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

Re: [Synoptic-L] True Kin Case study

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.