU (// Luke
                              10.7)

                              > 12:5-7//2:27;

                              Granted; this is not Q material but M or MattR not paralleled in Luke.

                              > 12:11-12a//3:4;

                              This, on the other hand, might be classed Q. Matt. 12.11-12a is paralleled in
                              Luke 14.5.

                              > 13:16-17//4:13;

                              Again this is Q material, Matt. 13.16-17 // Luke 10.23-24.

                              > 13:24-30//4:26;

                              13.24-30 (Tares) is indeed M material, though placing it parallel to Mark 4.26
                              may be unhelpful for the purpose of this analysis. Many would see
                              Matthew's Tares as some kind of parallel to Mark's Seed Growing Secretly (Mark
                              4.26-29) so it is not really that Mark 4.26 would be taking up after supposed
                              omission of Matthean material. Indeed one might construe Matt. 13.24 ALLHN
                              PARABOLHN PAREQHKEN AUTOIS LEGWN as roughly parallel to Mark 4.26 KAI ELEGEN
                              and so perhaps an exception to the supposed pattern of Markan introduction of
                              KAI ELEGEN (etc.).

                              > and 16:27b//9:1.

                              Agreed that this is M / MattR material. It is worth adding here that Matthew
                              does have AMHN LEGW hUMIN hOTI in parallel with Mark and on the assumption of
                              Markan Priority might surely have regarded Mark's narrator's intrusion as
                              unnecessary, as so often. As I have urged, Matthew prefers where possible to
                              keep direct discourse going, sometimes even to the extent (again on the
                              assumption of MP) of turning Mark's narrator's words into Jesus' oratio recta
                              (the classic example being Matt. 26.1-2 // Mark 14.1).

                              > It is unclear whether two of the remaining cases are examples: 21:21//11:24,
                              > for which the suture is in Jesus' speech, and 13:12//4:25, a transposition to
                              > a section starting with KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS (v24). Five (5) include Q-type
                              > material: 10:12-13; 12:27-28,30,31b-32; 18:7; 19:28; and 24:26-28. Harder to
                              > account for are 9:13a (Hosea 6:6), 16:23c (You are a stumbling block), and the
                              > Synoptic Apocalypse, each of which has its own special problems.
                              >
                              > So, to answer your question, it seems that the insertion of Q material into
                              > Markan discourse does diminish the impressiveness of Jameson's argument.
                              > However, I remain impressed at the apparent explanatory power of Parker's
                              > proto-Matthew.

                              If I have understood the data you present correctly, my comments diminish the
                              impressiveness of the supposed explanatory power of Parker's proto-Matthew
                              too. For KAI ELEGEN (etc.) occurs in Mark after Matthew in parallel
                              material has inserted M, MattR and Q material. Thus, it might be argued,
                              the supposed pattern is unimportant. I would want to suggest that Matthew,
                              with a marked preference for oratio recta, tends to omit Mark's narrator's
                              comments and he inserts material into a given Markan context regardless of
                              whether or not he sees KAI ELEGEN (etc.) there.

                              > It is also a valid counterargument to inquire whether I'm seeing a pattern or
                              > an inkblot. For Luke the substantial verbatim agreement is common enough, but
                              > for Matthew less so. In this example, there are other grounds for thinking
                              > Mark to be secondary. The climactic ordering of Mark (30-60-100) seems to be
                              > better explained as a reordering of the anti-climactic Matthew (100-60-30)
                              > rather than the reverse. So, here, at least this example of Jameson's is
                              > corroborated by an independent, plausible directional indicator.

                              Bruce has commented on this and I have nothing much to add. One would have
                              thought that 30 - 60 - 100 was more natural, but then it is a notorious
                              difficulty to work out direction of dependence on the grounds simply of what
                              one might have thought more natural. As the Griesbachians are fond of
                              reminding us, later writers often produce non-improved versions of their
                              sources.

                              > When I scoured my synopsis for Matthew's insertion of material into the middle
                              > of Mark's oratio recta, I was surprised how little that occurred -- and how
                              > often it seems be M material at an alleged Markan suture. I think that
                              > editing away from Mark's colloquial style and/or alleged suture is an adequate
                              > explanation for Luke's behavior (and there often substantial verbatim
                              > agreement around it). It is this pattern in Luke, in fact, that is one of the
                              > strongest reasons why I am ultimately not convinced by the neo-Griesbach Two
                              > Gospel Hypothesis. For Matthew, however, I still remain impressed that
                              > Matthew inserts always M material for this alleged Markan suture and usually Q
                              > material when the suture is lacking.

                              As Jeff Peterson helpfully pointed out, on the Farrer Theory the distinction
                              between Q and MattR / M is a distinction connected with Luke-pleasingness, but
                              it would still be surprising on the Farrer Theory if one were to observe a
                              pattern that distinguished clearly between MattR / M and Q in the way that
                              Stephen suggests. If I have understood the examples cited above correctly, I
                              would suggest that the pattern is not consistent or striking enough to make the
                              case.

                              All the best

                              Mark
                              --------------------------------------
                              Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
                              Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham

                              Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                              --------------------------------------

                              Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                              Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.findmail.com/list/synoptic-l
                              Synoptic-L Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                            • Stephen C. Carlson
                              ... (Sorry, for not responding sooner, but my work schedule had heated up to the point where I couldn t tend my email for some time. This turned out to be
                              Message 14 of 27 , Sep 3, 1998
                              • 0 Attachment
                                At 05:12 PM 8/28/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                                >As Jeff Peterson helpfully pointed out, on the Farrer Theory the distinction
                                >between Q and MattR / M is a distinction connected with Luke-pleasingness, but
                                >it would still be surprising on the Farrer Theory if one were to observe a
                                >pattern that distinguished clearly between MattR / M and Q in the way that
                                >Stephen suggests. If I have understood the examples cited above correctly, I
                                >would suggest that the pattern is not consistent or striking enough to make the
                                >case.

                                (Sorry, for not responding sooner, but my work schedule had heated up to the
                                point where I couldn't tend my email for some time. This turned out to be
                                rather unfortunate because my last message contained some factual errors,
                                despite a second check, which I still should've caught sooner.)

                                I agree that the (correct) data show that if there is a separation in the
                                non-Markan text of Matthew, it is not to be found in the Q vs. M distinction.
                                For that, I am happy because I've been generally impressed by Farrer's and
                                Goulder's arguments and was getting somewhat unsettled last week by the
                                apparent evidence for Q.

                                As for the relationship between Matthew and Mark, I have been aware of many
                                bad arguments for Markan priority over Matthew, a few good ones (e.g. fatigue),
                                and, on the other hand, some indications that Mark may have abbreviated and
                                possibily polemicized against a Matthew-like text. Markan interruptions and
                                KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS are but starting points in the development of a fuller
                                argument.

                                Stephen Carlson
                                --
                                Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                                Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                                "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                              • Brian E. Wilson
                                Stephen Coulson wrote (SNIP) - ... The fatigue phenomenon is compatible with the hypothesis that Matthew copied from Mark. It is equally compatible with the
                                Message 15 of 27 , Sep 5, 1998
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Stephen Coulson wrote (SNIP) -
                                  >As for the relationship between Matthew and Mark, I have been aware of
                                  >many bad arguments for Markan priority over Matthew, a few good ones
                                  >(e.g. fatigue)...

                                  The "fatigue" phenomenon is compatible with the hypothesis that Matthew
                                  copied from Mark. It is equally compatible with the hypothesis that
                                  Matthew did not copy from Mark, but that both Matthew and Mark copied
                                  from the same documentary source. The "fatigue" phenomenon is therefore
                                  just as much evidence AGAINST Markan priority as for it. It is not a
                                  good argument for Markan priority over Matthew, therefore.

                                  What the "fatigue" phenomon does provide is evidence against Mark having
                                  copied from Matthew. It is a good argument against Matthaean priority.
                                  This is very much not the same as a good argument for Markan priority,
                                  however.

                                  Best wishes,
                                  BRIAN WILSON

                                  E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
                                  SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
                                  10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                                  Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
                                • Stephen C. Carlson
                                  ... You are, of course, exactly correct. Individual directional arguments can only tend to disconfirm a particular priority hypothesis. However, I would
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Sep 8, 1998
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    At 08:56 AM 9/5/98 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                                    >What the "fatigue" phenomon does provide is evidence against Mark having
                                    >copied from Matthew. It is a good argument against Matthaean priority.
                                    >This is very much not the same as a good argument for Markan priority,
                                    >however.

                                    You are, of course, exactly correct. Individual directional arguments
                                    can only tend to disconfirm a particular priority hypothesis. However,
                                    I would expect that a good argument for Markan priority include the good,
                                    but not the usual weak, arguments that Mark did not copy directly from
                                    another Synoptic gospel -- with due consideration given to the possibility
                                    that Matthew and Mark are indirectly related through a shared source.

                                    Stephen Carlson
                                    --
                                    Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                                    Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                                    "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                                  • Mark Goodacre
                                    ... This is partly the problem that I faced with the evidence of fatigue from double tradition material. How do we know that Luke is fatigued with Matthew
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Sep 9, 1998
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On 9 Sep 98 at 2:35, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                                      > At 08:56 AM 9/5/98 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                                      > >What the "fatigue" phenomon does provide is evidence against Mark having
                                      > >copied from Matthew. It is a good argument against Matthaean priority.
                                      > >This is very much not the same as a good argument for Markan priority,
                                      > >however.
                                      >
                                      > You are, of course, exactly correct. Individual directional arguments
                                      > can only tend to disconfirm a particular priority hypothesis. However,
                                      > I would expect that a good argument for Markan priority include the good, but
                                      > not the usual weak, arguments that Mark did not copy directly from another
                                      > Synoptic gospel -- with due consideration given to the possibility that
                                      > Matthew and Mark are indirectly related through a shared source.

                                      This is partly the problem that I faced with the evidence of "fatigue" from
                                      double tradition material. How do we know that Luke is fatigued with Matthew
                                      and not Q? The answer I gave
                                      (see http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/fatigue.htm#Back23) was that it is (in my
                                      opinion -- and I have searched carefully) impossible to find examples where
                                      Matthew might be fatigued with Q. Given the clear examples in the first half
                                      of the paper of Matthew's fatigue with Mark, it seems unlikely that he would
                                      never be fatigued with Q.

                                      Something similar might be said about the idea that Matthew and Mark were
                                      independently dependent on a common source. Why does Mark never apparently
                                      show fatigue with that source in the way that Matthew does? Perhaps he was
                                      more careful than Matthew. But our evidence of Mark's more rough and ready
                                      colloquial style hardly make that likely, does it?

                                      Mark
                                      --------------------------------------
                                      Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
                                      Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham

                                      Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                                      --------------------------------------

                                      Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                      Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.findmail.com/list/synoptic-l
                                      Synoptic-L Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                    • Jim Deardorff
                                      Note: a wide screen is needed here! At 10:42 AM 9/9/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote: ... (in my ... This doesn t necessarily follow if the first half, Given the
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Sep 9, 1998
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Note: a wide screen is needed here!

                                        At 10:42 AM 9/9/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                                        Stephen Carlson wrote:
                                        >> [...] Individual directional arguments
                                        >> can only tend to disconfirm a particular priority hypothesis. However,
                                        >> I would expect that a good argument for Markan priority include the good, but
                                        >> not the usual weak, arguments that Mark did not copy directly from another
                                        >> Synoptic gospel -- with due consideration given to the possibility that
                                        >> Matthew and Mark are indirectly related through a shared source.

                                        >This is partly the problem that I faced with the evidence of "fatigue" from
                                        >double tradition material. How do we know that Luke is fatigued with Matthew
                                        >and not Q? The answer I gave
                                        >(see http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/fatigue.htm#Back23) was that it is
                                        (in my
                                        >opinion -- and I have searched carefully) impossible to find examples where
                                        >Matthew might be fatigued with Q. Given the clear examples in the first half
                                        >of the paper of Matthew's fatigue with Mark, it seems unlikely that he would
                                        >never be fatigued with Q. [...]

                                        This doesn't necessarily follow if the first half, "Given the clear examples
                                        in the first half of the paper of Matthew's fatigue with Mark" should be
                                        incorrect. Recall, some time ago I posted reasons why your fatigue analysis
                                        re Mt versus Mk is all too easily reversible. In order, they amounted to:

                                        (1) Mt 14:1-12//Mk 6:14-29 -- AMk's error in trying to correct Matthew or
                                        make it more understandable to gentiles who don't care about what a tetrarch is.

                                        (2) Same text -- AMk makes an improvement in Matthean text that contains a
                                        rather obvious inconsistency.

                                        (3) Mt 8:1-4//Mk 1:40-45 -- AMk corrects what is inexplicable in Matthew.
                                        Also, AMk has a good reason of his own to stress the secrecy theme.

                                        (4) Mt 12:46-50//Mk 3:31-35 -- AMk corrects Matthew's incongruity into
                                        something that makes perfect sense.

                                        What makes good sense, therefore, is that AMk did improve upon Matthew at
                                        times, as n oted above, but was also an inept editor at times and made
                                        mistakes; some of his improvements could have been accidental results of his
                                        alterations and omissions. Similar statements could be said for the other
                                        synopticians. So one continues to seek argumentation much less reversible
                                        than the "fatigue" argument.

                                        To this end, I still find the tradition of Matthean priority over Mark
                                        (allowing for the complication associated with a document in Rome that Mark
                                        & Peter held) to be the least reversible, since the order in which the
                                        gospels first appeared would have been noted, remembered, and not likely be
                                        a falsely generated rumor: their order of appearance would merely have been
                                        an accepted chronological fact.

                                        Jim Deardorff
                                        Corvallis, Oregon
                                        E-mail: deardorj@...
                                        Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                                      • Stephen C. Carlson
                                        ... Has anyone so far looked for fatigue on the part of Mark? Maybe, however, there is a possible example of Mark s fatigue of a source like Matthew-- Mk6:4
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Sep 9, 1998
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          At 10:42 AM 9/9/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                                          >Something similar might be said about the idea that Matthew and Mark were
                                          >independently dependent on a common source. Why does Mark never apparently
                                          >show fatigue with that source in the way that Matthew does? Perhaps he was
                                          >more careful than Matthew. But our evidence of Mark's more rough and ready
                                          >colloquial style hardly make that likely, does it?

                                          Has anyone so far looked for fatigue on the part of Mark? Maybe, however,
                                          there is a possible example of Mark's "fatigue" of a source like Matthew--
                                          Mk6:4 differs from Matthew in unparalleled material, using "Baptizer" for
                                          John in Mark's characteristic language, but Mk6:5 agrees with Mt14:8, in
                                          Matthew's more characteristic language, the "Baptist."

                                          Stephen Carlson
                                          --
                                          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                                          Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                                          "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                                        • Brian E. Wilson
                                          Mark Goodacre wrote (SNIP) - ... Many scholars, possibly including some contributors to Synoptic-L, hold to a hypothesis in which Matthew and Mark were
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Sep 10, 1998
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Mark Goodacre wrote (SNIP) -
                                            >
                                            >Something similar might be said about the idea that Matthew and Mark were
                                            >independently dependent on a common source. Why does Mark never apparently
                                            >show fatigue with that source in the way that Matthew does? Perhaps he was
                                            >more careful than Matthew. But our evidence of Mark's more rough and ready
                                            >colloquial style hardly make that likely, does it?
                                            >

                                            Many scholars, possibly including some contributors to Synoptic-L, hold
                                            to a hypothesis in which Matthew and Mark were independently dependent
                                            on a common source. It is a variation on the Two Document Hypothesis.
                                            This hypothesis is listed by Frans Neirynck in his article on the
                                            Synoptic Problem in "The New Jerome Biblical Commentary" page 593. It
                                            states that Mark copied from a Proto-Mark which was also used
                                            independently by Matthew and Luke. On this hypothesis, therefore,
                                            Matthew and Mark are independently dependent on Proto-Mark. Of course it
                                            is further held that Matthew and Luke independently copied from
                                            hypothetical Q.

                                            Now there are extensive agreements of wording of Matthew and Mark
                                            against Luke in the triple tradition. Similarly, there are big
                                            agreements in wording of Mark and Luke against Matthew in the triple
                                            tradition. But the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark in the
                                            the triple tradition are much smaller - for this reason these usually
                                            being known as the "Minor Agreements". This is strong evidence that
                                            Mark, if he copied from Proto-Mark, copied wording from Proto-Mark much
                                            more carefully than did either Matthew or Luke. (Many advocates of the
                                            Proto-Mark variation on the 2DH posit the Proto-Mark precisely to
                                            explain the Minor Agreements in this way.)

                                            Moreover, if Mark copied relatively faithfully from Proto-Mark, "Mark's
                                            more rough and ready colloquial style" is the style not of the writer of
                                            the Gospel of Mark himself, but the style of the writer of Proto-Mark.

                                            On the Proto-Mark variation of the 2DH, therefore, the absence of the
                                            pattern of "fatigue" in Mark in relation to his source Proto-Mark, is
                                            the result of the writer of the Gospel of Mark being a much more careful
                                            copier of Proto-Mark than either Matthew or Luke as they copied from
                                            Proto-Nark.

                                            And the "more rough and ready colloquial style" of the Gospel of Mark is
                                            not the style of the writer of the Gospel of Mark at all, but the style
                                            which the writer of the Gospel of Mark copied relatively faithfully from
                                            Proto-Mark. (The style of the writer of the Gospel of Mark himself would
                                            have to be gleaned from the Minor Agreements.)

                                            Of course, on this hypothesis the fatigue phenomenon observed in Matthew
                                            in relation to Mark is the result of Matthew copying in a tired way from
                                            Proto-Mark, Mark copying faithfully from Proto-Mark.

                                            The "fatigue" phenomenon which Mark Goodacre observes in Matthew when
                                            compared with Mark is therefore perfectly consistent with the Proto-Mark
                                            2DH. And so also is the apparent absence of fatigue in the Gospel of
                                            Mark, and also the rough style found in the Gospel of Mark. Indeed,
                                            these phenomena are perfectly consistent with any synoptic hypothesis
                                            which denies that Matthew copied from Mark and instead posits that
                                            Matthew and Mark independently copied from the same documentary source
                                            material.

                                            Thus "fatigue" is compatible with the Proto-Mark variation on the Two
                                            Document Hypothesis, the Pierson-Parker Hypothesis, the Boismard
                                            Hypothesis, the Two Notebook Hypothesis, the Lowe and Flusser
                                            Hypothesis, the Vaganay-Benoit Hypothesis, and so on, and so on.

                                            The "fatigue" phenomenon is therefore evidence against Matthew having
                                            copied from Mark, as well as evidence in favour.

                                            For it is evidence not only for the Farrer Hypthesis in which Matthew is
                                            supposed to have copied from Mark, but also for the Proto-Mark variation
                                            on the Two Document Hypothesis, and the other hypotheses mentioned
                                            above, in which Matthew is held not to have copied from Mark at all.

                                            Best wishes,
                                            BRIAN WILSON

                                            E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
                                            SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
                                            10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                                            Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
                                          • Brian E. Wilson
                                            Stephen Carlson wrote (SNIP) - ... Stephen, Have you considered that the Minor Agreements could be the result of fatigue on the part of Mark? Best wishes,
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Sep 12, 1998
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Stephen Carlson wrote (SNIP) -
                                              >Has anyone so far looked for fatigue on the part of Mark?

                                              Stephen,
                                              Have you considered that the Minor Agreements could be the
                                              result of fatigue on the part of Mark?

                                              Best wishes,
                                              BRIAN WILSON

                                              E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
                                              SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
                                              10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                                              Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
                                            • Stephen C. Carlson
                                              ... No. But I wish to stress that I m using fatigue in a technical sense: viz. the failure to consistently follow through with an editing plan. The Minor
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Sep 12, 1998
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                At 08:42 AM 9/12/98 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                                                >Stephen Carlson wrote (SNIP) -
                                                >>Has anyone so far looked for fatigue on the part of Mark?
                                                >
                                                >Stephen,
                                                > Have you considered that the Minor Agreements could be the
                                                >result of fatigue on the part of Mark?

                                                No. But I wish to stress that I'm using "fatigue" in a technical sense:
                                                viz. the failure to consistently follow through with an editing plan. The
                                                Minor Agreements, on the other hand, need not involve fatigue but tend to
                                                contradict the hypothesis that Matthew and Luke are independent derivations
                                                of Mark.

                                                Stephen Carlson
                                                --
                                                Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                                                Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                                                "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                                              • Brian E. Wilson
                                                Stephen Carlson wrote (SNIP) - ... Brian Wilson replied - ... Stephen replied - ... Stephen, Have you considered that if neither Matthew nor Luke copied from
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Sep 13, 1998
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Stephen Carlson wrote (SNIP) -
                                                  >Has anyone so far looked for fatigue on the part of Mark?
                                                  >
                                                  Brian Wilson replied -
                                                  >Have you considered that the Minor Agreements could be the
                                                  >result of fatigue on the part of Mark?
                                                  >
                                                  Stephen replied -
                                                  >No. But I wish to stress that I'm using "fatigue" in a technical sense:
                                                  >viz. the failure to consistently follow through with an editing plan. The
                                                  >Minor Agreements, on the other hand, need not involve fatigue but tend to
                                                  >contradict the hypothesis that Matthew and Luke are independent derivations
                                                  >of Mark.
                                                  >
                                                  Stephen,
                                                  Have you considered that if neither Matthew nor Luke copied from
                                                  Mark, then the Minor Agreements could be the result of fatigue on the
                                                  part of Mark - where Mark fails to follow through consistently with his
                                                  editing plan?

                                                  Best wishes,
                                                  BRIAN WILSON

                                                  E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
                                                  SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
                                                  10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                                                  Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
                                                • Mark Goodacre
                                                  ... Minor correction -- the verses are Mark 6.24 and 6.25. H. Riley comments on this example too -- see: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/fatigue.htm#Note9
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Sep 14, 1998
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    On 9 Sep 98 at 21:36, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                                                    > Has anyone so far looked for fatigue on the part of Mark? Maybe, however,
                                                    > there is a possible example of Mark's "fatigue" of a source like Matthew--
                                                    > Mk6:4 differs from Matthew in unparalleled material, using "Baptizer" for John
                                                    > in Mark's characteristic language, but Mk6:5 agrees with Mt14:8, in Matthew's
                                                    > more characteristic language, the "Baptist."

                                                    Minor correction -- the verses are Mark 6.24 and 6.25. H. Riley comments on
                                                    this example too -- see:

                                                    http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/fatigue.htm#Note9

                                                    The difficulty with the example is that this is really only variation in
                                                    wording. As I wrote in the above cited place, "'Baptist' and 'Baptizer'
                                                    are equally correct. Mark's variation is not unusual or surprising in the way
                                                    that Matthew's 'tetrarch' and 'king' would be on the assumption of Matthean
                                                    priority, to say nothing of the king's 'grief'".

                                                    Further, the vocabulary statistics are hardly convincing: Mark has hO BAPTIZWN
                                                    (etc.) three times, Mark 1.4, 6.14 (the latter the one under discussion) and
                                                    6.24 and BAPTISTHS twice, Mark 6.25 and 8.28. This is very little to build a
                                                    case on, especially in the light of (a) the likelihood of variation in the
                                                    mss over BAPTISTHS // BAPTIZWN, especially in a place like Mark 6.25 where
                                                    there is a Matthean parallel and (b) the much more overwhelming case from king
                                                    / tetrarch.

                                                    In answer to the general question, I spent some time combing the synopsis for
                                                    possible examples of Markan fatigue of Matthew / Luke but could not find a
                                                    single plausible example. This was originally a chapter of my DPhil thesis but
                                                    it dropped out in order to be re-worked and presented in an article. It is my
                                                    feeling that the phenomenon of editorial fatigue provides good evidence for
                                                    Matthew's use of Mark and Luke's use of Matthew and Mark largely because it is
                                                    so difficult to find good counter-examples.

                                                    Mark


                                                    -------------------------------------------
                                                    Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
                                                    Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham
                                                    Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre

                                                    --------------------------------------------

                                                    Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                                    Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.findmail.com/list/synoptic-l
                                                    Synoptic-L Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                                  • Brian E. Wilson
                                                    Stephen Carlson wrote (SNIP) - ... Mark Goodacre commented (SNIP) - ... Mark, I wonder whether your finding of no plausible examples of Markan fatigue of
                                                    Message 25 of 27 , Sep 14, 1998
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Stephen Carlson wrote (SNIP) -
                                                      >Has anyone so far looked for fatigue on the part of Mark?

                                                      Mark Goodacre commented (SNIP) -
                                                      >In answer to the general question, I spent some time combing the synopsis for
                                                      >possible examples of Markan fatigue of Matthew / Luke but could not find a
                                                      >single plausible example.

                                                      Mark,
                                                      I wonder whether your finding of no plausible examples of Markan
                                                      fatigue of Matthew/Luke does cover the general question of fatigue on
                                                      the part of Mark?

                                                      On the Proto-Mark Hypothesis - that all three synoptists independently
                                                      copied from Proto-Mark, and Matthew and Luke independently copied from Q
                                                      - there are some Minor Agreements which are consistent with Mark having
                                                      omitted a word or phrase retained by Matthew and Luke. All these
                                                      apparent omissions by Mark could be instances of Mark tiring in his
                                                      editorial programme of faithfully copying the wording of material from
                                                      Proto-Mark.

                                                      On the Farrer Hypothesis, of course, this phenomenon would be Matthew
                                                      adding a word or phrase (in his editing of Mark), with Luke copying this
                                                      wording from Matthew, and would therefore not show up as fatigue on the
                                                      part of Mark.

                                                      Fatigue on the part of Mark on one synoptic hypothesis may therefore be
                                                      a different phenomenon from fatigue on the part of Mark under another
                                                      synoptic hypothesis.

                                                      And the absence of fatigue on the part of Mark on one synoptic
                                                      hypothesis therefore does not necessarily rule out fatigue on the part
                                                      of Mark under a different one.

                                                      Best wishes,
                                                      BRIAN WILSON

                                                      E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
                                                      SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
                                                      10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                                                      Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
                                                    • Stephen C. Carlson
                                                      ... I don t think the issue is whether or not Baptist and Baptizer are correct terms, or even, whether tetrarch and king are correct for Herod (e.g.
                                                      Message 26 of 27 , Sep 15, 1998
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        At 10:53 AM 9/14/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                                                        >On 9 Sep 98 at 21:36, Stephen C. Carlson wrote [corrected]:
                                                        >> Has anyone so far looked for fatigue on the part of Mark? Maybe, however,
                                                        >> there is a possible example of Mark's "fatigue" of a source like Matthew--
                                                        >> Mk6:24 differs from Matthew in unparalleled material, using "Baptizer" for John
                                                        >> in Mark's characteristic language, but Mk6:25 agrees with Mt14:8, in Matthew's
                                                        >> more characteristic language, the "Baptist."
                                                        >
                                                        >The difficulty with the example is that this is really only variation in
                                                        >wording. As I wrote in the above cited place, "'Baptist' and 'Baptizer'
                                                        >are equally correct. Mark's variation is not unusual or surprising in the way
                                                        >that Matthew's 'tetrarch' and 'king' would be on the assumption of Matthean
                                                        >priority, to say nothing of the king's 'grief'".

                                                        I don't think the issue is whether or not "Baptist" and "Baptizer" are
                                                        correct terms, or even, whether "tetrarch" and "king" are correct for
                                                        Herod (e.g. BAGD cites Cicero, Verr. 4,27 for calling Herod Antipas a
                                                        BASILEUS). Rather, if I understand editorial fatigue or docile
                                                        reproduction correctly, it is a failure to sustain a set of changes
                                                        throughout a redaction of another's work. In this example, I am
                                                        tentatively asserting that Mark has failed to consistently call John
                                                        "the Baptizer" due to a docile reproduction of a text similar to
                                                        Matthew.

                                                        On page 52 of the article, the phenomenon of fatigue is distinguished
                                                        from the inconsistencies and clumsiness in Mark's gospel, as follows:

                                                        "Rather, in most cases, Matthew and Luke differ from Mark
                                                        at the beginning of the pericope, at the point where they
                                                        are writing most characteristically, and they agree with
                                                        Mark later in the pericope, where they are writing less
                                                        characteristically."

                                                        I think this can be shown in Mk6:14-29//Mt14:1-12 for the surname of
                                                        John the Baptist/Baptizer and Mark's inconsistent use of the surname.

                                                        >Further, the vocabulary statistics are hardly convincing: Mark has hO BAPTIZWN
                                                        >(etc.) three times, Mark 1.4, 6.14 (the latter the one under discussion) and
                                                        >6.24 and BAPTISTHS twice, Mark 6.25 and 8.28. This is very little to build a
                                                        >case on, especially in the light of (a) the likelihood of variation in the
                                                        >mss over BAPTISTHS // BAPTIZWN, especially in a place like Mark 6.25 where
                                                        >there is a Matthean parallel and (b) the much more overwhelming case from king
                                                        >/ tetrarch.

                                                        I think some factors make the vocabulary statistics more convincing. First,
                                                        hO BAPTISTHS is the normal title for John, including by Josephus. Ant. 18,
                                                        116. In contrast, Mark's hO BAPTIZWN is strikingly idiosyncratic -- as far
                                                        as I can determine, only Mark uses this a surname for John. hO BAPTIZWN is
                                                        used three times in Mark, 1:4 // Mt3:1 hO BAPTISTHS, 6:14 // Mt14:2 hO
                                                        BAPTISTHS, and 6:24 // Mt14:8 ** omit. Yet both Markan occurrence of
                                                        BAPTISTHS are paralleled by Matthew, 6:25=Mt14:8 and 8:28=Mt16:14.
                                                        (Matthew's three other occurrences of BAPTISTHS are 11:11QD, 11:12QD, and
                                                        17:13R). Thus, BAPTISTHS 7/2/3+0 should be viewed as characteristic for
                                                        Matthew, and hO BAPTIZWN 0/3/0+0 as characteristic for Mark. The fact that
                                                        Mark has BAPTISTHS twice may be due, in both cases, to docile reproduction.

                                                        Therefore, Mark differs from Matthew at the beginning of the pericope, at the
                                                        point where Mark is writing most characteristically [Mk6:14 hO BAPTIZWN //
                                                        Mt14:2 hO BAPTISTHS], and Mark agrees with Matthew later in the pericope,
                                                        where Mark is writing less characteristically [Mk6:25=Mt14:8 TOU BAPTISTOU].

                                                        As for the first rebuttal point (a), it is indeed wise to bring up the MSS
                                                        variants, because our conclusions in source criticism can only be as precise
                                                        as the textual basis will allow. At Mk6:25 where the critical text reads
                                                        BAPTISTOU, Aland's Synopsis lists only L, 700, and 892 for support, which
                                                        is hardly compelling, and both NA27 and UBS4 fail to even note a variant here.
                                                        Thus, I think the text is secure and MSS is not an issue in this passage.

                                                        As for "(b) the much more overwhelming case from king / tetrarch," I do not
                                                        dispute at all that king/tetrarch is a good example of fatigue. However,
                                                        just because there is one directional indicator of fatigue in one direction
                                                        it does not preclude fatigue in the other direction--because Matthew and Mark
                                                        might be both fatigued of a shared, common source.

                                                        >In answer to the general question, I spent some time combing the synopsis for
                                                        >possible examples of Markan fatigue of Matthew / Luke but could not find a
                                                        >single plausible example. This was originally a chapter of my DPhil thesis but
                                                        >it dropped out in order to be re-worked and presented in an article. It is my
                                                        >feeling that the phenomenon of editorial fatigue provides good evidence for
                                                        >Matthew's use of Mark and Luke's use of Matthew and Mark largely because it is
                                                        >so difficult to find good counter-examples.

                                                        What your article has done is to shift the burden of production to the Q
                                                        supporters and to those of more exotic theories to come up with good counter-
                                                        examples. I hope your article will be taken seriously. If the only example
                                                        I had for fatigue in Mark's use of Matthew is this Baptist/Baptizer example,
                                                        I would not be terribly thrilled.

                                                        Stephen Carlson
                                                        --
                                                        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                                                        Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                                                        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                                                      • Mark Goodacre
                                                        ... The definition is right except that I would want to add that it is a failure to sustain a set of characteristic, redactional changes *such as to produce
                                                        Message 27 of 27 , Sep 16, 1998
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          On 15 Sep 98 at 21:18, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                                                          > I don't think the issue is whether or not "Baptist" and "Baptizer" are
                                                          > correct terms, or even, whether "tetrarch" and "king" are correct for
                                                          > Herod (e.g. BAGD cites Cicero, Verr. 4,27 for calling Herod Antipas a
                                                          > BASILEUS). Rather, if I understand editorial fatigue or docile
                                                          > reproduction correctly, it is a failure to sustain a set of changes
                                                          > throughout a redaction of another's work. In this example, I am
                                                          > tentatively asserting that Mark has failed to consistently call John
                                                          > "the Baptizer" due to a docile reproduction of a text similar to
                                                          > Matthew.

                                                          The definition is right except that I would want to add that it is a failure to
                                                          sustain a set of characteristic, redactional changes *such as to produce
                                                          serious inconsistency*. I think that all of my examples are like that, akin to
                                                          continuity errors in film and television.

                                                          In other words, examples that might be explained as simply variation in
                                                          wording (like BAPTISTHS vs. BAPTIZWN) where each term used does not produce
                                                          a serious problem in coherently understanding the passage, will not be as
                                                          striking as examples that involve genuine inconsistency, incoherence, or
                                                          continuity error.

                                                          > On page 52 of the article, the phenomenon of fatigue is distinguished
                                                          > from the inconsistencies and clumsiness in Mark's gospel, as follows:
                                                          >
                                                          > "Rather, in most cases, Matthew and Luke differ from Mark
                                                          > at the beginning of the pericope, at the point where they
                                                          > are writing most characteristically, and they agree with
                                                          > Mark later in the pericope, where they are writing less
                                                          > characteristically."
                                                          >
                                                          > I think this can be shown in Mk6:14-29//Mt14:1-12 for the surname of
                                                          > John the Baptist/Baptizer and Mark's inconsistent use of the surname.

                                                          There is of course a fine line between "inconsistency" and "variation", but if
                                                          we think carefully about it, BAPTIZWN means precisely the same thing as
                                                          BAPTISTHS. BASILEUS, on the other hand, does not mean precisely the same thing
                                                          as TETRAARXHS.

                                                          > I think some factors make the vocabulary statistics more convincing. First,
                                                          > hO BAPTISTHS is the normal title for John, including by Josephus. Ant. 18,
                                                          > 116. In contrast, Mark's hO BAPTIZWN is strikingly idiosyncratic -- as far as
                                                          > I can determine, only Mark uses this a surname for John. hO BAPTIZWN is used
                                                          > three times in Mark, 1:4 // Mt3:1 hO BAPTISTHS, 6:14 // Mt14:2 hO BAPTISTHS,
                                                          > and 6:24 // Mt14:8 ** omit. Yet both Markan occurrence of BAPTISTHS are
                                                          > paralleled by Matthew, 6:25=Mt14:8 and 8:28=Mt16:14. (Matthew's three other
                                                          > occurrences of BAPTISTHS are 11:11QD, 11:12QD, and 17:13R). Thus, BAPTISTHS
                                                          > 7/2/3+0 should be viewed as characteristic for Matthew, and hO BAPTIZWN
                                                          > 0/3/0+0 as characteristic for Mark. The fact that Mark has BAPTISTHS twice
                                                          > may be due, in both cases, to docile reproduction.

                                                          These figures are suggestive but not compelling. Three usages in Mark of hO
                                                          BAPTIZWN is not much to go on, especially when one of these (1.4) is textually
                                                          uncertain. NA27 prints hO in square brackets. We may have here "John came
                                                          baptizing . . ." So two of one kind (BAPTISTHS) versus two or three of another
                                                          (BAPTIZWN) -- this does not appear strong to me. Of course BAPTISTHS is more
                                                          characteristic of Matthew. No doubt he knew that that was the proper term (a
                                                          la Josephus) just as he knew, with Luke and Josephus, that TETRAARXHS was the
                                                          proper term for Antipas.

                                                          Mark Goodacre
                                                          -------------------------------------------
                                                          Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
                                                          Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham
                                                          Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre

                                                          --------------------------------------------

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