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

[Synoptic-L] True Kin Case study

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    I think that Leonard Maluf s proposal to go through a specific pericope and consider the source critical implications is a good idea for this list. Some time
    Message 1 of 9 , Sep 30, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I think that Leonard Maluf's proposal to go
      through a specific pericope and consider the
      source critical implications is a good idea
      for this list.

      Some time ago, I did a case study on the
      pericope of Jesus's True Kin at Matt 12:46-50 //
      Mark 3:31-35 // Luke 8:19-21 at

      http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/harmony/h89.htm

      This case study has two components: (1) source critical arguments on this
      passage are collected
      and presented as objectively as possible (e.g.
      by quotation), and (2) a conclusion made after
      careful evaluation of the conflicting positions.

      My edited conclusion is appended, and I would
      appreciate, for this list, anyone else's own
      evaluation of the arguments and pointers to
      published arguments that I may have missed.

      Stephen Carlson

      ----

      This pericope is a good example that demonstrates why it is necessary to
      resolve the text critical issues before delving into source criticism. If Matt
      12:47 is authentic, then there are two additional "minor agreements" between
      Matthew and Luke against Mark. The bracketed text is the superior reading due
      to (a) the commonness of the homeoteleuton scribal error and (b) the
      difficulty of the supposed interpolation from the synoptic parallels, neither
      of which includes the word lalhsai that gavies to the homeoteleuton.

      The good example of fatigue [at Matt. 12:46] favors Markan priority over
      Matthew here, rather than the reverse. Indeed, a similar fatigue argument can
      be made for Luke's dependence on Mark: as with Matthew, Luke 8:20 presupposes
      that Jesus was in a house, which is also not explicitly related in Luke's
      version. The stylistic evidence, however, is not only weak but points in both
      directions (compare Allen with Chapman), and the thematic arguments are
      readily reversible (compare Davies & Allison with Parker).

      The minor agreements in this passage, especially ESTHKASIN, indicate a
      literary connection between Matthew and Luke outside of Mark. A Mark/Q overlap
      is ruled out because Luke 11:27-28 is unlikely to be part of Q and, in any
      case, does not use the word ESTHKASIN. For Gundry's reasons, coincidental
      redaction to add ESTHKASIN is doubtful. The value of these minor agreements,
      however, is attenuated by the textual uncertainty over Matt 12:47.

      The synoptic theory that best explains these synoptic interrelations, i.e.,
      Markan priority and Lukan posteriority, is the Farrer Theory. Runners up
      include the Two Source Theory, which accepts Markan priority, and the
      Augustinian Theory, which accepts Luke's use of Matthew. Due to the strength
      of the fatigue and the uncertainty over the text of the minor agreements, the
      Two Source Theory has the edge for second place.

      --
      Stephen C. Carlson,
      mailto:scarlson@...
      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 9/30/2002 10:48:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... I am disappointed that the Two-Gospel Hypothesis as an explanation of this set of parallels
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 9/30/2002 10:48:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time, scarlson@... writes:


        The good example of fatigue [at Matt. 12:46] favors Markan priority over
        Matthew here, rather than the reverse. Indeed, a similar fatigue argument can
        be made for Luke's dependence on Mark: as with Matthew, Luke 8:20 presupposes
        that Jesus was in a house, which is also not explicitly related in Luke's
        version. The stylistic evidence, however, is not only weak but points in both
        directions (compare Allen with Chapman), and the thematic arguments are
        readily reversible (compare Davies & Allison with Parker).



        I am disappointed that the Two-Gospel Hypothesis as an explanation of this set of parallels is simply disqualified by Stephen on the basis of the fatigue argument, which I have argued, on numerous occasions, is an interesting but a weak argument. Perhaps to no one's surprise, I actually think this set of parallels works very well, indeed best, on the GH, but the present post will have to be devoted to eliminating this initial obstacle of the fatigue argument, rather than to presenting the positive arguments for the Gospel Hypothesis as an explanation of these Synoptic texts.

        I don't even remember which particular arguments I have used in the past with reference to this pericope and the question of fatigue, but it doesn't matter, because there are so many. I will simply give here what comes spontaneously to mind as I read the texts.

        First of all, it is not clear to me that Matt 13:1 implies that 12:46-50 took place in a house. Matthew may simply be recording here an unconnected story that happened "on that day", meaning on a particular day, when Jesus left the house and went down to sit by the "sea". The Greek term ECW, which occurs in 12:46, and again in 12:47 if this verse is original (and I agree that it likely is), can mean "outside" without reference to a house. In fact, given the size of houses in first century Galilee, it is even somewhat difficult to imagine "crowds" fitting into a house, especially one which is already occupied by Jesus and his twelve disciples! Matthew tells us at the beginning of his pericope that Jesus was talking to crowds (12:46), and this in itself seems to imply that the whole scene is envisioned as taking place "outside". But since Jesus is surrounded by crowds, there is also an "outside" with reference to this human circle of listeners. When Jesus' family arrive, they would be on the outside of the circle, and this would adequately explain the word ECW as used in this pericope.

        It is also not clear to me that Mark 3:20a implies that Jesus went inside a house (the verse is better translated "And he came home", which does not necessarily imply entrance into a house). Nothing in the text of Mark, either in 3:20bc, or in 3:31 gives the impression of crowds or Jesus' family standing before the door of a house (contrast Mk 1:33!). The house door would quite naturally have been mentioned in one or both of these places if the evangelist envisioned Jesus and his disciples located inside a house at this moment. One might perhaps even argue that 3:20c implies that Jesus and his disciples were unable to go inside and prepare a meal when they arrived home because the crowds had come together again (3:20b). 3:23 has Jesus calling the crowds and the scribes from Jerusalem together to talk with them. It does not say that Jesus invited them into the house.


        On the other hand, if one must imagine Matt 12:46-50 taking place inside a house, there is nothing unusual about an original author not mentioning this at the beginning of his story. It could simply be implied -- and if it is so, it would make sense for a reference to leaving the house to follow (assuming now that 13:1 does have an intended logical connection to the preceding story). Exactly this occurs, e.g., in Acts 12. At the end of 12:17 we are told that Peter "went out", although we have not been told that he ever entered the house on whose door he had been persistently knocking. We are not however to imagine that in the first part of 12:17 Peter is telling the entire story of his deliverance while standing outside on the street! ANOICANTEJ in 12:16 undoubtedly implies that Peter went inside at this point, but his entrance into the house remains implicit in the narrative -- and not on the basis of "fatigue" -- the circumstance being clearly confirmed when Luke tells us that Peter "went out".

        Also, IF Mark 3:20 intends to put Jesus in a house, it would also make sense for a later rendition of the story to make explicit what was only implied in an earlier version of the same story. In fact, just such a case can also be found in Acts. We are not told in Acts 10:1-8 that Cornelius was in his house at the time of his vision. However, when the story is retold later, what is at most implied in this story of Acts 10 is stated in explicit terms (see 10:30 and cf. 11:13). All or any of the above arguments do, I think, remove the fatigue argument as a diriment impediment to considering the GH as a possible explanation for this set of Synoptic parallels.

        Leonard Maluf
      • Ron Price
        ... Stephen, I think it s fairly obvious that the Three Source Theory fits these interrelations just as well as the Farrer Theory, for it includes all the
        Message 3 of 9 , Oct 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Stephen Carlson wrote:

          >Some time ago, I did a case study on the
          >pericope of Jesus's True Kin at Matt 12:46-50 //
          >Mark 3:31-35 // Luke 8:19-21 .......
          >
          >The synoptic theory that best explains these synoptic interrelations, i.e.,
          >Markan priority and Lukan posteriority, is the Farrer Theory. Runners up
          >include the Two Source Theory, which accepts Markan priority, and the
          >Augustinian Theory, which accepts Luke's use of Matthew. Due to the strength
          >of the fatigue and the uncertainty over the text of the minor agreements, the
          >Two Source Theory has the edge for second place.

          Stephen,

          I think it's fairly obvious that the Three Source Theory fits these
          interrelations just as well as the Farrer Theory, for it includes all
          the Farrer links as a subset, i.e. Mk-->Mt, Mk-->Lk, Mt-->Lk.
          Thus the 2ST should be downgraded to third place here.

          Ron Price

          Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

          e-mail: ron.price@...

          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Stephen C. Carlson
          ... In general, the 3SH will fit whatever fits the FH or the 2SH. So, just assume that whichever the FH or 2SH is better, then that s what the 3SH is too.
          Message 4 of 9 , Oct 2, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            At 06:16 PM 10/1/02 +0100, Ron Price wrote:
            >Stephen Carlson wrote:
            >
            >>Some time ago, I did a case study on the
            >>pericope of Jesus's True Kin at Matt 12:46-50 //
            >>Mark 3:31-35 // Luke 8:19-21 .......
            >>
            >>The synoptic theory that best explains these synoptic interrelations, i.e.,
            >>Markan priority and Lukan posteriority, is the Farrer Theory. Runners up
            >>include the Two Source Theory, which accepts Markan priority, and the
            >>Augustinian Theory, which accepts Luke's use of Matthew. Due to the strength
            >>of the fatigue and the uncertainty over the text of the minor agreements, the
            >>Two Source Theory has the edge for second place.
            >
            > I think it's fairly obvious that the Three Source Theory fits these
            >interrelations just as well as the Farrer Theory, for it includes all
            >the Farrer links as a subset, i.e. Mk-->Mt, Mk-->Lk, Mt-->Lk.

            In general, the 3SH will fit whatever fits the FH or the 2SH. So,
            just assume that whichever the FH or 2SH is better, then that's
            what the 3SH is too. I'd just like to know if it is logically
            possible for the 3SH to be a worse explanation than both the FH
            and the 2SH. Can it be tested, or is Occam's razor all we've got?

            > Thus the 2ST should be downgraded to third place here.

            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

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            ... I d be happy to see your positive arguments on behalf of the GH. The only argument I could find was a Markan addition argument by Riley. There are no
            Message 5 of 9 , Oct 2, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              At 12:26 PM 10/1/02 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
              > I am disappointed that the Two-Gospel Hypothesis as an explanation of this
              >set of parallels is simply disqualified by Stephen on the basis of the
              >fatigue argument, which I have argued, on numerous occasions, is an
              >interesting but a weak argument. Perhaps to no one's surprise, I actually
              >think this set of parallels works very well, indeed best, on the GH, but
              >the present post will have to be devoted to eliminating this initial
              >obstacle of the fatigue argument, rather than to presenting the positive
              >arguments for the Gospel Hypothesis as an explanation of these Synoptic texts.

              I'd be happy to see your positive arguments on behalf of the GH. The
              only argument I could find was a Markan addition argument by Riley.
              There are no silver bullet arguments in synoptic source criticism;
              that's why the synoptic problem is so difficult. However, I do think
              that the fatigue argument is one of the best, based on the relative
              probabilities (i.e. it easier to drop mention of a home and later use
              "outside" than it is to read ahead, notice an passage with an incongruity,
              edit the text earlier so that when you get to the difficult passage you do
              not have to make any changes there at all).

              Certainly, fatigue is much stronger than the Markan addition argument,
              which is why I had to give the benefit to Markan priority in this pericope.
              This is also why I have not found your similar argument in Beelzebul
              to be persuasive.

              Stephen
              --
              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

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Maluflen@aol.com
              In a message dated 10/2/2002 10:13:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ... I ll be happy to supply them. But I m going to wait a day or two till I see if anyone has a
              Message 6 of 9 , Oct 3, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 10/2/2002 10:13:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, scarlson@... writes:


                I'd be happy to see your positive arguments on behalf of the GH.


                I'll be happy to supply them. But I'm going to wait a day or two till I see if anyone has a response to my demolition of the fatigue argument in this pericope. You seem not to, or I suppose you would have addressed my series of arguments. I think they are fairly strong, whether one chooses to imagine the incident taking place in a house or not. In particular I think you should think a bit about my argument regarding Matt 13:1 as having no intended connection with the previous pericope. There is in fact no syntactical link to the preceding, and it has the definite air of a new beginning, with even an expressed subject hO IHSOUJ, and the verse as a whole is totally orientated toward the parable chapter, a fact that was evidently seen by Stephen Langton when he made the existing chapter divisions. If the verse was intended to be read in continuity with the preceding, one would expect to read something like: ECEQWN DE THJ OIKIAS, EKAQHTO [hO IHSOUS] PARA THN QALASSAN.



                Certainly, fatigue is much stronger than the Markan addition argument,
                which is why I had to give the benefit to Markan priority in this pericope.



                I'm not aware of the specific argument of Markan addition here, but I suppose it must be very weak indeed if what you say is true. My positive argument will not, I don't think, be based on Markan addition.

                Leonard Maluf

              • Eric Eve
                ... see ... pericope. ... a house (the verse is better translated And he came home , which does not necessarily imply ... This is possibly so, but EIS OIKON
                Message 7 of 9 , Oct 3, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Leonard Maluf wrote:

                  > I'll be happy to supply them. But I'm going to wait a day or two till I
                  see
                  > if anyone has a response to my demolition of the fatigue argument in this
                  pericope.

                  Well, for what it's worth, here's a couple of reflections on your argument:

                  > It is also not clear to me that Mark 3:20a implies that Jesus went inside
                  a house (the > verse is better translated "And he came home", which does not
                  necessarily imply
                  > entrance into a house).

                  This is possibly so, but EIS OIKON also occurs at Mk 7.17 (apparently but
                  not necessarily at Gennesaret) and Mk 9.27 on the way through Galilee from
                  Caesarea Philippi but not yet at Capernaum where they apparently enter yet
                  another house (Mk 9.33), although I grant that EIS OIKON means 'home' at Mk
                  8.3, 26 (although in both cases the sense is made clearer by the addition of
                  AUTWN/AUTOU; cf. Mk 2.11 & 5.19 EIS TON OIKON SOU to send the former
                  paralytic and the former demoniac home, or Mk 7.30 EIS TON OIKON AUTHS to
                  refer to the home of the Syrophoenician woman - this seems to suggest that
                  when Mark wants to use EIS [TON] OIKON to mean 'home' he qualifies it with a
                  possessive pronoun). At Mk 7.24 the similar EIS OIKIAN appears in a context
                  (the district of Tyre) where it can hardly mean 'home'. In would thus be in
                  keeping with Markan usage to see Mk 3.20a as implying that Jesus went inside
                  a house.

                  > First of all, it is not clear to me that Matt 13:1 implies that 12:46-50
                  took
                  > place in a house. Matthew may simply be recording here an unconnected
                  story that
                  > happened "on that day", meaning on a particular day, when Jesus left the
                  house
                  > and went down to sit by the "sea".

                  This sounds a bit of a stretch to me, although I think you could argue that
                  since Matthew's wording at 13.1a (EN TH hHMERAi EKEINHi ECELQWN hO IHSOUS
                  THS OIKIAS) bears no relation to Mark 4.1, Matthew's mention of leaving a
                  house can hardly be a straightforward case of fatigue in redacting Mark. On
                  the other hand, Matthew's mention of 'the house' here is a little puzzling.
                  Nonetheless, I think you could probably argue that EN TH hEMERAi EKEINHi can
                  hardly be pressed to mean "as soon as Jesus finished speaking the words in
                  the preceding paragraph" and so I think I'd have to agree with you that they
                  don't necessary imply that the preceding scene took place indoors.

                  > The Greek term ECW, which occurs in 12:46,
                  > and again in 12:47 if this verse is original (and I agree that it likely
                  is),
                  > can mean "outside" without reference to a house. In fact, given the size
                  of
                  > houses in first century Galilee, it is even somewhat difficult to imagine
                  > "crowds" fitting into a house, especially one which is already occupied by
                  > Jesus and his twelve disciples! Matthew tells us at the beginning of his
                  pericope
                  > that Jesus was talking to crowds (12:46), and this in itself seems to
                  imply that
                  > the whole scene is envisioned as taking place "outside". But since Jesus
                  is
                  > surrounded by crowds, there is also an "outside" with reference to this
                  human
                  > circle of listeners. When Jesus' family arrive, they would be on the
                  outside
                  > of the circle, and this would adequately explain the word ECW as used in
                  this
                  > pericope.

                  I think I'm inclined to agree with much of this, since I would also not
                  naturally read Mt 12.22-50 as taking place inside a house, not least for the
                  reasons you state about the crowding involved. What I would suggest is that
                  the ECW at Mk 3.31 prepares for the ECW at Mk 4.11 (as the TOUS PERI AUTON
                  at Mk 3.34 prepares for the contrasting hOI PERI AUTON at Mk 4.10). It would
                  thus be extremely fortuitous if Mark found the first ECW ready to hand at Mt
                  12.46, whereas the ECW at Mk 3.31 fits the entry EIS OIKIN at Mk 3.20a even
                  if it doesn't demand it. Your point that ECW can mean "outside" in a sense
                  other than outside a house is, I think, supported by Mk 4.11. But the
                  interesting thing is that the usage then appears more Markan than Matthean,
                  since either Matthew has chosen not to follow Mark's use of ECW at Mt 13.11
                  or Mk has chosen to introduce it where Matthew lacked (and Luke) it. The use
                  of the word ECW at Mk 3.31 // Mt 12.46 thus looks more characteristically
                  Markan than Matthean.

                  In sum then, I think the ECW in Mt 12.46 tends to support Markan priority
                  (for the reasons stated), but I think you (Leonard) are probably right that
                  this is not strictly an argument from fatigue.

                  Best wishes,

                  Eric
                  ----------------------------------
                  Eric Eve
                  Harris Manchester College, Oxford





                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Maluflen@aol.com
                  In a message dated 10/3/2002 5:12:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, eric.eve@harris-manchester.oxford.ac.uk writes: Leonard ... Eric ... This is a careless
                  Message 8 of 9 , Oct 3, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 10/3/2002 5:12:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, eric.eve@... writes:

                    Leonard
                    > It is also not clear to me that Mark 3:20a implies that Jesus went inside
                    a house (the > verse is better translated "And he came home", which does not
                    necessarily imply entrance into a house).


                    Eric

                    This is possibly so, but EIS OIKON also occurs at Mk 7.17 (apparently but
                    not necessarily at Gennesaret) and Mk 9.27 on the way through Galilee from
                    Caesarea Philippi but not yet at Capernaum where they apparently enter yet
                    another house (Mk 9.33), although I grant that EIS OIKON means 'home' at Mk
                    8.3, 26 (although in both cases the sense is made clearer by the addition of
                    AUTWN/AUTOU; cf. Mk 2.11 & 5.19 EIS TON OIKON SOU to send the former
                    paralytic and the former demoniac home, or Mk 7.30 EIS TON OIKON AUTHS to
                    refer to the home of the Syrophoenician woman - this seems to suggest that
                    when Mark wants to use EIS [TON] OIKON to mean 'home' he qualifies it with a
                    possessive pronoun). At Mk 7.24 the similar EIS OIKIAN appears in a context
                    (the district of Tyre) where it can hardly mean 'home'. In would thus be in
                    keeping with Markan usage to see Mk 3.20a as implying that Jesus went inside
                    a house.


                    This is a careless conclusion from the evidence. But I am glad that you bring up the more general question of Markan usage, because it turns out to strongly support my argument against the idea that Jesus is thought to enter a house in 3:20. My original statement on this issue as cited above is in fact weak, in light of the evidence you adduce. It is insufficient to attend simply to the phrase EIS OIKON or EIS THN OIKIAN when assessing the meaning of 3:20. One must look at the entire phrase used in cases where Mark unambiguously intends to speak of entrance into a house. In each of the cases you cite, and unlike the case of 3:20, the entire phrase is invariably EISELQHEIN... EIS TON OIKON/THN OIKIAN (TINOS)... (2:26; 9:28; 7:17; 7:24). In all other cases the meaning is much more likely to refer to "going home", which can imply going into a house (cf. 7:30), but does not usually do so. Very instructive is the case of 5:19 where the epexegetic phrase PROS TOUS SOUS interprets what Mark means by the phrase "ELQEIN or hUPAGEIN EIS TON OIKON TINOS", that is, Mark is not thinking in concrete terms about entering a house, but rather about the act of returning to a moral sphere identified as "home". Mk 5:38 is also very interesting in the way it highlights precisely this distinction. Here the phrase ERXONTAI EIS OIKON TOU ARXISUNAGWGOU... must speak of the arrival at the home of the synagogue leader, not the entrance into his house, since the latter is explicitly referred to at the end of the same verse: KAI EISELQWN LEGEI AUTOIS. Mk 7:17 also provides an important insight in favor of my overall argument. Here Jesus is said to have entered into a house (with EISELQEIN!) APO TOU OXLOU, which supports my suspicion that a house in Mark is a way of getting away from a crowd rather than the locus in which Jesus speaks to crowds, as in Mk 3:20ff.


                    Leonard
                    <<First of all, it is not clear to me that Matt 13:1 implies that 12:46-50 took
                    place in a house. Matthew may simply be recording here an unconnected
                    story that happened "on that day", meaning on a particular day, when Jesus left the house and went down to sit by the "sea".>>


                    Eric

                    This sounds a bit of a stretch to me, although I think you could argue that
                    since Matthew's wording at 13.1a (EN TH hHMERAi EKEINHi ECELQWN hO IHSOUS THS OIKIAS) bears no relation to Mark 4.1, Matthew's mention of leaving a house can hardly be a straightforward case of fatigue in redacting Mark. On
                    the other hand, Matthew's mention of 'the house' here is a little puzzling.


                    For reasons of time, I will have to respond later to the remainder of your post, but on this point I think I can help. Matthew is simply envisioning things very concretely here. He is preparing for his parable chapter by focusing on spatial relationships between Jesus and the crowds. The terminus ad quem of Jesus' spatial movement is "the sea" beside which Jesus sits down, and ultimately the boat into which he climbs to take his distance from the crowds. The reference to "the house" simply completes the spatial description by mentioning a natural terminus a quo of Jesus' displacement in space EN THi hHMERAi EKEINHi. This is no more puzzling, then, than is the reference to a house as the terminus a quo of a trip into town referred to in the opening (!) lines of, say, Plato's Symposion. The fact that 13:1-2 is really a new beginning, with no connection intended with the previous pericope, is confirmed by the fact that Matthew introduces new crowds in 13:2, rather than using an anaphoric definite article, which would have referred back to the crowds spoken of in 12:46 and presumed present throughout 12:46-50.

                    Leonard Maluf

                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                    In a message dated 10/3/2002 5:12:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... I agree with you that these two texts are intended by Mark to illuminate each other and
                    Message 9 of 9 , Oct 4, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 10/3/2002 5:12:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, eric.eve@... writes:


                      I think I'm inclined to agree with much of this, since I would also not
                      naturally read Mt 12.22-50 as taking place inside a house, not least for the
                      reasons you state about the crowding involved. What I would suggest is that
                      the ECW at Mk 3.31 prepares for the ECW at Mk 4.11 (as the TOUS PERI AUTON
                      at Mk 3.34 prepares for the contrasting hOI PERI AUTON at Mk 4.10).


                      I agree with you that these two texts are intended by Mark to illuminate each other and should therefore be looked at together.



                      It would thus be extremely fortuitous if Mark found the first ECW ready to hand at Mt12.46, whereas the ECW at Mk 3.31 fits the entry EIS OIKIN at Mk 3.20a even
                      if it doesn't demand it. Your point that ECW can mean "outside" in a sense
                      other than outside a house is, I think, supported by Mk 4.11. But the
                      interesting thing is that the usage then appears more Markan than Matthean,
                      since either Matthew has chosen not to follow Mark's use of ECW at Mt 13.11
                      or Mk has chosen to introduce it where Matthew lacked (and Luke) it.


                      Yes, so we are back here to the type of reversible argument that Mark Goodacre was trying to overcome when he wrote his fatigue article. What Mk 4:11 actually reveals is a Pauline influence on Mark that is not found in the Matthean text. hOI EXW as a way of referring to those outside the Christian community is found e.g. in 1 Cor 5:12, 13; Col 4:5 and 1 Thess 4:12. Matthew never uses the term in this semi-technical Pauline sense, even though 10:14; 26:69 and 26:75 show that even in Matthew ECW is a relative concept. So the concept may be relative, but it is never metaphorical in Matt. On the other hand, the metaphorical use found in Paul has influenced Mark in 4:11.



                      The use of the word ECW at Mk 3.31 // Mt 12.46 thus looks more characteristically Markan than Matthean.


                      This is only one way of interpreting the evidence. It is also perfectly possible that Mark found the word used in Matt to refer to the relatives of Jesus standing outside the circle of crowds to which Jesus was speaking at the time, and that this suggested to him the metaphorical use of the term (as in Paul) to refer to those outside the Christian community. Mark would be thinking, in 4:10-11 as well as in 3:31-35 (as you will see when I treat the positive arguments in favor of a GH understanding of this set of parallels) of the Christian community inside a house-church about to be initiated through Baptism into the (Gentile) Christian community, which would set them off from those "outside", on the one hand, and from the Jewish community (symbolized by the relatives of Jesus) on the other. To them is to be given the "mystery" (sacramentum?) of the Kingdom in Baptism. There are clear signs of secondary editing in Mk 4:10-11 compared to its Matthean parallel, including the generalizing phrase TA PANTA GINETAI. Of course hOI PERI AUTON (SUN TOIS DWDEKA) also serves this Markan application of the passage to the Christian community he is addressing as well as Mark's intention to connect this passage to 3:31-35. There is a transparency here between the events narrated and the present situation of the addressees for whom Jesus in the story is understood to be represented by the reciter of Mark who stands in a central place in the house church, surrounded by crowds of catechumens (hOI PERI AUTON) about to enter the new family of Jesus. It is in this sense, among others, that I understand Mark to be a "dramatization" of the gospel story.


                      In sum then, I think the ECW in Mt 12.46 tends to support Markan priority
                      (for the reasons stated), but I think you (Leonard) are probably right that
                      this is not strictly an argument from fatigue.


                      As you can see, I don't accept your conclusion here regarding the priority of the Markan text. I am happy that you reject the argument from fatigue, although I must admit that some of your comments relative to this argument in the course of our discussion seemed to me to reflect a less than accurate understanding of how Goodacre argues fatigue for the case of Mk 3:31-35 and pars.

                      Leonard Maluf
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.